Israel about to get its ass kicked

POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 04:47
VIEWED: 15936
PAGE 6 of 22

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Sunday, January 4, 2009 3:55 AM

So, you

1) KNOW that it's Hamas

2) KNOW the intent (as well as the identity)

3) KNOW that the 'right to self defense' allows disproprotionate response as well as illegal targeting of civilians.

More Rap 'facts', for sure.

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

Silence is consent.

RUE

Sunday, January 4, 2009 4:00 AM

DreamTrove

I don't think Rap is here to discuss. It's been argued to me (an argument I found persuasive) that he's here to proselytize the word of Rush.

I guarantee he will not answer your reasonable questions with reason, if he answers them at all.

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

PS At one point many years ago he mentioned that he was a liberal until he saw the light. Either way, his politics are a religious belief with him, and have nothing to do with facts or reason.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, January 4, 2009 4:05 AM

dream - I'll not have semantics derail the discussion here. Diaper heads seem rather tame, for folks who'd fire rockets into homes, strap bombs onto mentally retarded young people and use them as weapons against crowds of civilians.

Under no circumstances will I refer to them as 'freedom fighters'. ( I'm refering to those carrying guns, bomb vest, and the like, of course, and NOT the general populace. Though 'militants' is far too tame as well. )

To quibble over what amounts to name calling when 100's and 1000's of humans are dying, seems rather trivial.

So, how about HTs , for Hamas Terrorist ? That's the best I can offer, so as to distinguish from the fine, upstanding men, women and children who DON'T chant 'death to Israel' and carry weapons in open combat.

I'm for Israel dealing w/ this on their own, and not, as the IDIOT Geraldo Rivera suggest, putting the US mlitary in the middle, to act as a buffer. Nothing could be worse, imo.

How's that ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Sunday, January 4, 2009 4:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, you

1) KNOW that it's Hamas

2) KNOW the intent (as well as the identity)

3) KNOW that the 'right to self defense' allows disproprotionate response as well as illegal targeting of civilians.

More Rap 'facts', for sure.

From all the available info I can find, yes. Sorry if you don't like them or agree. And what if I'm right, does that change your view of what's happening there one iota ???

I'll tell you this, and I'm as sincere and honest as the day is long....if those are NOT the facts, then my view not only should change, it would BE FORCED to change.

Lemmie make sure you undestand my point..... if the facts NOT as I've stated, and if my view and understanding isn't accurate, I'll absolutely change my position.

Would you ?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Sunday, January 4, 2009 4:23 AM

Yes.

But, the only things you think are 'facts' are those things you already agree to. I'm not quite so limited.

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

Silence is consent.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 4, 2009 5:03 AM

Hamas Terrorist is acceptable. I disagree with it, but it's not racist. Any variation on "towelhead" is an epithet, and that was the worst yet. It can in no way be intrinsically construed to refer only to Hamas.

Hamas, afterall, was started as a terrorist organization, and has only recently become a political party.

Let me take a parallel. If I were to refer to the RUF as sh*tskins it would be taken as a racist remark, because they're black, and then taken to refer to all blacks. If I call them reavers because they torture dismember and eat people including children, including their own, then it is merely their behavior specific to them and no one else that I disparage.

Rivera is a moron, and the US military in the middle is a moronic idea.

As for the 1000s they're killing, I think that a lot of it is friendly fire. They're not a threat to Israel, and I think peace is possible, but I agree with Rue that peace is not wanted by a party that thinks it can win.

I hold to my position that both parties see Hamas losing this one, and so Hamas would sue for peace and Israel would refuse. This seems to be what repeatedly happens. If the US withdrew support, that might not equal the odds, but it would tilt them slightly, and it would take away the welfare that Israel wants. This would cause them to rethink the scenario, and then maybe peace negotiations would be possible.

Here's why I favor the two state solution:

If one state wins, they are now about 6 million each, which means one will have 6 million of the other as a subjugated population. That population is liable to rebel and revolt, which will lead to a crackdown, and, if the winning partner had enough power, it might lead to rounding them up in camps. This is the worst possible scenario, until they genocide all 6 million.

Now, if they US abandons Israel, and the arab world, not the muslim world, but just the arab world, continues to support Hamas, then they could win, after about 20 years or so. If the US continued unchecked support, Israel will win fairly quickly, might still take a few years. Either way, we end up with a worst case scenario. I can't care which semitic ethnic group gets oppressed or exterminated, one is not better than the other. Both are collections of 6 million people largely innocent with a small group of people in govt. who seem to be resoundingly a**holes on both sides.

But, if the US suspends aid, temporarily, in protest, and gives Israel time to rethink the situation, they might stop the offensive. No offensive will definitely mean fewer Israeli deaths, and fewer Palestinian deaths.

Now, I disagree with Rue that you are here to spout Rush, I think I keep tabs on the Rush position. My recollection was that you worked for a defense contractor, which puts you somewhere close to Finn, but currently with a thinking cap on.

Please consider for a moment the possible endgames.

1. Israel wins and ends up an unstable state controlling an unhappy population that relentlessly engages in terrorism against the state, and makes up 1/2 the population, making a failed state.

