Israel about to get its ass kicked

POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 04:47
VIEWED: 15936
PAGE 11 of 22

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Monday, January 5, 2009 6:50 PM

"There are rockets being fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel. That breaks the ceasefire. Cease – Fire. IT means to stop, or cease, firing rocket into Israel. When the rockets begin firing into Israel, then the “Cease” “Fire” has been broken. See how that works."

But no indication it was Hamas that started it.

I looked very carefully through the news reports. Many said the initial rockets were fired by 'extremists' and 'radicals'. But the ONLY sources claiming they were fired by Hamas were quoting ~~~ can you guess who ? (Hint: the name is Israeli officials.)

Not that the Israelis have been trying to destroy Hamas ever since they were democratically elected, or have ever lied to support their military actions. (Another hint: that was sarcasm.)

Of course, Israel and the US have also been jonesing to go after Iran. As with Lebanon, this may be one last-ditch attempt to provoke Iran into responding. It may even be a two-fer action.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Monday, January 5, 2009 6:54 PM

Quote:
Halfway across the Nile the scorpion stung the crocodile and as both began to sink to their death, the Crocodile asked “Why? Now we will both die.” To which the scorpion responded, “Because this is the Middle East.”

Yup, because we all know how *they* are, right? Because everyone in the Middle East is a killer, of course.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

KWICKO

Monday, January 5, 2009 7:00 PM

Quote:
Also I think Geezer has a point. You need to provide evidence for your own claims. Telling people to find evidence of your own outrageous claims is another thing that causes you to loose your own credibility.

So what was your source for the "quote" from Ahmedinejad? You didn't cite any source, so you've lost credibility, because it appears you made it up. I'm sure it was "quoted" (MISquoted would be more accurate) on one of your right-wing rag sites, but since you didn't cite it, we can only guess at the source, and take your word for it that it's a real quote - which, of course, it isn't.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, January 5, 2009 8:23 PM

Can't believe people are arguing over who started it and who did what when. Neither side is inherently evil, but both sides are culpable. Most importantly... both sides hate each other with such a blind passion, one that is as much of their nation's identity as their own religion, that if someone doesn't step in and mediate then genocide will be the only way the violence will end.

Gimme a "B"... Gimme an "A"...

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 5, 2009 8:30 PM

So the Palestinians want the Jews out...but where would they go?

Not here, we've got enough problems without that..

Antarctica?

RUE

Monday, January 5, 2009 8:54 PM

The reason people are 'arguing over who started it' is because it matters. If Hamas started it, it makes Israel's actions slightly more acceptable (though disproportionate response and targeting civilians are still illegal). If Hamas didn't start it, it makes Israel the aggressor.

I didn't think I'd have to explain something that simple. Even BUSH knows that, which is why he went to such extremes to portray Iraq as a threat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/world/middleeast/05gaza.html?_r=1

Gaza Hospital Fills Up, Mainly With Civilians

A week ago, when Israel began its air assault, hundreds of Hamas militants were taken to the hospital. Yet on Sunday, the day Israeli troops flooded Gaza and ground battles with Hamas began, there appeared not to be a single one.

The casualties at Shifa on Sunday — 18 dead, hospital officials said, among a reported 30 around Gaza — were women, children and men who had been with children.

In recent days, most of those arriving at Shifa appeared to be civilians. On Sunday, there was no trace here of the dozens of Hamas fighters that the Israeli military said its ground forces had hit in the past few hours in exchanges of fire. The exact reason was not clear. Many ambulance drivers refused to go near the fighting. It also seemed possible that Hamas and Israeli fighters were still battling at some less lethal distance. It was difficult to know whether fighters were spread out at other hospitals.

But at Shifa, most of the men who were wounded or killed seemed to have been hit along with relatives near their homes or on the road.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 5, 2009 9:45 PM

Quote:
thing that causes you to loose your own credibility.

I was merely adding information. The claim was that of Donald Rumsfeld, who lacks credibility, but has a certain personal charm. I don't think he was attempting to deceive the public, I think he was genuinely concerned that we were putting landmines into areas and then sending in unarmored vehicles to patrol those areas. That concern was expressed by the Israelis to us.

There is actually a pretty strong debate going on right now in the international war crimes tribunal and the UN about whether or not the random scattering of land mines constitutes a violation of international law. This isn't an obscure piece of information or random piece of evidence, it's a major topic of debate.

I said I wouldn't debate the issue, and I don't care if you believe me. Internet searches suck. I can't find it either. However, I saw the broadcast live, and researched the issue, and it's now an issue my brother has taken up in international treaty law, because he writes stuff like that, so I'm not guessing.

It's a matter about caring about our troops. I praise the Israeli govt. for caring about their own. I hope Obama will do the same for ours.

KIRKULES

Monday, January 5, 2009 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The reason people are 'arguing over who started it' is because it matters. If Hamas started it, it makes Israel's actions slightly more acceptable (though disproportionate response and targeting civilians are still illegal). If Hamas didn't start it, it makes Israel the aggressor.

I'm confused as usual. Are you saying that one missile attack by Isreal after a thousand in past months by Hamas means Israel started it. Or are you saying that Hamas is in no way involved with the Missile attacks on Israel, but doesn't want the World to know that they can't control their own territory. Are you saying it's like Saddam Hussein denying chemical weapons but really wanting people to think he had them.

DREAMTROVE

Monday, January 5, 2009 9:53 PM

Wulf

I don't think that most palestinians want the Jews gone, so much as to leave them alone. I think that a lot of arabs a little further out like the saudis want the jews gone.

Think about it rationally. If Israel were to end apartheid, it would be a boon to both groups. The jews have a lot of wealth and industry, and the palestinians would represent a cheap labor source.

However, think of it from a Saudi perspective. The Saudis have a dominance which relies on control of a commodity, and not a lot of native industry. A strong regional industrial power poses a threat to their dominance.

So, I'm going to back my jewish friend, the foreign powers want this war. The locals probably don't. Jews chose palestine in agreement with the crown in 1917. They are stuck with it now. Still, I think the Gaza war is a big mistake. Palestine wants sea access. It's one of the major things that wars are fought over. Israel already has sea access. If they take Palestine's, that only means that Palestine will invade them at a later date, when they have a better ally, like China.

GEEZER

Monday, January 5, 2009 9:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
apocryphal means hidden.

Not really. Merriam-Webster defines it as "of doubtful authenticity: Spurious".

Dictionary.com says:
1. of doubtful authorship or authenticity.
2. Ecclesiastical. a. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Apocrypha.
b. of doubtful sanction; uncanonical.
3. false; spurious: He told an apocryphal story about the sword, but the truth was later revealed.

Quote:
I saw the newscast. I'm sure that if you scan press conference on IEDs and cluster munitions around the time, you'll find it. I'm too busy, and don't care enough about winning an argument.

Sorry, but if you make unsubstantiated statements there is no argument for you to win. Nothing you say based on such statements can have any validity.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE