Under fire


Off-Topic Discussions

801 to 850 of 1,056 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:

So I will ask again, in as clear a language as I can.

If the Palestinians have a right to kill Israelis, as you say they do, do the Israelis have a right to kill Palestinians that are trying to kill them?

So, you realize that we can *see* his post, right? The one where he specifically answered this question and explained his answer? Why are you asking again?


BigNorseWolf wrote:

could have missed an election but

Political groups
Hamas (74)
Fatah (45)
PFLP (3)
Palestinian People's Party (1)
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (1)
Independent Palestine (2)
Third Way (2)
Independents (4)
Linky

Yeah, you missed an election. The link you provided . . . look at the first paragraph of that page. Then look at the third sentence: "Since January 2013, the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority rebranded itself as the State of Palestine in official documents . . . . "

A couple paragraphs lower . . . "After the Gaza Strip was taken over by Hamas on 14 June 2007, the Authority's Chairman Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the Hamas-led government and appointed Salam Fayyad as Prime Minister."

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
If the Palestinians have a right to kill Israelis, as you say they do, do the Israelis have a right to kill Palestinians that are trying to kill them?
No.

And that right there is why you and I will never see eye to eye on the issue.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Which is like coke saying "we won't have sugar in the water anymore" Hamas has 3 things,

1) we hate israel
2) We're not the Fatah party that let you down and
3) An oddly competent crisis response team. Israel blew up your house? here's a dozer. Killed by isreali bombs? Here's a check. Relative ofa suicide bomber? Oh look, this suitcase of cash fell off the back of my truck. Here you go ma'm. Seriously, reading up on those guys i would have invited them to do new orleans...

You're treating Hamas like a single entity. Its not. Its 2 family feuds away from being an autonomous collective.

So what I'm hearing is that you aren't recognizing the difference between "can't" and "won't."

I can't fly my truck Mach 3. Ain't gonna happen.
I won't drive my truck 100 mph. I'm pretty sure it can go that fast, but I'm not going to do it.

Hamas CAN stop firing rockets. Hamas WON'T stop firing rockets.

See the difference?


ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
If the Palestinians have a right to kill Israelis, as you say they do, do the Israelis have a right to kill Palestinians that are trying to kill them?
No.
And that right there is why you and I will never see eye to eye on the issue.

So can the palastinians fire rockets at the people trying to kill them?

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
If the Palestinians have a right to kill Israelis, as you say they do, do the Israelis have a right to kill Palestinians that are trying to kill them?
No.
And that right there is why you and I will never see eye to eye on the issue.
So can the palastinians fire rockets at the people trying to kill them?

Yes. I believe that a person always has the right to defend their own life, regardless of other circumstances. Now I do believe that some people don't deserve to live, but to me that is a different thing. (And no, that does not include Palestinians before you ask.)

However, do you believe that, outside of the time of active war (ie. before this conflict started), that Israel is actively attempting to kill them? Because if they are, it seems that Israel must be pretty bad at it.


ShadowcatX wrote:


However, do you believe that, outside of the time of active war (ie. before this conflict started), that Israel is actively attempting to kill them? Because if they are, it seems that Israel must be pretty bad at it.

How many would Israel have to kill before palestinians can fire rockets at them? Seeing as how the number of dead civilian israelis in the current wave in the genocide is one, I would assume that you see one as enogh?

Because the numbers are at least in the double digits

Link to full statistical breakdown and analysis


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doug's Workshop wrote:

A couple paragraphs lower . . . "After the Gaza Strip was taken over by Hamas on 14 June 2007, the Authority's Chairman Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the Hamas-led government and appointed Salam Fayyad as Prime Minister."

Which, since he couldn't legally do (the take over was via democratic election), the Palestinians ignored him and have a Hamas government anyway. I don't see how they're "Fatah controlled" but with a majority Hamas parliament, except for the fact that we don't recognize hamas at all as anything other than a terrorist group and legally have to deal with someone else.

Liberty's Edge

Gaberlunzie wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


However, do you believe that, outside of the time of active war (ie. before this conflict started), that Israel is actively attempting to kill them? Because if they are, it seems that Israel must be pretty bad at it.

How many would Israel have to kill before palestinians can fire rockets at them? Seeing as how the number of dead civilian israelis in the current wave in the genocide is one, I would assume that you see one as enogh?