2. Hamas wins, unlikely, but resulting in 1. above only hostile to the US.

3. One wins and exterminates the other resulting in a holocaust.

4. No one wins and this civil war continues indefinitely.

Now I don't see from a US military position where any of these scenarios are advantageous. So, logically, what's the position here?

I reiterate that Israel was an ally in the Gulf war, but not in the Iraq war because it was not a stable enough state in the Iraq war to make a reliable ally of. We can't have our forces somewhere where they are going to be attacked. And I can guarantee if Israel wins the war that the number of terrorist attacks in Israel will skyrocket. You don't need an IQ of higher than an above average dog to figure that out. I think the parakeet has that one covered.

My understanding is that there are some extremist zealots on both sides, and the Israeli side has a lot more guns, and so they are doing a lot more damage, but tha

KIRKULES

Sunday, January 4, 2009 5:18 AM

Yes, we must only use politically correct terms when referring to our enemies, because we wouldn't what to offend them while we're killing them.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, January 4, 2009 5:19 AM

rue, you're gonna have to elaborate on that for me. I'm a bit at a loss for how to answer.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 4, 2009 5:25 AM

Facts

Okay, someone is going to have to research this, and then come up with an agreement. I suggest both sides.

My guess is this: These guesses are based on logic. I find the human being to be one of the most predictable animals on the planet, and so I'm seldom very far off.

1. Hamas is fighting and bombing in a time of war which is right now. In a time of peace, like not right now, like before, and the occasional ceasefire, then it is NOT-Hamas. NOT-Hamas would be some Palestinian terrorist group which might have at some point in the past been part of Hamas, but splintered off when Hamas became a political party.

2. KNOW the intent (as well as the identity) Oh, this is hard to say. The intent of the Govt. of Hamas is a two state solution. This is not the intent of all Palestinians, or the arab world, nor is it the intent of the current govt. of Israel though I think it's acceptable to most of the people of both Israel and Palestine. There seems to be more fear of a jewish state in the wider arab world than in palestine itself.

3. Right to self defense does NOT allow targeting of civilians. Asymetrical warfare is a trickier question. Given that the US, China and Russia have all engaged recently in targeting civilians, and that this is not new, it's hard to make a moral condemnation of Israel for doing so.

It's easy for me, from a religious perspective to condemn all of the above for doing so, but for the US to condemn Israel for Gaza after Fallujah and Belgrade, and similar incidents, I think would be hypocritical.

My take would be this is not the same case as S. Ossetia.

In S. Ossetia, where Russia could be argued to be in the wrong, there was an extenuating circumstance that Georgia had laid seige and invaded S. Ossetia. This gave an additional justification. Also, terrorist attacks against Russia had been coming from Georgia via, Al Qaeda, Mujahideen. This is the sort of motive being used in the Israel Gaza case. But it's much weaker in that it does not have a secondary motivating cause, and also, and more importantly, S. Ossetia invited Russia in, with a 70% vote in favor of Russian assistance.

Virtually no one in Gaza wants an Israeli invasion. Remember, before the Iraq war, a large % of Iraqis supported the US. If Bush hadn't been a moron and opened with "Shock and Awe" we could have turned that into a solid majority.

But nothing is going to turn this into a legal war.

That said, does Israel have a justifiable grievance against Gaza? Sure. Do they have a justifiable cause for war, under interenational law? Of course not. That would be like saying that the US could invade Canada or Mexico because of the cross border conflicts. If we allow this logic, every nation on Earth would then be permitted to invade all of its neighbors. Most notably:

China>Afgh>Paki>Nepal>Bhutan>India
India>China>Pakistan>Bangl
Pakistan>China>India>Afgh
Afgh>Pakistan>China>Iran>Uzbek
Iran>Afgh>Iraq
Iraq>Iran>Turkey>Syria>Saudi
Syria>Iraq>Saudi>Turkey>Lebanon
Lebanon>Syria>Israel
Israel>Palestine>Syria>Egypt>Jordan
Egypt>Israel>Sudan>
Sudan>Chad>Eritrea>Ethiopia
And the Africa thing would spread across the whole continent in chain.

If you want a recipe for WWIII I think this is it.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, January 4, 2009 5:35 AM

Quote:
Yes, we must only use politically correct terms when referring to our enemies, because we wouldn't what to offend them while we're killing them.

Okay, this is the third dumbest thing to be posted on this board.

The correct would be to call them "The democratically elected govt. of the sovereign nation of Palestine," the PC term would be something like "Islamo-semites."

I was willing to grant Auraptor "Terrorists"

But respecting one's enemies is the most essential rule of battle. Fortunately, this came from Auraptor, and not the state of Israel.

After all, the terminology was below what slaveholders called their slaves, even in roman times. It's what psychopaths call the people they are about to genocide, and is never used by anyone else.

Mind you, if the shoe were on the other foot, I can, and have, taken the same position against Islamic terrorists. There's no room for this kindergarten racism in any political discourse. I appreciate that he backed off.

Have some respect. These are people that we disagree with. Many arabs and Palestinians believe that Israel is a military beachhead colony for a western invasion. Hamas believes that it is a rogue state. Both of these are political opinions with which we happen to disagree. But that does not make the people who hold them inhuman.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE