Israel's latest "self defence" kills several civilians

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
Israel's latest "self defence" kills several civilians

danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1580
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
You choose to purposefully highlight . . what ?

  OP --    You choose to purposefully highlite collateral damage , is not that so ? Am I missing something in this ? I didnt hear the original story so I am admittedly fuzzy on the details.  It sounded has if interceptor(s) were launched in response to an attack (I only heard over the short-wave). From what I did hear an Israeli missile(s) has to be launched from the Iron Dome air defense system, designed to intercept and destroy incoming short-range rockets and artillery shells, in southern Israeli-Gaza border in direct response to a rocket launched from the nearby Gaza Strip on Nov. 17, 2012 (if I have the date straight). Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (I disclosed my news source). Would you care to comment further on what your point is ?

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Civilians die in war. If

 Civilians die in war. If you don't want civilians to die, don't start wars. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
"When Israelis in the

"When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing... You can't defend yourself when you're militarily occupying someone else's land. That's not defense. Call it what you like, it's not defense."

~ Noam Chomsky

 



jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Not sure what to say about

Not sure what to say about this. It reads like a few homemade missiles got launched and brought forth days of bombing and shelling with top of the line military hardware (much of which Israel gets from the US).

Seems like using a machine gun to kill flies.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I started another thread not

I started another thread not realizing this one had been started.

 

But I am with you J. It is like swatting flies with a sledghammer.

 

It might make sense if long ago there was some difinitive solution to all this. But the real solution to all this has to be a focus on getting the world to understand human tribalism based on religion. Now Isreal doesn't get a pass on this issue. They don't simply want to be a secular state, they want to be a Jewish state. I am tired of them claiming "We are westernized". Yea, and that is why the west sides with Isreal, but that does not mean your friends shouldn't criticise you.

The other aspect is to go beyond what we are doing and cut off difinitively the theocracies that fund the nuts in Palistine that hold their innocent population hostage.

I am tired of either side saying "this is boarder not religious. BULL FUCKING SHIT! While you could find secular minds on both sides, if neither the Hebrew faith or Islam had been invented at all this shit wouldn't be happening at all.

So what you need to to long term is look at it as a conditions issue and not a boarder or label issue. You stick an urban population into what basically amounts to a prision, of course they are going to recat.  But conversely, you shoot at a cop with a 22 he may come back at you with his fellow cops.

This tension is no different than the mistrust of poor pockets of a big city of law inforcement. The cops get to the point where they don't want to go in, but when they do their is so much mistrust of that population that they will lump all of tha population in with the gang members.

I am way beyond giving a shit at this point other than they need to stop, PERIOD!.

"It's not that easy", yep, so they continue to repeat and repeat and repeat, and stick the rest of the world into it crying poor me.

I am sick of this shit. I wonder how quickly they would get along if an army of 1 million atheists invaded both sides and outlawed religion? Not that that would happen, or should happen. But damn. It is like they are stuck in a time warp.

I wonder how much of the global military industry complex plays both sides off of each other to make a profet?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:"When

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

"When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing... You can't defend yourself when you're militarily occupying someone else's land. That's not defense. Call it what you like, it's not defense."

~ Noam Chomsky

 


The Palestinians want to drive Israel into the sea my ass.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I would hardly describe

 I would hardly describe over 800 artillery rounds as a "handful", nor are the weapons they are using "homemade" they use 35-50 kg rockets that have a range of up to 20 km. They have also fired somewhere around half a dozen Fajr 5's which boasts a 175kg warhead and have a range of up to 75km (those are the ones that have been shot down by the "Iron Dome&quotEye-wink. The weapons are dated in the sense that they are pretty much based on cold war era technology and are extremely inaccurate, while the Israelis have a clear technological advantage. That doesn't mean they are not dangerous.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:"When

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

"When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing... You can't defend yourself when you're militarily occupying someone else's land. That's not defense. Call it what you like, it's not defense."

~ Noam Chomsky

 


I would recommend surrender, or a significant change in tactics. Obviously the Palestinian's method of launching random rockets isn't working.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I would hardly describe over 800 artillery rounds as a "handful", nor are the weapons they are using "homemade" they use 35-50 kg rockets that have a range of up to 20 km. They have also fired somewhere around half a dozen Fajr 5's which boasts a 175kg warhead and have a range of up to 75km (those are the ones that have been shot down by the "Iron Dome&quotEye-wink. The weapons are dated in the sense that they are pretty much based on cold war era technology and are extremely inaccurate, while the Israelis have a clear technological advantage. That doesn't mean they are not dangerous.

I never used the term "handful of artillery shells" - Israel is drowning them in artillery shells. 

The Palestinian rockets (Qassams) are homemade (meaning that they make the payload and propellent themselves instead of importing top of the line hardware). They're glorified fertilizer bombs. That doesn't say they're not deadly. They just don't compare to a fully supplied military bombarding them daily.

Not sure about the Fair 5's (suspect Israeli propaganda there along the lines of Hamas being the only ones using human shields).

Both sides need to stop this bullshit.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

"When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing... You can't defend yourself when you're militarily occupying someone else's land. That's not defense. Call it what you like, it's not defense."

~ Noam Chomsky

 


I would recommend surrender, or a significant change in tactics. Obviously the Palestinian's method of launching random rockets isn't working.

"Surrender" being taken as a polite euphemism for "Please finish wiping us out"? I agree with you though - random missile attacks don't work well against continual carpet bombing.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline

GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 I believe one of the major

 I believe one of the major issues here is that a large part of the missiles used area supplied by Eqypt. After the Arab Spring, and with a new islamic Government, Egypt holds the cards here on how any form of ceasefire will pan out. So far it appears to be holding, but Egypt will have to stop its armament of Hamas if Israel is to agree to a permanent ceasefire, and look towards a two state solution.

As long as under-armed people are prepared to sacrifice themselves and others for a god that doesn't exist, this place will keep getting fucked on.

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Civilians die in war. If you don't want civilians to die, don't start wars. 

Right, stick a bunch of civilians in what amounts to a cramped prision beat the crap out of them everyso often to keep them in line and naw, they'll understand.

Evything in you bubble world fits nicely into "what should be", but reality is much more complex. And I am damned sure glad Hillary and Obama are handling this and not you. You'd get us into another war.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Hamas won't do that.I find

Hamas won't do that.

I find Beyond Saving's first two posts to be a bit salient on this one problem, save for one thing; he assumes a change in tactics is feasible. Neither side is interested in diplomacy or at least have not shown any interest in a diplomatic means to an end, and Israel is dead set allowing jews to settle the west bank... amongst people that would rather kill them.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:And I am

Brian37 wrote:

And I am damned sure glad Hillary and Obama are handling this and not you. You'd get us into another war.

How does anything I ever said suggest that I would get us into another war???  I am far more of a pacifist than Obama- I don't know how the anti-war crowd can continuing singing his praises as he has done nothing to speed our departure from our current wars and has significantly stepped up our attacks in other theaters such as Pakistan and Libya. I don't think we should have anything to do with the situation, let them work it out themselves. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

And I am damned sure glad Hillary and Obama are handling this and not you. You'd get us into another war.

How does anything I ever said suggest that I would get us into another war???  I am far more of a pacifist than Obama- I don't know how the anti-war crowd can continuing singing his praises as he has done nothing to speed our departure from our current wars and has significantly stepped up our attacks in other theaters such as Pakistan and Libya. I don't think we should have anything to do with the situation, let them work it out themselves. 

Can we start by taking the business aspect out of it, i.e. get US defense contractors to stop selling arms to Israel? Hard to stop a one-sided conflict if that side keeps getting resupplied.

If Egypt were supplying missiles to Hamas, they'd be getting better stuff. This makes me think that the Palestinian missiles are mostly home-made.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Egypt was acting as a

 Egypt was acting as a trade route for missiles and other arms, if not selling the arms itself. Iran has admitted providing armament, and there is evidence of Chinese-manufactured weapons being used by Hamas too.

Hamas builds its own Qassam rocket-propelled grenades as well.

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Can we start

jcgadfly wrote:

Can we start by taking the business aspect out of it, i.e. get US defense contractors to stop selling arms to Israel? Hard to stop a one-sided conflict if that side keeps getting resupplied.

If Egypt were supplying missiles to Hamas, they'd be getting better stuff. This makes me think that the Palestinian missiles are mostly home-made.

