News Stories

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

we don't care what standards and expectations Hamas or Hizballa live up to
we don't CARE what they do.
we don't care what they want.
i just want them to leave me and mine the fuck alone.
thats it.
thats ALL we want
we want, the collective middle east to just leave us the fuck alone.
Egypt has
Jordan has
hell, even Syria pretty much figured out that its in its best interest to leave us alone.
Lebanon (the country) was never even a factor until the Fatah, and later Hizballah set up shop.

leave us, alone.
you don't attack us, we don't attack you.
you attack us, and we will make you pay for it dearly.

thats it.

THIS

Let's hope Iran come to their senses too

[james0246]

Okay, this is getting a little too heated, so everyone, please calm down.

I do not want to be forced to start deleting posts and issuing warnings and infractions. This is why the old Israel, Hamas & the Gaza Strip thread was closed. So, just stop with the intense rhetoric and almost cyclical discussion, and move on to other news (or, if you can contain yourselves, continue with this topic).

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

what the fuck are you talking about
Israel pulled out of ALL of Lebanon in 2000
and yet in 2006 they still attacked us.

I deleted my last post, but this part's bothering me as it's factually wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_farms

Israel is trying to get around it saying it belongs to Syria, but both Syria and Lebanon say it's Lebanese soil.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

I deleted my last post, but this part's bothering me as it's factually wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_farms

Israel is trying to get around it saying it belongs to Syria, but both Syria and Lebanon say it's Lebanese soil.

and the UN agrees with Israel.
its not Lebanese territory

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

irrelevant
the moment they attack our civilian population, its war
our blood will not be shad without there being hell to be paid for it.

You're forgetting the rather disputable history of the country of Israel. I've heard both sides of the story, and I don't know who has more of a claim to the land, but I do know this: the nation was formed less than 100 years ago, and plopped on top of what some people thought of as their homeland. Now maybe they were wrong, maybe they were right. It doesn't really matter - it should be pretty obvious to you how such an action can stir up controversy. So in these peoples' eyes, your civilian population should not even be in the country to begin with.

But even if you don't agree with that, they're a terrorist organization (you agree with this, right?) So why would you damage areas where peaceful civilians live? That's not a proper way to deal with the problem at all, and dropping leaflets doesn't justify it (yeah, we'll give you advance warning, but you better gtfo regardless of how long you've lived here ). Sure, it's easier. Doesn't make it right.

I know you're trying to defend the place you live, but you really need to look at it from both sides. No matter what conclusion you've come to, Israel's existence in the first place is a pretty testy subject matter. That fact alone should give you some restraint, but I don't see any.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

and the UN agrees with Israel.
its not Lebanese territory
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/20...c6878.doc.html

Lebanon and Syria say otherwise. Considering they're the nations the land might possibly belong to, I believe they have a say in matters.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

But even if you don't agree with that, they're a terrorist organization (you agree with this, right?) So why would you damage areas where peaceful civilians live? That's not a proper way to deal with the problem at all, and dropping leaflets doesn't justify it (yeah, we'll give you advance warning, but you better gtfo regardless of how long you've lived here ). Sure, it's easier. Doesn't make it right.

they aren't told to leave forever.
its a warning that there is going to be fighting in the area in the next few days, and for their safety they should leave when it happens.
once we're done removing the threat, the army leaves and the civilians return to their homes.

as for why we damage civilian areas.
because thats where the terrorists hide and store their weapons.
we'd LOVE to fight them in open areas where there aren't any civilians, but they don't set up their bases in such areas.
they hide in civilian areas, so thats where we have to fight them

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Lebanon and Syria say otherwise. Considering they're the nations the land might possibly belong to, I believe they have a say in matters.

nope.
we left Lebanon.
UN says so, and as far as WE'RE concerned, thats it.
whatever problems with have with Syria will deal with them in regards to Syria.
but as far as Lebanon goes, we're cleared out.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

they aren't told to leave forever.
its a warning that there is going to be fighting in the area in the next few days, and for their safety they should leave when it happens.
once we're done removing the threat, the army leaves and the civilians return to their homes.

as for why we damage civilian areas.
because thats where the terrorists hide and store their weapons.
we'd LOVE to fight them in open areas where there aren't any civilians, but they don't set up their bases in such areas.
they hide in civilian areas, so thats where we have to fight them

And you don't see a problem with what amounts to a foreign military regularly telling people to evacuate their homes? Or better yet, in the eyes of many of these people, a group that took their land from them?

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

And you don't see a problem with what amounts to a foreign military regularly telling people to evacuate their homes? Or better yet, in the eyes of many of these people, a group that took their land from them?

would you prefer we just attack without giving them any warning in advance and cause much more civilian casualties ?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

nope.
we left Lebanon.
UN says so, and as far as WE'RE concerned, thats it.
whatever problems with have with Syria will deal with them in regards to Syria.
but as far as Lebanon goes, we're cleared out.

You honestly don't care that there's another side to this that sees things differently, and has just as much, if not more evidence to support their claims do you? Besides, even if you are right, Israel is still occupying someone else's land by your own admission

would you prefer we just attack without giving them any warning in advance and cause much more civilian casualties ?

False dilemma. Israel has to option to not attack.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

would you prefer we just attack without giving them any warning in advance and cause much more civilian casualties ?

I'd prefer you just didn't attack.

[thevil1]

^
Isreal has a choice until enough is enough... People can only take so much abuse.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by thevil1

^
Isreal has a choice until enough is enough... People can only take so much abuse.

I know, but as BD said a few pages back, Israel is willing to give 90% of their demands, so why not just up it to 100% and be done with the conflict?

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I'd prefer you just didn't attack.

i would prefer they don't attack us so we don't HAVE to attack them.
learn to live with disappointment.

look, you have two groups among the palestinians
the moderates who want to reach a peaceful solution.
and the extremists who reject any such possibilities and want to torpedo any possibility of a peaceful solution.
thats why, since the beginning of the latest round of peace talks, there has been more violence in the past MONTH, then there has been in the preceding YEAR.

if you want us to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the moderates, you have to allow us to deal with the extremists.
its not going to work otherwise.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I know, but as BD said a few pages back, Israel is willing to give 90% of their demands, so why not just up it to 100% and be done with the conflict?

because there is more then simple territory being discussed.
100% of their demands means Israel agreeing to commit suicide

[thevil1]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I know, but as BD said a few pages back, Israel is willing to give 90% of their demands, so why not just up it to 100% and be done with the conflict?

Do you know what the demands are?
From your argument, I would think you don't (Just stating a fact)
There is a good reason why they don't. 100% == all Israelis dead, and in the sea.
In my opinion, they shouldn't meet any of the demands, but Israel is too worried about what the rest of the world would think about them.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by thevil1

Do you know what the demands are?
From your argument, I would think you don't (Just stating a fact)
There is a good reason why they don't. 100% == all Israelis dead, and in the sea.
In my opinion, they shouldn't meet any of the demands, but Israel is too worried about what the rest of the world would think about them.

I have a feeling that their demands can be met without Israel being destroyed (I'm not talking about Hamas, just Palestinians in general). And why do you think they should meet no demands at all? Don't you see how these people are getting the short end of the stick, and how a whole group is being reduced to their worst representatives? It's like Britain still holding on to southern Ireland just because of the IRA.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

i would prefer they don't attack us so we don't HAVE to attack them.
learn to live with disappointment.

look, you have two groups among the palestinians
the moderates who want to reach a peaceful solution.
and the extremists who reject any such possibilities and want to torpedo any possibility of a peaceful solution.
thats why, since the beginning of the latest round of peace talks, there has been more violence in the past MONTH, then there has been in the preceding YEAR.

if you want us to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the moderates, you have to allow us to deal with the extremists.
its not going to work otherwise.

If the extremists reject any solution, why do you somehow believe you have to deal with them? They're only in power right now due to the rogue nature of their territory.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I have a feeling that their demands can be met without Israel being destroyed. And why do you think they should meet no demands at all? Don't you see how these people are getting the short end of the stick, and how a whole group is being reduced to their worst representatives? It's like Britain still holding on to southern Ireland just because of the IRA.

impossible.
the demands mean that
A)Israel goes from being a majority Jewish state to a majority Arab state with Jews becoming less then 50% of the population
B)Israel's boarders are shrunk to the point where at its most narrow point its only 4 KM long (its strategically suicidal)
C)the Palestinians get full control over the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem

these three elements mean, for all intent and purpose, destroying Israel.
and some of us think that its too high a price to pay for peace.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

If the extremists reject any solution, why do you somehow believe you have to deal with them? They're only in power right now due to the rogue nature of their territory.

because, regardless to whether or not we deal with them, they continue to attack us.
dealing with them means crippling their abilities to attack us.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I know, but as BD said a few pages back, Israel is willing to give 90% of their demands, so why not just up it to 100% and be done with the conflict?

why should Israel be the one to give in to demands 100%? why shouldn't the other party do at least the other 10%?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by thevil1

100% == all Israelis dead, and in the sea.

So then you're claiming Israel offered to let them kill 90% of Israels and put them in a river? 90% of the demands, right?

100% in this case is all Israel settlers out of the Palestinian areas and part of Jerusalem. You can claim that they won't stop until all Israelis are dead blah blah, and who knows, maybe they won't. But for now their demands for land are reasonable.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

why should Israel be the one to give in to demands 100%? why shouldn't the other party do at least the other 10%?

Because that number is disingenuous as well as hyperbola. The percent in dispute is the part most people care about. Most of the rest is empty desert.

Think of it this way. You and a sibling are sharing a room. It's supposed to be split down the middle. He then decides to take more than his share. When you object, he offers you 90% of the area that was supposed to be yours. That 10% that he's insisting on keeping includes your bed. Are you going to accept it?

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

So then you're claiming Israel offered to let them kill 90% of Israels and put them in a river? 90% of the demands, right?

100% in this case is all Israel settlers out of the Palestinian areas and part of Jerusalem. You can claim that they won't stop until all Israelis are dead blah blah, and who knows, maybe they won't. But for now their demands for land are reasonable.

read MY post to explain what he means.