AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-01-23, 09:49   Link #761
Cosmic Eagle
卍曼荼羅・無量大数
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 大欲界天狗道
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demongod86 View Post
If Hamas can't even recognize Israel, Israel has no obligation to provide ANY services to Gaza.
And will that somehow get rid of Hamas?

Really, the most feasible option now is to try to restore Fatah control in Gaza.
Cosmic Eagle is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 10:22   Link #762
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
"Nothing else to embrace" ... here's an example of it I think. You've just lost your entire family to an errant Israeli bomb .... Hamas comes to visit with an offer.

I think of that specific example because just today a Palistinian doctor who works in Tel Aviv just lost most of his family to Israeli heavy weapons fire that hit a refuge shelter. He was a strong and active supporter of building ties with Israel.

I could certainly see someone becoming a willing agent of vengence under that condition - though I can't predict this doctor's path. Personally, I'd like to find and slap the shit out of the Israeli woman who interrupted him speaking to reporters, by calling his anguish "propaganda". Hopefully one of his Israeli friends beat me to it.

Gazan Doctor and Peace Advocate Loses 3 Daughters to Israeli Fire
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/wo...ughters&st=cse
Old news, but watching the story on video hammers home the message much better than words.

Doctor's story hits home in Israel
BBC News (Jan 23)
TinyRedLeaf is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 10:39   Link #763
bladeofdarkness
Um-Shmum
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 30
what happened to the doctor is a tragedy
one of many
in another incident three israeli soldiers were killed as a result of an israeli tank shell
and its a sad reality that in these types of battles, these things happen
there is no denying that what happened in the gaza strip during these three weeks is unfortunate in just about every aspect
but the sad hard truth is that israel didnt choose the battlefield
israel didnt choose to wage this kind of battle in an urben area crowded with lots of innocent people
and it waited for years while rocket attacks were hitting its civilians preceicely BECOUSE it wanted to avoid this kind of suffering and destraction
and already reports are coming out from gaza confiriming that hamas has done everything it can to INCREASE the death toll among its civilians
the sad truth is that these things happen, and nothing can be done about them
__________________
bladeofdarkness is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 10:43   Link #764
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
The sad truth is that you've missed the point of the report: the death toll of Palestinian civilians is not a mere statistic.

Every death meant the loss of someone's child, parent or friend.

Every drop of civilian blood spilt works against Israel's interests.

If the intent had been to humble Hamas, then it gets harder and harder to see how the Gaza invasion was a "success".
TinyRedLeaf is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 10:51   Link #765
bladeofdarkness
Um-Shmum
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 30
what report are you talking about, the doctor one ?
i'm talking about the Corriere della Sera one that confirms that
a)less people died then was stated
b)most were millitents
c)hamas has been using their civilians as human shields
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...660423,00.html (an english translation, taken from an israeli news site Ynet)

that report helps israelis interest rather well i should think
__________________
bladeofdarkness is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 12:46   Link #766
Demongod86
Gundam Boobs and Boom FTW
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle View Post
And will that somehow get rid of Hamas?
Maybe, maybe not...

But it has been implemented since practically day 1 of Judaism, and to great success.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob

Last edited by Demongod86; 2009-01-23 at 12:57.
Demongod86 is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 13:00   Link #767
risingstar3110
The sexy Kongou
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness View Post
what report are you talking about, the doctor one ?
i'm talking about the Corriere della Sera one that confirms that
a)less people died then was stated
b)most were millitents
c)hamas has been using their civilians as human shields
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...660423,00.html (an english translation, taken from an israeli news site Ynet)

that report helps israelis interest rather well i should think
I also agree with TinyRedLeaf that you missed the point.
We here do not try to argue here whether the actual death toll is 1200 or 600; whether the civillian death is actually only 30% (as IDF claimed) or majorly (>60% as newspaper here stated) or whether the one third casulties was innocent kids or young armed thugs that fire random at people house.

In another words, whether the statistic you tried to state is actual or not, it does not change the actual situation now, and hardly can change anyone's view about the conflict. In fact it may even anger the general public Palestinian sympathizers at "the Israel propaganda" since:
a)Israel prevent reporters to enter Gaza during conflict
b) the accurate of weapon "seems" not so high because several incidents (e.g. UN)
c) obviously in most modern cases, an army will always claim themselves to deal effective damage, limit civilian casualties, especially children.

Maybe you can try a different approach in discussion here. For example, start to state out personally what you think IDF was wrong with this operation (without end those sentences with "but it was because Hamas...", because every action must have some drawbacks) and how Israel could solve the situation diplomatically if she entirely have the world support. It will be easier to change opponent if you prove that you can looks at things from other perspective.

PS: If you do not care about how the world think about Israel. Then you probably will not spend so much time discussing in this thread in the first place.
__________________
risingstar3110 is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 13:18   Link #768
Zippicus
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by risingstar3110 View Post
Maybe you can try a different approach in discussion here. For example, start to state out personally what you think IDF was wrong with this operation (without end those sentences with "but it was because Hamas...", because every action must have some drawbacks) and how Israel could solve the situation diplomatically if she entirely have the world support. It will be easier to change opponent if you prove that you can looks at things from other perspective.

PS: If you do not care about how the world think about Israel. Then you probably will not spend so much time discussing in this thread in the first place.
I don't think any military that took those actions would be wrong. They were responding to attacks against their country. Anyplace used to stage attacks is considered a legitimate target. It's unfortunate that Hamas involved all those civilians in the conflict.
Zippicus is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 13:51   Link #769
0utf0xZer0
Pretentious moe scholar
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness View Post
what report are you talking about, the doctor one ?
i'm talking about the Corriere della Sera one that confirms that
a)less people died then was stated
b)most were millitents
c)hamas has been using their civilians as human shields
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...660423,00.html (an english translation, taken from an israeli news site Ynet)

that report helps israelis interest rather well i should think
Well, clearly the article goes against the usual consensus on casualty figures, but since most information available so far comes from Palestinian sources or groups based in Gaza, this doesn't automatically make it inaccurate.

Where the article starts to look less plausible to me, however, is when it starts to talk about most of the dead being militants. Things like the article about the Islamic Jihad guy shows that journalists did visit hospitals in Gaza. If civilians were only a small fraction of the dead, this should have been obvious. Second, I have questions about how the doctor would have known this himself. How does a single person figure out that several hundred patients were enlisted by Hamas?

The most damning evidence against the article, however, is this quote from a New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/wo...92b&ei=5087%0A

Quote:
But Palestinian residents and Israeli officials say that Hamas is tending its own wounded in separate medical centers, not in public hospitals, and that it is difficult to know the number of dead Hamas fighters, many of whom were not wearing uniforms.
If true, that would make it rather difficult for a Doctor in Shifa hospital to know what's really going on.

Clearly, we aren't going to know the actual numbers until the fog of war clears a bit, but I'd be a bit surprised if this report ends up being an accurate representation.

It looks like Hamas is now using "collaboration" as a pretext to off its rivals:
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/clien...=27563&ccid=11
0utf0xZer0 is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 14:02   Link #770
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
The sad truth is that you've missed the point of the report: the death toll of Palestinian civilians is not a mere statistic.

Every death meant the loss of someone's child, parent or friend.

Every drop of civilian blood spilt works against Israel's interests.

If the intent had been to humble Hamas, then it gets harder and harder to see how the Gaza invasion was a "success".
Unfortunately, the pro-Israel crowd don't seem to care much. All they had on their minds are the deaths of the Hamas, while the non-combatant civilians are considered as "helpless collateral damage". More over, Israel has the full backing of the new US government.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 14:09   Link #771
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
The sad truth is that you've missed the point of the report: the death toll of Palestinian civilians is not a mere statistic.

Every death meant the loss of someone's child, parent or friend.

Every drop of civilian blood spilt works against Israel's interests.

If the intent had been to humble Hamas, then it gets harder and harder to see how the Gaza invasion was a "success".

Oh come on. It was a war, and that thing happens. The surprising thing is that nobody says the same things when Israelis die. Did anyone of you bled your hearts and called foul when the two kidnapped soldiers in Lebanon were returned in boxes, or when the first soldier killed in Cast Lead was laid to rest, or when elderly Israelis die because of rockets from Gaza hitting their homes?


Of course not... so why now? Because more Palis died? Will you still say that if the death count were reversed?

They brought it upon themselves, and frankly, if the ones dead were future terrorists then there's nothing to mourn about.... at least for us.
Thingle is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 14:17   Link #772
bladeofdarkness
Um-Shmum
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 30
from the diplomatic front- nothing more could have been done
once israel pulled out of the strip there wasnt much more that could have been done
and before anyone starts talking about the passes i will remind you that hamas had attacked the passes repeatedly during the past few years using both gunfire and bombers
the passes were closed as a response to rocket attacks and attampets to sneak terrorists into israel proper using those passes
and opening them again under rocket fire is unaccptable under any condtion

from a millitery POV there is some things that i think could have been done differently (keep in mind that i dont know the full details)
1)the air force could have potentially used less powerful explosives when dealing with tagets that are located in civilian areas (but that also risks that the strike wouldnt be effective, past expiriance)
2)the ground forces could have used more care when imploying artilry fire against targets (as the cannons have a statistical chance of missing or causing area damage)
3)the general use of artilery could have been avoided when units are fighting in urben areas and instead replaced entirely by either gunboat or fighter support (i admit that i dont know the logistics involved in such use) as it would allow those firing to have a clearer view of the target area
4)the daily 3 hour-cease-fires could have been made longer (4-5 hours)
5)the deceition to keep reporters out could have been done better (letting reporters join IDF ground forces to give them a better view, as was done with several israeli reporters)
but was nevertheless a good idea as they would only effect public opinion farther from inside the strip
and since eygpt also didnt let them into the strip, and hamas was the reason why you didnt have any western reporters inside IN THE FIRST PLACE
i wouldnt consider it an israeli move completely and exclusively
6)there was a process that the IDF used to imploy several years ago that was ruled illegal by the israeli court system (and therfor, no longer used) which could have potentially reduces the death toll
it was called "nohal shahen"
it basiclly ment that if there is a house where you believe that armed milltents are hiding, you send someone who lives in the area to knock on the door and ask them to surrender
if they dont, you bulldoze the house with them inside
it often proved effective becouse
A)the procepect of being buried alive by a 100 ton steel death machine is normally enough to convince most people to surrender
B)it puts the IDF soldiers at no risk as the D9 bulldozzer (code named: teddy-bear) cant be damaged by anything the millitents are likely to have, and it saves them the risk of warning the people inside the house themselves (they could end up taking fire after all)
C)there is an honest attemped to convince the people inside to surrender and a way to confirm if there are non combatents inside the house (in which case, a different strategy could be used)
the process was ruled illegal becouse it puts the innocent person who tries to warn the people inside the house to surrender in danger (he is after all an innocent civilian)
as it stands since the soldiers cant know for sure if there are innocents inside, and dont have a way to find out, its all they can do to just put a tank shell in the house and move on to the next
there were mistakes made on the ground as is the case in ALL wars
but care was taken as much as possible to limit the death toll
however, if millitents are firing from a house loaded with civilians at israeli soldiers and the commander has to make a choice to either let some of his soldiers die or to let some of the civilians die
then i (personally) wouldnt see that there is even a question

the UN things are NOT something that i would claim as a wrong action on the IDF's part
already there are evidence showing that hamas had been using these places as a safe ground from which to attack using morter fire (and it wasnt the actual school building itself, that was hit but rather the open courtyard near it)

and you are right when you say that i care about how the world views the IDF and israel in general
but i care about how it views it in a years time, not five days after a cease-fire
and at no point does it concern me enough that i would be willing to risk the life of a single israeli soldier in order to apease it

the truth should let you know that most of the things you hear about in the news are at best explainable (such as the school thing) and at worse- complete lies
wait and see
dont forget that in 2002when israel preformed a similer operation in the west bank
palestinian sources blamed the IDF of commiting a massacre in the jenin refugee camp with the numbers going as far as 1500
the final death toll - 54 (with most being millitents)

the faking of civilian deaths is a well known palestinian strategy
and it applys to more then just isarel
when king hussein kicked the palestinians out of jorden when they tried to take over they claimed a death toll as high as 20,000 (this is known as black september)
final death toll - 3,400
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_S...n#cite_note-12

dont just take the numbers as they are now
wait for a while and see the end results