Because the numbers are at least in the double digits

Link to full statistical breakdown and analysis

First, let me point out that your language is loaded. Second, the number of Israeli civilian casualties as one is interesting, considering this started because of the kidnapping and death of 3 people who, as far as I know, were civilians. But, math is hard, I know. That aside. . .

(ETA: links to a site that are extremely biased in their reporting don't help your case btw. Just because it is on the internet, doesn't make it true.)

Do you realize what the word "try" means? If someone takes your life it is impossible to fight back and defend yourself.

Perhaps I can explain my point of view adequately if we don't use country names.

Country A and B are neighbors. Nothing is happening between country A and B. Everything is rocking along, peaceful like, and they're all singing kumbyya. Country A takes an action which causes people in country B to be either killed or at risk of being killed. Citizens in country B have an absolute right to attack the people in country A who are putting them at risk. The people in country A, however, are not required to roll over and die, they are completely allowed to fight back against the people in country B who are attempting to kill them.


Doug's Workshop wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Which is like coke saying "we won't have sugar in the water anymore" Hamas has 3 things,

1) we hate israel
2) We're not the Fatah party that let you down and
3) An oddly competent crisis response team. Israel blew up your house? here's a dozer. Killed by isreali bombs? Here's a check. Relative ofa suicide bomber? Oh look, this suitcase of cash fell off the back of my truck. Here you go ma'm. Seriously, reading up on those guys i would have invited them to do new orleans...

You're treating Hamas like a single entity. Its not. Its 2 family feuds away from being an autonomous collective.

So what I'm hearing is that you aren't recognizing the difference between "can't" and "won't."

I can't fly my truck Mach 3. Ain't gonna happen.
I won't drive my truck 100 mph. I'm pretty sure it can go that fast, but I'm not going to do it.

Hamas CAN stop firing rockets. Hamas WON'T stop firing rockets.

See the difference?

except there are more movements in Palestine than just hamas. Any of their rivals could be firing rockets because they know hamas will be blamed, also anyone seeking vengeance could just decide to open fire regardless of their feelings on hamas.

Despite strong attempts to portray otherwise, there is more to palastinians than just Cobra-La Hamas


ShadowcatX wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


However, do you believe that, outside of the time of active war (ie. before this conflict started), that Israel is actively attempting to kill them? Because if they are, it seems that Israel must be pretty bad at it.

How many would Israel have to kill before palestinians can fire rockets at them? Seeing as how the number of dead civilian israelis in the current wave in the genocide is one, I would assume that you see one as enogh?

Because the numbers are at least in the double digits

Link to full statistical breakdown and analysis

First, let me point out that your language is loaded.

As is yours.

Quote:
Second, the number of Israeli civilian casualties as one is interesting, considering this started because of the kidnapping and death of 3 people who, as far as I know, were civilians. But, math is hard, I know.

We've got one person on the other side saying it wasn't hamas. Not exactly slam dunk evidence, but still.

Quote:


Country A and B are neighbors. Nothing is happening between country A and B. Everything is rocking along, peaceful like, and they're all singing kumbyya.

Yup, loaded.

Liberty's Edge

Freehold DM wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


Country A and B are neighbors. Nothing is happening between country A and B. Everything is rocking along, peaceful like, and they're all singing kumbyya.
Yup, loaded.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.


Andrew R wrote:
Doug's Workshop wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Which is like coke saying "we won't have sugar in the water anymore" Hamas has 3 things,

1) we hate israel
2) We're not the Fatah party that let you down and
3) An oddly competent crisis response team. Israel blew up your house? here's a dozer. Killed by isreali bombs? Here's a check. Relative ofa suicide bomber? Oh look, this suitcase of cash fell off the back of my truck. Here you go ma'm. Seriously, reading up on those guys i would have invited them to do new orleans...

You're treating Hamas like a single entity. Its not. Its 2 family feuds away from being an autonomous collective.

So what I'm hearing is that you aren't recognizing the difference between "can't" and "won't."

I can't fly my truck Mach 3. Ain't gonna happen.
I won't drive my truck 100 mph. I'm pretty sure it can go that fast, but I'm not going to do it.

Hamas CAN stop firing rockets. Hamas WON'T stop firing rockets.

See the difference?

By that logic America should raze mexico since it's citizens have committed violence against ours even if it was not the governments action, they did not stop it.....

America already did that. I believe the store is US 2, Mexico 0.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


However, do you believe that, outside of the time of active war (ie. before this conflict started), that Israel is actively attempting to kill them? Because if they are, it seems that Israel must be pretty bad at it.

How many would Israel have to kill before palestinians can fire rockets at them? Seeing as how the number of dead civilian israelis in the current wave in the genocide is one, I would assume that you see one as enogh?

Because the numbers are at least in the double digits

Link to full statistical breakdown and analysis

First, let me point out that your language is loaded. Second, the number of Israeli civilian casualties as one is interesting, considering this started because of the kidnapping and death of 3 people who, as far as I know, were civilians. But, math is hard, I know. That aside. . .

(ETA: links to a site that are extremely biased in their reporting don't help your case btw. Just because it is on the internet, doesn't make it true.)

Do you realize what the word "try" means? If someone takes your life it is impossible to fight back and defend yourself.

Perhaps I can explain my point of view adequately if we don't use country names.

Country A and B are neighbors. Nothing is happening between country A and B. Everything is rocking along, peaceful like, and they're all singing kumbyya. Country A takes an action which causes people in country B to be either killed or at risk of being killed. Citizens in country B have an absolute right to attack the people in country A who are putting them at risk. The people in country A, however, are not required to roll over and die, they are completely allowed to fight back against the people in country B who are attempting to kill them.

It's a matter of proportional force. I would agree that Israel has the right to fight back against Hamas or other groups that attack it. They also have a responsibility not to use disproportionate force.

Hamas was largely holding to the truce. The other groups were a nuisance, not a significant threat. The response, not merely in terms of casualties, but in infrastructure damage, was far out of line with any realistic threat. Gaza's main power station has been destroyed. Its hospitals are ruined. Its water supply and sewage facilities are gone. Even with international aid it's likely that the casualties from disease and general hardship in the next few months will exceed those directly killed by Israel.

And nothing has been accomplished. Another wave of Palestinians have more reason to hate Israel. More rockets were fired at Israel in the first week of conflict than in the last year and a half. World opinion has shifted further against Israel as horrific images have come out of Gaza.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
It's a matter of proportional force. I would agree that Israel has the right to fight back against Hamas or other groups that attack it. They also have a responsibility not to use disproportionate force.

I don't think that I actually agree with your actual wording, but if you mean that they should limit civilian casualties and damage to the civilian infrastructure as much as is reasonably possible while not endangering themselves, I agree with the idea.

Quote:
Hamas was largely holding to the truce.

Both sides were "largely holding to the truce".

Quote:
The other groups were a nuisance, not a significant threat.

I would love to see how significant a threat has to be to be "significant", but that is beside the point.

Quote:
The response, not merely in terms of casualties, but in infrastructure damage, was far out of line with any realistic threat.

I agree with this, but I disagree with your unspoken assumption that the damage caused by Israel during the attack is entirely and solely Israel's fault. Both sides are to blame for the civilian deaths present and future, both sides are to blame for the infrastructure damage.

Quote:
And nothing has been accomplished.

Here I disagree again. Nothing has been accomplished with regards to long term goals, certainly, but many people who were actively working against Israel are dead and their works are in shambles. It is a victory in the short term.

Quote:
More rockets were fired at Israel in the first week of conflict than in the last year and a half.

I don't think this actually matters. When you're at war, you expect to be attacked and accept it. You don't hold it against the people who attack you, a lesson America learned during the WWII era.

Quote:
World opinion has shifted further against Israel as horrific images have come out of Gaza.

This is probably the biggest problem for Israel that has come out of all this mess, but realistically, do you think it will impact things in the long run? So long as Israel makes a show of providing power and water in the next few weeks, and keeps their nose relatively clean for the next few years (or at least until the next season of American Idol), this will all be forgotten by people around the world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
More rockets were fired at Israel in the first week of conflict than in the last year and a half.
I don't think this actually matters. When you're at war, you expect to be attacked and accept it. You don't hold it against the people who attack you, a lesson America learned during the WWII Era

It matters if your justification for the attack is the rockets attacks.

Peace decreases rocket attacks. War increases them. If your goal is to decrease them, don't provoke the war.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
More rockets were fired at Israel in the first week of conflict than in the last year and a half.
I don't think this actually matters. When you're at war, you expect to be attacked and accept it. You don't hold it against the people who attack you, a lesson America learned during the WWII Era

It matters if your justification for the attack is the rockets attacks.

