Options

The Middle East v5: The Fourth Gulf War

13567100

Posts

  • Options
    KamarKamar Registered User regular
    Guess some of you haven't read Ferret posts before, in other threads.

    "Is this satire?" is pretty much the guaranteed end state.

  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    Okay, pro-tip. New thread rule idea:

    No advocating genocide.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    IskraIskra Registered User regular
    Lucid wrote: »
    Iskra wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Hamas furthering its interests via using the tunnels during a ceasefire is OK, but Israel furthering its interests by closing those tunnels off is not?

    From a liberal perspective yes. Israel is stronger and has a position of power, so they shouldn't be allowed to do the same stuff as the weaker party. They have to tie their hands, even if that means them losing. Israel must be held to a higher standard because of the differences in power.

    How can Israel lose this war? Palestine/Hamas can't touch them. They can lose face to the entire world, which is a separate thing. The West is starting to get sick of their hypocritical bullshit, in a few generations if this continues they won't have allies like America letting them do what they want and when that happens all they have to blame for that is themselves.
    From a pragmatic perspective and facing the reality of war, of course Israel is in the clear.

    There are more options then engaging in violence with this. The goals should be peace, and that's never going to happen when Israel thinks Palestine's existence means it needs to retaliate in "self defense." They need to reread the dictionary for that meaning, it isn't what they think it does.
    So my heart and ideology tells me Israel is wrong, but my experience and brain tells me it's in the clear. I'll go with experience and brains, rather than stupid shit like feelings and ideology.

    Feelings and ideology are important with solving problems like this. Experience and brains count for nothing when it means genociding the opposition, especially ones who aren't that much of a threat. Palestine isn't Iran, it's not even Saddam's Iraq. What this does do is escalate tensions with those countries long term and provides their stronger enemies greater ammunition to do the same to them when they gain the advantage.

    Look, this is a battle where one side will be wiped out. There will be no peace till then, that's just how some conflicts are.

    From my ideology and my feelings, fuck Israel for picking on the weak and let them be wiped out. At the same time, I'll take their democracy and women's rights over Hamas, so let the other side be wiped out. Ultimately though I think as a westerner defending Muslims against the wrath of the west is about equal as women's rights... so there is no moral high ground for me to seek so the hell with it, there's nothing to back for values and cause.

    That leaves pragmatism. I'd like the Jewish community to keep voting Democratic so we can win and get the donations, beat the Republicans at nation security, and Israel should be allowed the same leeway and can do this faster. So for the good of the party and the fastest solution, take the gloves off and end this farce. With 2016 on the horizon and the need for another D in the White House, screw it let the blood flow.

    Just so we're clear, this post is literally advocating genocide. It starts with an unfounded assumption that "one side will be wiped out", then does some insulting song and dance about political values and what's best for the political climate in the US, and ends with "let the blood flow".

    If you are a combat veteran, I'm glad you no longer are in a position of power or in a combat theater because you are literally rationalizing the extermination of an ethnic group because "its easier" and "well it benefits me".

    From what I'm following here, and I think Morninglord is getting at something, it doesn't seem Frenetic Ferret can participate in rational discourse here.

    I don't know, it seems more like the end result of fetishizing "making the hard choice" and suppressing your emotions. At some point you wind up not realizing that the feelings of others and wellbeing of other actual people is a factor to consider when making a decision and not some kind of pansy weakness.

    Alternatively it's an issue where you other a group sufficiently that you no longer see them as people and just as a problem to solve. Leads to the idea that it's acceptable to kill them for the greater good. I don't think I need to explain how abhorrent that line of thought is.

  • Options
    CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    I am honestly incredibly curious about just how exactly Ferret will attempt to defend themselves. What logic led them to conclude that genocide is, in any way, an acceptable thing to imply is the best recourse in any situation.

    A goddamn veteran who believes that.

    A person who has been in war believes that.

    How incredibly fucked up is that?

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Derrick wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    Do the Palestinians think that they are going to get a better deal than what was offered in the 2000 Camp David Summit?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

    Yasar Arafat walked away from the deal, with support from his people. Barak was thought to have given too much in the deal, and it was a big factor in his losing the next election. Since that time, it's been my understanding that Israel has gone further to the right, and well, Gaza is straight up electing terrorists.

    I'd like to think that peace is possible, but it's not a peace that Palestinians will like. A lasting peace deal will be substantially worse than what was on offer in 2000. I'd like to be wrong, but I think History will find that walking away from that deal in 2000 was the end of a Two State Solution.

    Any peace will not be one the Israeli's like either, as demonstrated by their walking away from many negotiations since then.

    Whether the Palestinians can get a better deal then the 2000 is, perhaps, more a statement on the shitty deals that seem to be on offer.

    Right. But that's the only option Palestinians are going to get. You can't lose a war and expect better terms than when you started. That's not how it works. I doubt, seriously, that the Israeli people would stand for that.

    Israel will eventually have peace for its citizens. Israel tried the Two State method, and it failed. Terribly. I get the impression that the ruling elite in Israel has decided that plan B is just to slowly annex the West Bank until it's Israel in all but name, while brutally putting down any attacks while it happens.

    "Fighting Back" on the wrong geographical side of Israel is just entrenching Israeli population further in a non-compromising direction. If there is a path to a lasting peace that doesn't involve Israel absorbing the West Bank, please let me know what it might be. Something realistic. Reverting to 1967 borders with land swaps is not going to happen under current circumstances.

    So your position is "Well, they've probably got no chance so they should just roll over and take it"?

    No matter how realistic the position might be, I hope you can easily understand why it's not viewed as a real option by the Palestinians.

    Instead, they will do what every group in these situations does and keep fighting.

    shryke on
  • Options
    ToonToon Registered User regular
    The hard choice is also, well, not the hard choice. It's a monstrous one, but it's sooooo much harder to try to empathize and people and try to persuade them.

    Kill them all and let God sort them out? It's the lazy choice.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Toon wrote: »
    The hard choice is also, well, not the hard choice. It's a monstrous one, but it's sooooo much harder to try to empathize and people and try to persuade them.

    Kill them all and let God sort them out? It's the lazy choice.

    I thought that was obvious from back when he basically said he shut down thinking about it when the moral calculus got too complicated.

    The hard decision is simply the easy one that avoids all those nasty complications like morality.

  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Bubby wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Bubby wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-second-guess-israel-gaza-hamas-2014-8

    Netanyahu's choice words for the Obama administration:
    "Don't you ever second guess me over Hamas again."
    "You need to keep your mouth shut and trust what I say on this and everything else."

    That article is bullshit. Wasn't it Israel that violated the cease-fire first?

    As I understand it, Israel sent its soldiers in to destroy tunnels during the ceasefire. Palestinians attacked them. Israel contends that destroying tunnels is not a violation of the cease fire

    It isn't.

    Sure it is. It's a military operation attacking a Hamas asset. Ceasefire doesn't mean you get to march in and blow up the other side's stuff. Unless Hamas gets to walk up to an IDF building, etc and plant their bombs without expecting to be attacked of course

    Fuck Hamas. They weren't killing or kidnapping anyone, they were destroying tunnels built specifically to cause harm. The continued existence of said tunnels should be a violation of the ceasefire, it shouldn't have even begun until they were all destroyed.

    So, Hamas was totally within their rights to destroy any and all Israeli military air fields, ammo dumps, etc. even if it killed IDF soldiers, during the exact same ceasefire, as well, right?

  • Options
    DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    Do the Palestinians think that they are going to get a better deal than what was offered in the 2000 Camp David Summit?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

    Yasar Arafat walked away from the deal, with support from his people. Barak was thought to have given too much in the deal, and it was a big factor in his losing the next election. Since that time, it's been my understanding that Israel has gone further to the right, and well, Gaza is straight up electing terrorists.

    I'd like to think that peace is possible, but it's not a peace that Palestinians will like. A lasting peace deal will be substantially worse than what was on offer in 2000. I'd like to be wrong, but I think History will find that walking away from that deal in 2000 was the end of a Two State Solution.

    Any peace will not be one the Israeli's like either, as demonstrated by their walking away from many negotiations since then.

    Whether the Palestinians can get a better deal then the 2000 is, perhaps, more a statement on the shitty deals that seem to be on offer.

    Right. But that's the only option Palestinians are going to get. You can't lose a war and expect better terms than when you started. That's not how it works. I doubt, seriously, that the Israeli people would stand for that.

    Israel will eventually have peace for its citizens. Israel tried the Two State method, and it failed. Terribly. I get the impression that the ruling elite in Israel has decided that plan B is just to slowly annex the West Bank until it's Israel in all but name, while brutally putting down any attacks while it happens.

    "Fighting Back" on the wrong geographical side of Israel is just entrenching Israeli population further in a non-compromising direction. If there is a path to a lasting peace that doesn't involve Israel absorbing the West Bank, please let me know what it might be. Something realistic. Reverting to 1967 borders with land swaps is not going to happen under current circumstances.

    So your position is "Well, they've probably got no chance so they should just roll over and take it"?

    No matter how realistic the position might be, I hope you can easily understand why it's not viewed as a real option by the Palestinians.

    Instead, they will do what every group in these situations does and keep fighting.

    Well, I think Israel's Plan B is not at all dependent on Palestinian opinion. If they don't fight, they lose land. If they do fight, they lose land even faster (and infrastructure and lives to boot.)

    I think they're screwed. At this point, I'm not sure even a deal that would give massive concessions from the Palestinians will divert the land grab. It seems that the only thing Palestinians would absolutely have to have in the agreement is a clause that stops this.

    But how would they even enforce it?

    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    Do the Palestinians think that they are going to get a better deal than what was offered in the 2000 Camp David Summit?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

    Yasar Arafat walked away from the deal, with support from his people. Barak was thought to have given too much in the deal, and it was a big factor in his losing the next election. Since that time, it's been my understanding that Israel has gone further to the right, and well, Gaza is straight up electing terrorists.

    I'd like to think that peace is possible, but it's not a peace that Palestinians will like. A lasting peace deal will be substantially worse than what was on offer in 2000. I'd like to be wrong, but I think History will find that walking away from that deal in 2000 was the end of a Two State Solution.

    Any peace will not be one the Israeli's like either, as demonstrated by their walking away from many negotiations since then.

    Whether the Palestinians can get a better deal then the 2000 is, perhaps, more a statement on the shitty deals that seem to be on offer.

    Right. But that's the only option Palestinians are going to get. You can't lose a war and expect better terms than when you started. That's not how it works. I doubt, seriously, that the Israeli people would stand for that.

    Israel will eventually have peace for its citizens. Israel tried the Two State method, and it failed. Terribly. I get the impression that the ruling elite in Israel has decided that plan B is just to slowly annex the West Bank until it's Israel in all but name, while brutally putting down any attacks while it happens.

    "Fighting Back" on the wrong geographical side of Israel is just entrenching Israeli population further in a non-compromising direction. If there is a path to a lasting peace that doesn't involve Israel absorbing the West Bank, please let me know what it might be. Something realistic. Reverting to 1967 borders with land swaps is not going to happen under current circumstances.

    So your position is "Well, they've probably got no chance so they should just roll over and take it"?

    No matter how realistic the position might be, I hope you can easily understand why it's not viewed as a real option by the Palestinians.

    Instead, they will do what every group in these situations does and keep fighting.

    Well, I think Israel's Plan B is not at all dependent on Palestinian opinion. If they don't fight, they lose land. If they do fight, they lose land even faster (and infrastructure and lives to boot.)

    I think they're screwed. At this point, I'm not sure even a deal that would give massive concessions from the Palestinians will divert the land grab. It seems that the only thing Palestinians would absolutely have to have in the agreement is a clause that stops this.

    But how would they even enforce it?

    Exactly. It doesn't actually matter what the Palestinians do, so why wouldn't they fight?

    This is also why you see alot of people laughing at the idea that Hamas is the one who has to make the first move here. Israel is the only one with a choice that actually matters in this situation.

  • Options
    PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited August 2014
    The real one. Active uniformed mainline combatants stop shooting at each other, everyone else does their job double time in the down time for easy shots. That's what a ceasefire means in real world application. Not the bullshit fantasy that everyone stops, that's always been a lie and fantasy sold to the rubes to make things look good. That's when the best units go to work.

    Let me guess, you also believe military advice and intelligence support means no boots on the ground. It's bullshit as well.

    So, under your definition, Hamas attacking IDF assets, say blowing up the Israel-Gaza barriers would also not be breaking the ceasefire?

    Phyphor on
  • Options
    DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    shryke wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    Do the Palestinians think that they are going to get a better deal than what was offered in the 2000 Camp David Summit?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

    Yasar Arafat walked away from the deal, with support from his people. Barak was thought to have given too much in the deal, and it was a big factor in his losing the next election. Since that time, it's been my understanding that Israel has gone further to the right, and well, Gaza is straight up electing terrorists.

    I'd like to think that peace is possible, but it's not a peace that Palestinians will like. A lasting peace deal will be substantially worse than what was on offer in 2000. I'd like to be wrong, but I think History will find that walking away from that deal in 2000 was the end of a Two State Solution.

    Any peace will not be one the Israeli's like either, as demonstrated by their walking away from many negotiations since then.

    Whether the Palestinians can get a better deal then the 2000 is, perhaps, more a statement on the shitty deals that seem to be on offer.

    Right. But that's the only option Palestinians are going to get. You can't lose a war and expect better terms than when you started. That's not how it works. I doubt, seriously, that the Israeli people would stand for that.

    Israel will eventually have peace for its citizens. Israel tried the Two State method, and it failed. Terribly. I get the impression that the ruling elite in Israel has decided that plan B is just to slowly annex the West Bank until it's Israel in all but name, while brutally putting down any attacks while it happens.

    "Fighting Back" on the wrong geographical side of Israel is just entrenching Israeli population further in a non-compromising direction. If there is a path to a lasting peace that doesn't involve Israel absorbing the West Bank, please let me know what it might be. Something realistic. Reverting to 1967 borders with land swaps is not going to happen under current circumstances.

    So your position is "Well, they've probably got no chance so they should just roll over and take it"?

    No matter how realistic the position might be, I hope you can easily understand why it's not viewed as a real option by the Palestinians.

    Instead, they will do what every group in these situations does and keep fighting.

    Well, I think Israel's Plan B is not at all dependent on Palestinian opinion. If they don't fight, they lose land. If they do fight, they lose land even faster (and infrastructure and lives to boot.)

    I think they're screwed. At this point, I'm not sure even a deal that would give massive concessions from the Palestinians will divert the land grab. It seems that the only thing Palestinians would absolutely have to have in the agreement is a clause that stops this.

    But how would they even enforce it?

    Exactly. It doesn't actually matter what the Palestinians do, so why wouldn't they fight?

    This is also why you see alot of people laughing at the idea that Hamas is the one who has to make the first move here. Israel is the only one with a choice that actually matters in this situation.

    Well, there's the issue that speaking of "Palestinians" as one people just doesn't seem to work. There are the people living in on the Gaza Strip, and there are the people living in the West Bank. They have different governments, and I think lumping them into the same group for this conflict unnecessarily muddies the waters.

    The West Bank is trying to go for peace. They were making progress, slowly, with the international community and the UN. By being peaceful, they could put themselves in a better bargaining position with Israel. No one wants an insane terrorist organization in their back yard. I'm sure people weren't ecstatic about the slow progress, but Israel is also playing the long game with the settlement incursion.

    The Gaza Strip is completely fucking the West Bank's plan by voting in Hamas, a terrorist organization. First of all, Hamas is not the government of the West Bank. They have no standing to attack Israel on the West Bank's behalf, and even if they did, attacking civilians is not in the least constructive. All Hamas is accomplishing is destroying the West Bank's progress, while killing Gaza Strip citizens.

    Hamas is directly acting against the people they *should* be responsible for governing, while harming the plans of the people on the West Bank. Even if their methods weren't abominable, you have to admit that their overall strategy is moronic.

    edit:
    Phyphor wrote: »
    The real one. Active uniformed mainline combatants stop shooting at each other, everyone else does their job double time in the down time for easy shots. That's what a ceasefire means in real world application. Not the bullshit fantasy that everyone stops, that's always been a lie and fantasy sold to the rubes to make things look good. That's when the best units go to work.

    Let me guess, you also believe military advice and intelligence support means no boots on the ground. It's bullshit as well.

    So, under your definition, Hamas attacking IDF assets, say blowing up the Israel-Gaza barriers would also not be breaking the ceasefire?

    Irrelevant. Hamas agreed to the ceasefire conditions, which included Israel continuing to destroy the tunnels. If the ceasefire conditions included destroying Israel barriers, fine. But they didn't.

    Derrick on
    Steam and CFN: Enexemander
  • Options
    BubbyBubby Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Bubby wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Bubby wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-second-guess-israel-gaza-hamas-2014-8

    Netanyahu's choice words for the Obama administration:
    "Don't you ever second guess me over Hamas again."
    "You need to keep your mouth shut and trust what I say on this and everything else."

    That article is bullshit. Wasn't it Israel that violated the cease-fire first?

    As I understand it, Israel sent its soldiers in to destroy tunnels during the ceasefire. Palestinians attacked them. Israel contends that destroying tunnels is not a violation of the cease fire

    It isn't.

    Sure it is. It's a military operation attacking a Hamas asset. Ceasefire doesn't mean you get to march in and blow up the other side's stuff. Unless Hamas gets to walk up to an IDF building, etc and plant their bombs without expecting to be attacked of course

    Fuck Hamas. They weren't killing or kidnapping anyone, they were destroying tunnels built specifically to cause harm. The continued existence of said tunnels should be a violation of the ceasefire, it shouldn't have even begun until they were all destroyed.

    So, Hamas was totally within their rights to destroy any and all Israeli military air fields, ammo dumps, etc. even if it killed IDF soldiers, during the exact same ceasefire, as well, right?

    No. They're terrorists. Also, if destruction of the tunnels was in the agreement like Derrick just said, that makes it look even worse for them.

    Bubby on
  • Options
    NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Bubby wrote: »
    No. They're terrorists.

    So is Israel, by any reasonable definition of the word.