@0utf0xZer0
like i said, wait and see in a few months

@Thingle
Quote:
They brought it upon themselves, and frankly, if the ones dead were future terrorists then there's nothing to mourn about.... at least for us.
isnt that kinda exteme ?
we dont WANT to kill innocent people
this as an unfortunete side effect for which we feel rather bad about
__________________

Last edited by bladeofdarkness; 2009-01-23 at 14:42.
bladeofdarkness is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 15:03   Link #773
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thingle View Post
Pakistan is the US ally, not India.
You keep saying things that aren't really true... both Pakistan and India have common interests with the US. Pakistan is proving a pretty ineffective ally over the last eight years since it won't really take action with the Taliban. Its only an ally by location more than thought, word, or deed. It is easily argued that Pakistan is against us because they harbor so many terrorists bent on the destruction of democracy (even what little democracy Pakistan has).
India, otoh, is more of an effective and real democracy. Like the French and the US, India and the US sometimes disagree but in the whole they make sense to each other more often. They're both our "allies" in the attempt to make terrorism ineffective. Its just unfortunate they waste a lot of time slapping each other.

Back to the topic,
Israel, long ago, made the strategic decision that hostages, captives, or civilians were "already dead" in terms of eliminating terrorists or militants. You can go all the way back to Munich and the Olympic hostages for that doctrine. That seems to be their tenor today if we follow blades line of thought: its tragic there were civilians but we will kill the enemy no matter who is trapped in the way.
My opinion is that leads down a road of moral corrosion. Obviously, others disagree. I would withdraw if I came under fire from a location I knew to have non-combatants/civilians - and find another way. But then I don't subscribe to the strategic axiom I described above.
__________________
Vexx is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 15:15   Link #774
bladeofdarkness
Um-Shmum
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Back to the topic,
Israel, long ago, made the strategic decision that hostages, captives, or civilians were "already dead" in terms of eliminating terrorists or militants. You can go all the way back to Munich and the Olympic hostages for that doctrine. That seems to be their tenor today if we follow blades line of thought: its tragic there were civilians but we will kill the enemy no matter who is trapped in the way.
My opinion is that leads down a road of moral corrosion. Obviously, others disagree. I would withdraw if I came under fire from a location I knew to have non-combatants/civilians - and find another way. But then I don't subscribe to the strategic axiom I described above.
where the hell did that one came from
this is not the way at all
since when did this happen prey tell ?
does this go hand in hand with providing early warnings and aborting strikes when the target is in a crowded area ?
and since when did this apply to all hostages
can someone be called a captive or a hostage when they are held by their own side ?
considering we have gone to battle with other countries over hostages (entebe anyone)
or sometimes even WAR (lebanon)

and if you take fire from a location that you think civilains might be in and your reaction is to withdraw
then you would never be able to ever conduct urben combat anywhere
becouse thats what urben warfare IS
thats the whole point of hamas fighting from those areas
they do it IN ORDER TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK LIKE YOU
well if you are fine with not going to war to protect your people, becouse it would mean that the people on the other side would get hurt
then why not just bend over while your at it
me, i rather think of it as "they will do this as long as it works, dont let it work even ONCE"
do what you can for the civilians when ever possible, but never ever let it stop you from getting the job done
thats why you dont negotiate with terrorists
if they think something works, they will keep on doing it
__________________
bladeofdarkness is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 15:26   Link #775
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
Unfortunately, the pro-Israel crowd don't seem to care much. All they had on their minds are the deaths of the Hamas, while the non-combatant civilians are considered as "helpless collateral damage". More over, Israel has the full backing of the new US government.
That's a rather mean generalization. I care about the deaths of both Israelis and Palestinians. I get the impression that the anti-Israel crowd doesn't, though, given all the statements about how "Israel only has four dead while Palestine has a thousand." If you want to call people out on looking at numbers and not recognizing them as human lives, you need to do it to both sides.

And again, the trouble isn't so much about not caring about the Palestinians, it's about priorities. If nations and cultural identities didn't exist it would be easy to say one human life, no matter who or where in the world it is, is as valuable as another. However, when Israel's citizens are coming under attack, should the entire state of Israel not retaliate out of fear that it will kill or injure even a single innocent on the opposing side? (Note again that I do not care if "only" one Israel citizen is killed or maimed - one is too many.) This goes beyond human nature - this is basic animal instict that you protect your own (the concept is called kinship). Anyone who wants to tell me that they would do otherwise receives my applause for being idealistic and receives my criticism for not being honest with themselves.

The rest is a philosophical thought experiment. If it took the deaths of a thousand innocents to bring ever-lasting peace to a region, but thousands would die over time due to constant fighting if peace were not brought about, should it happen? That isn't the reality of the situation, but what is true is that people are dying whether military intervention occurs or not. I think that many are failing to see that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
My opinion is that leads down a road of moral corrosion. Obviously, others disagree. I would withdraw if I came under fire from a location I knew to have non-combatants/civilians - and find another way. But then I don't subscribe to the strategic axiom I described above.
I'd agree with you if it happened very infrequently. If hostage-taking and such became a regular occurrence then obviously abiding by it would be positive reinforcement. For an example of this take a look at the issue over piracy off the coast of Somalia. Huge ransoms are being paid out and it's becoming a high-profile thing. Accordingly, the rates of piracy are increasing.

Granted, there is a difference between piracy (performed for money) and something like hostage-taking (performed for any number of reasons, here most likely to manipulate politics). There is no doubt in my mind that if hostage-taking caused the Israeli government (or even any government) to grant the hostage-takers one wish per hostage-taking event that it would become a very frequent occurrence. It's very apparent that people in that region aren't even really making efforts at negotiating. Nobody is seemingly willing to concede anything, which is what negotiation and compromise are about. If you could suddenly force everyone to do what you wanted, wouldn't that be terribly appealing?
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 15:29   Link #776
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness View Post
where the hell did that one came from
this is not the way at all
Really? You should read up on your own history. Read up on the Munich affair. Please stop flailing about. Besides you specifically contradict yourself further down in this very post by re-articulating that strategy.

Quote:
and if you take fire from a location that you think civilains might be in and your reaction is to withdraw
then you would never be able to ever conduct urben combat anywhere
becouse thats what urben warfare IS
Um, my army friends call bullshit on that. Doesn't sound as if you "get" urban warfare to me. I could recommend some excellent military analysis books.
1) I didn't say "might be in" I said known to be in. Red Cross and UN locations, for example.
2) You withdraw tactically and isolate.
3) It isn't really "urban warfare" without a lot of ground troops. A 4:1 advantage is recommended, though I suspect the war's popularity in Israel would drop like stone if actual risk were involved.

Quote:
thats the whole point of hamas fighting from those areas
They do it if it works..... if it doesn't work, they'll stop doing it. Israel keeps complying with what works for Hamas, oddly.

Quote:
they do it IN ORDER TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK LIKE YOU
You're ignoring what I'm saying now...

Quote:
well if you are fine with not going to war to protect your people, becouse it would mean that the people on the other side would get hurt
then why not just bend over while your at it
Now you're conflating "going to war" with a tactical situation. You're also mischaracterizing my thoughts .. going hyperbolic and trying to frame it as "black or white". That may make you feel better but it doesn't help your position.

Quote:
me, i rather think of it as "they will do this as long as it works, dont let it work even ONCE"
do what you can for the civilians when ever possible, but never ever let it stop you from getting the job done
You just described my initial point on Israeli strategy. Why did you contradict it in the first part of the post? Besides, you're falling for the "I have one tool in my box and its a hammer. I'll use it for everything." motif again.

Quote:
thats why you dont negotiate with terrorists
if they think something works, they will keep on doing it
So why can't you negotiate *and* do other things to undermine them at the same time? You're basically doing the IDF "talking points" thing... does it not get cross-examined in Israel at all? We know Hamas doesn't allow cross-examination of their dogma - the news article example of the insane fighter is a sterling example of what nutcases they have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thingle
Did anyone of you bled your hearts and called foul when the two kidnapped soldiers in Lebanon were returned in boxes, or when the first soldier killed in Cast Lead was laid to rest, or when elderly Israelis die because of rockets from Gaza hitting their homes?
Why yes, we did. You just choose not to listen to that part. No one here likes Hamas. Most people are concerned about the Palestinians. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference. Your idiomatic view only seems to create *more* Hamas recruits. But it seems easy to be bloodthirsty from the safety of a keyboard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem
Granted, there is a difference between piracy (performed for money) and something like hostage-taking (performed for any number of reasons, here most likely to manipulate politics). There is no doubt in my mind that if hostage-taking caused the Israeli government (or even any government) to grant the hostage-takers one wish per hostage-taking event that it would become a very frequent occurrence. It's very apparent that people in that region aren't even really making efforts at negotiating. Nobody is seemingly willing to concede anything, which is what negotiation and compromise are about. If you could suddenly force everyone to do what you wanted, wouldn't that be terribly appealing?
I agree but don't you find it odd that one of the reasons given for this action was over a hostage soldier? It seemed more about manipulating the Israeli public support since, after all, taking the action pretty much assured his death under all the flagwaving.

But basically I was speaking tactically. Its almost like some people could take lessons from SWAT teams, SEALS, and other forces that understand how to minimize unwanted casualties in urban areas. Using sledgehammers to swat bees ---. Sometimes this affair reminds me too much of the early Iraq-US war period when our leaders stupidly thought they could deal with the situation without much in the way of ground troops. Keeping ground troops to a minimum also means the war is "comfortable" for the voting public but it is a disaster in terms of actually achieving meaningful goals.
__________________

Last edited by Vexx; 2009-01-23 at 15:55.
Vexx is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 15:43   Link #777
0utf0xZer0
Pretentious moe scholar
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
You keep saying things that aren't really true... both Pakistan and India have common interests with the US. Pakistan is proving a pretty ineffective ally over the last eight years since it won't really take action with the Taliban. Its only an ally by location more than thought, word, or deed. It is easily argued that Pakistan is against us because they harbor so many terrorists bent on the destruction of democracy (even what little democracy Pakistan has).
India, otoh, is more of an effective and real democracy. Like the French and the US, India and the US sometimes disagree but in the whole they make sense to each other more often. They're both our "allies" in the attempt to make terrorism ineffective. Its just unfortunate they waste a lot of time slapping each other.
Part of the problem with Pakistan is that from what I've read, the military and intelligence services have links with the Taliban and other extremist groups, and aren't really willing to go up against them, no matter what the people at the top might be saying: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/ma...akistan-t.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
And again, the trouble isn't so much about not caring about the Palestinians, it's about priorities. If nations and cultural identities didn't exist it would be easy to say one human life, no matter who or where in the world it is, is as valuable as another. However, when Israel's citizens are coming under attack, should the entire state of Israel not retaliate out of fear that it will kill or injure even a single innocent on the opposing side? (Note again that I do not care if "only" one Israel citizen is killed or maimed - one is too many.) This goes beyond human nature - this is basic animal instict that you protect your own (the concept is called kinship). Anyone who wants to tell me that they would do otherwise receives my applause for being idealistic and receives my criticism for not being honest with themselves.
My problem with the Israeli operation (aside from the often mentioned targeting of police officers as "potential" military asset) is that I'm not sure how this campaign has moved us closer to a solution to the Gaza problem (AKA Hamas out, government that will crack down on extremists in). We're already seeing Hamas use the opportunity crack down on dissent within Gaza, and Gazans already lack the leadership for an organized response to Hamas.

As such, it ends up looking a lot more like a "well, we have to do SOMETHING" kind of response than something that's actually well thought out. Yes, it probably puts Israel into a better position to negotiate cease-fire terms, but nobody much likes people who use death and destruction as a bargaining chip - and Israelis should understand that better than anyone.

Think that should answer the thought experiment part too.
0utf0xZer0 is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 15:45   Link #778
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
That's a rather mean generalization. I care about the deaths of both Israelis and Palestinians. I get the impression that the anti-Israel crowd doesn't, though, given all the statements about how "Israel only has four dead while Palestine has a thousand." If you want to call people out on looking at numbers and not recognizing them as human lives, you need to do it to both sides.
It's not that I don't trust you, in fact I do. Last I heard.. The Palestinians had like over 1000 deaths, while Israel's side had about 13. On a different occasion, I heard that the total Gaza death toll was over 1300, which sounded like 100 times the casualties and obviously, it gives the impression that Israel doesn't care much, even if it may not be the case.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 15:45   Link #779
bladeofdarkness
Um-Shmum
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 30
what about the munich affair are you talking about, please explain

1)enemy civilians are ENEMY civilians, they naturally get lower priority then your own soldiers as far as im concerned
2)if you withdraw and icolate then what ?
whats the next step, ask them if they want pizza for a hostage
the IDF isnt a police force and this isnt a hostage crisis
its a war, and enemy tactics are enemy tactics, no matter how low they are
3)israel isnt complying which what they want
what they want is for this tactic to keep israel from attacking or to give their millitents more chances at killing israeli soldiers
they dont get that becouse israel doesnt play their game
if they want to hide behind innocents, they are at fault when those innocents die (as far as im concerned)
if they want to prevent that, they can always surrender, or better yet no fight at all
4)your mistake is that you beileve this to be a tactical situation
its a stratigic one
this is their strategy, and allowing it to keep you from doing what has to be done is foolish
5)no negotiating with terrorists- especially not with the kind that boobytraps peoples homes and turns the streets where children play into minefields
you wouldnt talk to al-qaida
and we shouldnt talk to hamas
if they change their retorics, maybe then

and what annoys me is that you are judging this wrongly
you are saying hamas does this on one hand
and israel does that on the other hand
and thats completely missing the point

your general view on tactics is flawed becouse it doenst look at cause and effect
for every single aspect of israeli conduct that you complain about you have to start out by saying the phrase "as a responce to hamas doing- whatever it is doing"
israeli tactics are derived from REACTING to hamas's way of fighting and their tactics
its never EVER "israel bombs houses"
its "as a way of dealing with hamas using houses as weapon stashes and launch platforms, israel bombs houses"
__________________
bladeofdarkness is offline  
Old 2009-01-23, 16:11   Link #780
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Seriously, if you're trying to adjust opinion here, you are failing miserably. You are barely making sense. You should read Ledgem's posts which are researched and carefully constructed.

1) Since when are the civilian Palestinians your enemy? Are you conflating them with terrorist groups now? Are you at war with Palestine or Hamas?
2) Do you really not get "surround and isolate"? Most of the flack Israel is taking is from hitting off-limits targets that were *in the area* - not the specific target location the incoming fire was coming from. The "sledgehammer used on bees" problem contributes. Triangulation and auto-fire contributes... Your statement here describes exactly why Israel fails...
So if Hamas were inside Israel using the same tactics, you'd do exactly the same thing?
3) Israel is *exactly* complying with Hamas when it willingly fires large scale rounds into civilian locations because Hamas was somewhere nearby. Israel loses the PR battle every single time that way. Its the "there's a gangfight on the street, we'll lob cluster bombs in til they stop - its their fault that all the civilians running for cover were killed."
4) Individual actions are tactical by definition - rules of engagement are tactical. Strategic is how this plays out on the world stage and whether Israel benefits or loses influence. You can call names but you don't seem to understand the difference between tactical actions and strategic choices.
5) Thank you, but the Bush doctrine is dead. You *talk* to your adversaries constantly - even if you plan to do so only til you can find a big stick to kill them with. Talking to them accomplishes:
a) spotlights them; they often end up looking worse on the world stage.
b) gives information. probably the most important. You do want information, right?
c) allows you to get information to the civilians in the way of counter-information and simply showing the enemy for what they are.
People who refuse to talk to their adversaries are usually those who really don't want the status quo or their world view to change.
__________________
Vexx is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.