Peace decreases rocket attacks. War increases them. If your goal is to decrease them, don't provoke the war.

There is a difference in peace time rocket attacks and war time rocket attacks. There is also a lack of proof that Israel is solely responsible for the war.


ShadowcatX wrote:
There is also a lack of proof that Israel is solely responsible for the war.

ShadowcatX - just for clarity, are you referring to the overall conflict, or specifically to Protective Edge here?


I'd say nobody is solely responsible for anything in that conflict. There's always something the other side did that gives you an excuse if you're looking for one.

Liberty's Edge

Mark Sweetman wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
There is also a lack of proof that Israel is solely responsible for the war.
ShadowcatX - just for clarity, are you referring to the overall conflict, or specifically to Protective Edge here?

I was actually referring to the protective edge, but it goes to the over all conflict as well.


This is basically the exact same conflict that started in 1957 when Jordan, Egypt, and Syria invaded. It seems that that is being forgotten. This fight is basically perpetual.


Apparently, while I was at work Israel revealed that they arrested a suspect in the yeshiva student murder three weeks ago.

I am linking Slate because a) I have no idea where it falls in the Zionist/Liberal/Commie/Islamist/Pamela Geller propaganda spectrum; and, b) it was the first one that popped up on google when I searched the dude's name:

Israel Says It Has Arrested the Suspected Ringleader in Murder of Three Israeli Teenagers

For comparison, here's what the commie/terrorist/Islamist half of the thread was saying a whiles back:

Claim that Hamas killed 3 teens is turning out to be the WMD of Gaza onslaught

I believe Comrade Giant had posted an article above, from the New York Times or something, that quoted from the same Beeb reporter and included updates.


Also, I realized that I forgot to give a plug for Trotsky when all that Sykes-Picot talk was flying about earlier. The existence of Sykes-Picot was only revealed to the world--and would give Claude Rains another memorable role--when Comrade Leon, as Commissar of Foreign Relations in the freshly minted Bolshevik government, published all the secret dirty deals that could be found in the offices of Citizen K(e)rensky and friends.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
How many would Israel have to kill before palestinians can fire rockets at them? Seeing as how the number of dead civilian israelis in the current wave in the genocide is one

Last I heard, since the beginning of Protective Edge, it was three.

I may be wrong, but I heard it was: an Israeli civilian who was visiting the front lines; a Thai guest worker who was somehow prevented from seeking shelter by his employer; one of those Bedoiun dudes whom Israel refused to cover with Iron Dome. If it even works.


zagnabbit wrote:
This is basically the exact same conflict that started in 1957 when Jordan, Egypt, and Syria invaded. It seems that that is being forgotten. This fight is basically perpetual.

Not quite - I think you're referring to the 'Six Day War'? - which was actually in 1967. At any rate the roots go way way back far further than that - back even as far as biblical times depending on how you view it.

ShadowcatX wrote:
I was actually referring to the protective edge, but it goes to the over all conflict as well.

Overall conflict - no argument.

Current conflict - I'm not going to use the word solely, but would assert that the flare-up was in a large part cynically driven from the Israeli side. All of the references have been previously written - but Lord Snow puts it pretty well.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Here I disagree again. Nothing has been accomplished with regards to long term goals, certainly, but many people who were actively working against Israel are dead and their works are in shambles. It is a victory in the short term.

The problem here could be that noone is thinking long term.


It's interesting, because I doubt people like Doug would see god hates sweden as a reason for the Swedish military to mass-bomb the US.


Oh no. The fact that bigoted and hateful fanatics REALLY don't like us is a point of sincere pride for me. No mass bombing here.

Liberty's Edge

I personally have no problems with you sending the bikini ninjas to deal with the Phelps family.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Oh no. The fact that bigoted and hateful fanatics REALLY don't like us is a point of sincere pride for me. No mass bombing here.

I seem to recall a quote about being known by the enemies you make . . . .


Krensky wrote:
I personally have no problems with you sending the bikini ninjas to deal with the Phelps family.

Believe me, there is NOTHING we could be doing that hurts the Phelpses worse than what we are doing. Ninjas would only justify them.

801 to 850 of 1,056 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Under fire All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.