  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Bubby wrote: »
    Bubby wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Bubby wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    http://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-to-kerry-second-guess-israel-gaza-hamas-2014-8

    Netanyahu's choice words for the Obama administration:
    "Don't you ever second guess me over Hamas again."
    "You need to keep your mouth shut and trust what I say on this and everything else."

    That article is bullshit. Wasn't it Israel that violated the cease-fire first?

    As I understand it, Israel sent its soldiers in to destroy tunnels during the ceasefire. Palestinians attacked them. Israel contends that destroying tunnels is not a violation of the cease fire

    It isn't.

    Sure it is. It's a military operation attacking a Hamas asset. Ceasefire doesn't mean you get to march in and blow up the other side's stuff. Unless Hamas gets to walk up to an IDF building, etc and plant their bombs without expecting to be attacked of course

    Fuck Hamas. They weren't killing or kidnapping anyone, they were destroying tunnels built specifically to cause harm. The continued existence of said tunnels should be a violation of the ceasefire, it shouldn't have even begun until they were all destroyed.

    So, Hamas was totally within their rights to destroy any and all Israeli military air fields, ammo dumps, etc. even if it killed IDF soldiers, during the exact same ceasefire, as well, right?

    No. They're terrorists. Also, if destruction of the tunnels was in the agreement like Derrick just said, that makes it look even worse for them.

    Israel was founded by terrorism, and has recently outright celebrated killing civilians, with the King David bombing anniversary, which included blaming the victims, to just add a cherry on top.

    At least you basically admit to being biased, but what is good for gooses should also be good for ganders.

  • Options
    PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    Do the Palestinians think that they are going to get a better deal than what was offered in the 2000 Camp David Summit?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

    Yasar Arafat walked away from the deal, with support from his people. Barak was thought to have given too much in the deal, and it was a big factor in his losing the next election. Since that time, it's been my understanding that Israel has gone further to the right, and well, Gaza is straight up electing terrorists.

    I'd like to think that peace is possible, but it's not a peace that Palestinians will like. A lasting peace deal will be substantially worse than what was on offer in 2000. I'd like to be wrong, but I think History will find that walking away from that deal in 2000 was the end of a Two State Solution.

    Any peace will not be one the Israeli's like either, as demonstrated by their walking away from many negotiations since then.

    Whether the Palestinians can get a better deal then the 2000 is, perhaps, more a statement on the shitty deals that seem to be on offer.

    Right. But that's the only option Palestinians are going to get. You can't lose a war and expect better terms than when you started. That's not how it works. I doubt, seriously, that the Israeli people would stand for that.

    Israel will eventually have peace for its citizens. Israel tried the Two State method, and it failed. Terribly. I get the impression that the ruling elite in Israel has decided that plan B is just to slowly annex the West Bank until it's Israel in all but name, while brutally putting down any attacks while it happens.

    "Fighting Back" on the wrong geographical side of Israel is just entrenching Israeli population further in a non-compromising direction. If there is a path to a lasting peace that doesn't involve Israel absorbing the West Bank, please let me know what it might be. Something realistic. Reverting to 1967 borders with land swaps is not going to happen under current circumstances.

    So your position is "Well, they've probably got no chance so they should just roll over and take it"?

    No matter how realistic the position might be, I hope you can easily understand why it's not viewed as a real option by the Palestinians.

    Instead, they will do what every group in these situations does and keep fighting.

    Well, I think Israel's Plan B is not at all dependent on Palestinian opinion. If they don't fight, they lose land. If they do fight, they lose land even faster (and infrastructure and lives to boot.)

    I think they're screwed. At this point, I'm not sure even a deal that would give massive concessions from the Palestinians will divert the land grab. It seems that the only thing Palestinians would absolutely have to have in the agreement is a clause that stops this.

    But how would they even enforce it?

    Exactly. It doesn't actually matter what the Palestinians do, so why wouldn't they fight?

    This is also why you see alot of people laughing at the idea that Hamas is the one who has to make the first move here. Israel is the only one with a choice that actually matters in this situation.

    Well, there's the issue that speaking of "Palestinians" as one people just doesn't seem to work. There are the people living in on the Gaza Strip, and there are the people living in the West Bank. They have different governments, and I think lumping them into the same group for this conflict unnecessarily muddies the waters.

    The West Bank is trying to go for peace. They were making progress, slowly, with the international community and the UN. By being peaceful, they could put themselves in a better bargaining position with Israel. No one wants an insane terrorist organization in their back yard. I'm sure people weren't ecstatic about the slow progress, but Israel is also playing the long game with the settlement incursion.

    The Gaza Strip is completely fucking the West Bank's plan by voting in Hamas, a terrorist organization. First of all, Hamas is not the government of the West Bank. They have no standing to attack Israel on the West Bank's behalf, and even if they did, attacking civilians is not in the least constructive. All Hamas is accomplishing is destroying the West Bank's progress, while killing Gaza Strip citizens.

    Hamas is directly acting against the people they *should* be responsible for governing, while harming the plans of the people on the West Bank. Even if their methods weren't abominable, you have to admit that their overall strategy is moronic.

    edit:
    Phyphor wrote: »
    The real one. Active uniformed mainline combatants stop shooting at each other, everyone else does their job double time in the down time for easy shots. That's what a ceasefire means in real world application. Not the bullshit fantasy that everyone stops, that's always been a lie and fantasy sold to the rubes to make things look good. That's when the best units go to work.

    Let me guess, you also believe military advice and intelligence support means no boots on the ground. It's bullshit as well.

    So, under your definition, Hamas attacking IDF assets, say blowing up the Israel-Gaza barriers would also not be breaking the ceasefire?

    Irrelevant. Hamas agreed to the ceasefire conditions, which included Israel continuing to destroy the tunnels. If the ceasefire conditions included destroying Israel barriers, fine. But they didn't.

    Certain tunnels, specifically those behind their defensive lines and leading into Israel. Without more details, I'm not really inclined to trust the IDF here given Israeli leaderships insistence it must destroy all of them

  • Options
    kedinikkedinik Captain of Industry Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    You're misreading the source that you cited earlier, Derrick. Hamas and Israel agreed on the idea of a humanitarian ceasefire in general, but not to the terms of it.
    Both Israel and Hamas have voiced openness to a truce, but their terms diverge dramatically. Israel wants Gaza stripped of infiltration tunnels and rocket stocks. Hamas rules that out. It seeks an end to a crippling Gaza blockade enforced by Israel and Egypt, which view the Palestinian Islamists as a security threat.

    ...

    In the absence of a deal, Israel has ordered its ground forces to focus on locating and destroying a warren of tunnels with which Hamas has menaced its southern towns and army bases.

    kedinik on
    I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
  • Options
    Big ClassyBig Classy Registered User regular
    Children killed by Israeli missiles as they queued for sweets. Third UN school targetted by Israel and people are still saying they're not deliberately targeting civilians.

  • Options
    KanaKana Registered User regular
    The Israeli army said it had targeted three members of Islamic Jihad on a motorbike near the school - contradicting witnesses who said they saw no vehicles - but was investigating the effects of the attack.

    Wait so even the official version of the attack is them saying they needed artillery or an airstrike to take out 3 guys sharing a motorbike?

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
  • Options
    Big ClassyBig Classy Registered User regular
    Who were not seen by witnesses in the immediate area. It's Israel making shit up again. Much like the three teens being kidnapped by Hamas. Or the soldier being captured by Hamas.

  • Options
    Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    But but but terrust human shields!

  • Options
    Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    Big Classy wrote: »
    Third UN school targetted by Israel and people are still saying they're not deliberately targeting civilians.
    Anyone remember this rapscallion?
    “They, unfortunately, did not comply three days ago,” Colonel Lerner said. “We don’t strike schools. We don’t strike U.N. facilities. We do not target the United Nations.”

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    In that case, they seem to miss what they are aiming at an awful lot.

    "Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down?
    That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun

  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    Shooting the hostages.

    In the house next door.

    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    This kind of "emotions vs logic" stuff belongs in Star Trek.

    Anyway, the attacks on U.N. stuff seem weird. It looks like some sort of undeclared Israel-U.N. warfare.

    PLA on
  • Options
    AustralopitenicoAustralopitenico Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »

    Well, there's the issue that speaking of "Palestinians" as one people just doesn't seem to work. There are the people living in on the Gaza Strip, and there are the people living in the West Bank. They have different governments, and I think lumping them into the same group for this conflict unnecessarily muddies the waters.

    The West Bank is trying to go for peace. They were making progress, slowly, with the international community and the UN. By being peaceful, they could put themselves in a better bargaining position with Israel. No one wants an insane terrorist organization in their back yard. I'm sure people weren't ecstatic about the slow progress, but Israel is also playing the long game with the settlement incursion.

    The Gaza Strip is completely fucking the West Bank's plan by voting in Hamas, a terrorist organization. First of all, Hamas is not the government of the West Bank. They have no standing to attack Israel on the West Bank's behalf, and even if they did, attacking civilians is not in the least constructive. All Hamas is accomplishing is destroying the West Bank's progress, while killing Gaza Strip citizens.

    Hamas is directly acting against the people they *should* be responsible for governing, while harming the plans of the people on the West Bank. Even if their methods weren't abominable, you have to admit that their overall strategy is moronic.

    I strongly object to the bolded part. Hamas is not killing Gaza strip citizens, Israel is killing a lot of them though. The fact that they decide to retaliate to Hamas operations by murdering completely unrelated civilians does not make Hamas responsible for those deaths.

  • Options
    MuddypawsMuddypaws Lactodorum, UKRegistered User regular

    That leaves pragmatism. I'd like the Jewish community to keep voting Democratic so we can win and get the donations, beat the Republicans at nation security, and Israel should be allowed the same leeway and can do this faster. So for the good of the party and the fastest solution, take the gloves off and end this farce. With 2016 on the horizon and the need for another D in the White House, screw it let the blood flow.

    I have a really hard time believing you have the good of the Democratic Party in mind when you happily give the Fonzie thumbs up to Israeli war crimes and genocide on their behalf.

  • Options
    MuddypawsMuddypaws Lactodorum, UKRegistered User regular
    Also, going by Ferrets logic, all of Ireland should be a glassy waste by now populated only by settlers from Manchester and Liverpool.

  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gaza-crisis-130-palestinians-killed-israels-hannibal-directive-rescue-operation-hadar-1459601
    More than 130 Palestinians were killed during the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) execution of the controversial "Hannibal Directive" to rescue captured soldier Hadar Goldin, according to Palestinian sources.

    The protocol orders the use of any force necessary to rescue a captured soldier, even if it means endangering the life of the soldier himself.

    Following Goldin's suspected capture in a tunnel operation conducted in the Rafah area, the IDF launched a bombardment of the Rafah area to prevent his captors' escape.

    A senior officer told Haaretz that "a great deal of fire was used in the area, and targets were attacked" following the incident. Palestinian reports claim that the Israeli strikes targeted vehicles, including ambulances, heading for Rafah hospital.

    The IDF source confirmed that all firepower in the southern Gaza Strip was sent to the Rafah area to carry out the directive. Heavy fire came from tank shelling, artillery bombardments and air strikes to isolate the area where Goldin was suspected to be held, according to Haaretz.

    The IDF has admitted that innocents were killed as a result of the huge use of force and now claims that Goldin was killed in the tunnel operation and not whisked away to Rafah.

    Over an hour into an agreed ceasefire, the IDF claims that the Givati Brigade undertaking the tunnel operation came under intense fire, killing two officers. Hamas said that the attempted capture of Goldin in the tunnel operation took place before the morning ceasefire began.

    The protocol is founded on a fear that any captive Israeli will be used as a bargaining chip, like Gilad Shalit, who was captured in 2006 and held for five years before being released in return for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners.

    The directive - named after the Carthaginian general who killed himself with poison rather than be captured by the Romans - is founded on the belief that a soldier is better dead than in captivity, a view elucidated by Shaul Mofaz, former IDF chief of staff.

    "In certain senses, with all the pain that saying this entails, an abducted soldier, in contrast to a soldier who has been killed, is a national problem," he told Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth.

    Gaza health officials said that over 1,800 Palestinians - mostly civilians - have been killed in the IDF's 'Operation Protective Edge' with more than 9,000 injured. The Israeli military confirmed that 64 soldiers had been killed in the conflict as well as two Israeli civilians and a Thai national.

    There appears to have been a terrorist attack.
    A construction vehicle slammed into a bus in Jerusalem on Monday, overturning it, in what police described as a possible terrorist attack.

    The Magen David Adom ambulance service said no passengers were on the bus when it was hit. It said two people were injured in the incident, in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighbourhood of the city, Reuters reported.

    A police spokesman said a policeman shot at the construction vehicle's driver, "neutralising him", but did not elaborate on his condition. "It looks like a terrorist attack," the spokesman added.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    On a side note: Dear Newspapers, please don't use puns in the headlines for articles about war/terrorism/etc. News about the shelling of an UN school should not start with "Israel feels UNloved".

  • Options
    Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Disgruntled truck driver now qualifies for a terrorist attack? I wish the thousands of other victims around the world would have been so lucky...
    Good thing he didn't cause more harm I guess.

    As for IDF rather offing their own guys than let them survive a failed agression? Israel should be pretty ok with the concept of suicide attacks then? At least they accomplished something in turning a rather large area (and the people living there) to sand in the process though... ^^ Makes future settlement construction easier.

    Panda4You on
  • Options
    honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    honovere wrote: »
    On a side note: Dear Newspapers, please don't use puns in the headlines for articles about war/terrorism/etc. News about the shelling of an UN school should not start with "Israel feels UNloved".

    edit: Also, wow, that Hannibal doctrine is fucked up.

    edit again: sorry, wrong button.

    honovere on
  • Options
    [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    Panda4You wrote: »
    Disgruntled truck driver now qualifies for a terrorist attack? I wish the thousands of other victims around the world would have been so lucky...
    Good thing he didn't cause more harm I guess.

    It was events like these that preceded the first intifada, in the last 80s. There was no structure behind it, but individual Arabs started attacking Jews, soldiers and civilians, basically at random. Knife attacks, shooting, beatings- this was when the populations were much more integrated, before the "security barrier" and the host of checkpoints.

    There are around 1.7 million arabs living in Israel, and many thousands more come from the West Bank to work on a daily basis. These people do not usually revolt; they have decent jobs and want to keep them. But their combined power is significant; if all of them went on strike it would cause major problems for Israel, let alone a violent uprising.

    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    PLA wrote: »
    This kind of "emotions vs logic" stuff belongs in Star Trek.

    Anyway, the attacks on U.N. stuff seem weird. It looks like some sort of undeclared Israel-U.N. warfare.

    I think that's what it is on the ground. I think the IDF doesn't like the UN at all because they keep criticizing them and so the IDF no effort to safeguard their personnel or facilities or avoiding shooting them.

  • Options
    Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gaza-crisis-130-palestinians-killed-israels-hannibal-directive-rescue-operation-hadar-1459601
    More than 130 Palestinians were killed during the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) execution of the controversial "Hannibal Directive" to rescue captured soldier Hadar Goldin, according to Palestinian sources.

    The protocol orders the use of any force necessary to rescue a captured soldier, even if it means endangering the life of the soldier himself.

    Following Goldin's suspected capture in a tunnel operation conducted in the Rafah area, the IDF launched a bombardment of the Rafah area to prevent his captors' escape.

    A senior officer told Haaretz that "a great deal of fire was used in the area, and targets were attacked" following the incident. Palestinian reports claim that the Israeli strikes targeted vehicles, including ambulances, heading for Rafah hospital.

    The IDF source confirmed that all firepower in the southern Gaza Strip was sent to the Rafah area to carry out the directive. Heavy fire came from tank shelling, artillery bombardments and air strikes to isolate the area where Goldin was suspected to be held, according to Haaretz.

    The IDF has admitted that innocents were killed as a result of the huge use of force and now claims that Goldin was killed in the tunnel operation and not whisked away to Rafah.

    Over an hour into an agreed ceasefire, the IDF claims that the Givati Brigade undertaking the tunnel operation came under intense fire, killing two officers. Hamas said that the attempted capture of Goldin in the tunnel operation took place before the morning ceasefire began.

    The protocol is founded on a fear that any captive Israeli will be used as a bargaining chip, like Gilad Shalit, who was captured in 2006 and held for five years before being released in return for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners.

    The directive - named after the Carthaginian general who killed himself with poison rather than be captured by the Romans - is founded on the belief that a soldier is better dead than in captivity, a view elucidated by Shaul Mofaz, former IDF chief of staff.

    "In certain senses, with all the pain that saying this entails, an abducted soldier, in contrast to a soldier who has been killed, is a national problem," he told Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth.

    Gaza health officials said that over 1,800 Palestinians - mostly civilians - have been killed in the IDF's 'Operation Protective Edge' with more than 9,000 injured. The Israeli military confirmed that 64 soldiers had been killed in the conflict as well as two Israeli civilians and a Thai national.

    There appears to have been a terrorist attack.
    A construction vehicle slammed into a bus in Jerusalem on Monday, overturning it, in what police described as a possible terrorist attack.

    The Magen David Adom ambulance service said no passengers were on the bus when it was hit. It said two people were injured in the incident, in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighbourhood of the city, Reuters reported.

    A police spokesman said a policeman shot at the construction vehicle's driver, "neutralising him", but did not elaborate on his condition. "It looks like a terrorist attack," the spokesman added.

    Wow... It must be good to know, as a soldier, that if you get captured, your brothers in arms will do whatever it takes, use whatever means necessary, and risk as many lives as needed to murder you.

    No soldier gets left behind... Alive.

  • Options
    Big ClassyBig Classy Registered User regular
    Yeah even if it means killing their own soldier. Or when they know said 'captured' soldier is actually dead. Or hell, just because they damn well feel like leveling the entire city.

  • Options
    KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Also, is it just me or does the Hannibal Directive sound like something a super-villain would come up with?

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • Options
    JazzJazz Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Also, is it just me or does the Hannibal Directive sound like something a super-villain would come up with?

    Isn't Netanyahu a supervillain?
    His superpower is the US.

  • Options
    Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Also, is it just me or does the Hannibal Directive sound like something a super-villain would come up with?

    Well, the policy itself sounds like it was developed by Megatron, so...

  • Options
    PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Motivating the enemy to take no prisoners sounds legit.

Sign In or Register to comment.