I have no problem cutting out all foreign aid to all countries, there is no reason for us to give money away simply because we have it (especially since we don't actually have it). OTOH I see no reason to cut our military ties with Israel as far as cooperative R&D, purchasing weapons from them, selling weapons to them and engaging in cooperative training exercises. The war over there isn't going to stop no matter what we do, so we might as well profit from it.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Can we start by taking the business aspect out of it, i.e. get US defense contractors to stop selling arms to Israel? Hard to stop a one-sided conflict if that side keeps getting resupplied.

If Egypt were supplying missiles to Hamas, they'd be getting better stuff. This makes me think that the Palestinian missiles are mostly home-made.

I have no problem cutting out all foreign aid to all countries, there is no reason for us to give money away simply because we have it (especially since we don't actually have it). OTOH I see no reason to cut our military ties with Israel as far as cooperative R&D, purchasing weapons from them, selling weapons to them and engaging in cooperative training exercises. The war over there isn't going to stop no matter what we do, so we might as well profit from it.  

In other words you have no problem spending money we don't have on Israel because a few defense contractors make some money? The US certainly isn't making money on the deal.

Have you branched out into defense contracting?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Beyond Saving

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Can we start by taking the business aspect out of it, i.e. get US defense contractors to stop selling arms to Israel? Hard to stop a one-sided conflict if that side keeps getting resupplied.

If Egypt were supplying missiles to Hamas, they'd be getting better stuff. This makes me think that the Palestinian missiles are mostly home-made.

I have no problem cutting out all foreign aid to all countries, there is no reason for us to give money away simply because we have it (especially since we don't actually have it). OTOH I see no reason to cut our military ties with Israel as far as cooperative R&D, purchasing weapons from them, selling weapons to them and engaging in cooperative training exercises. The war over there isn't going to stop no matter what we do, so we might as well profit from it.  

In other words you have no problem spending money we don't have on Israel because a few defense contractors make some money? The US certainly isn't making money on the deal.

Have you branched out into defense contracting?

No, I said I have no problem stopping foreign aid- which means stop giving them (or anyone) money for no reason. If they choose to continue purchasing weapons from us with THEIR money, I have no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem purchasing weapons and munitions from them that they make if we need it. (although I do think that our military budget can be cut back dramatically, I leave the decision of exactly which weapons we should stop buying and which we should continue to the folks in charge)

IOW, the problem I have with the current situation is the step where we give them money, not with the step of selling them the weapons. All we need to do is shred the coupons that we give them to turn around and buy weapons for near free. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Can we start by taking the business aspect out of it, i.e. get US defense contractors to stop selling arms to Israel? Hard to stop a one-sided conflict if that side keeps getting resupplied.

If Egypt were supplying missiles to Hamas, they'd be getting better stuff. This makes me think that the Palestinian missiles are mostly home-made.

I have no problem cutting out all foreign aid to all countries, there is no reason for us to give money away simply because we have it (especially since we don't actually have it). OTOH I see no reason to cut our military ties with Israel as far as cooperative R&D, purchasing weapons from them, selling weapons to them and engaging in cooperative training exercises. The war over there isn't going to stop no matter what we do, so we might as well profit from it.  

In other words you have no problem spending money we don't have on Israel because a few defense contractors make some money? The US certainly isn't making money on the deal.

Have you branched out into defense contracting?

No, I said I have no problem stopping foreign aid- which means stop giving them (or anyone) money for no reason. If they choose to continue purchasing weapons from us with THEIR money, I have no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem purchasing weapons and munitions from them that they make if we need it. (although I do think that our military budget can be cut back dramatically, I leave the decision of exactly which weapons we should stop buying and which we should continue to the folks in charge)

IOW, the problem I have with the current situation is the step where we give them money, not with the step of selling them the weapons. All we need to do is shred the coupons that we give them to turn around and buy weapons for near free. 

Like I said before, continually resupplying one side with arms is a damned silly way to stop a one sided armed conflict. See, I'm actually interested in stopping the conflict instead of making one group of god-botherers badasses. After all, we established earlier that the Hamas attacks aren't doing anything of significance and they're not getting resupplied.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Like I said

jcgadfly wrote:

Like I said before, continually resupplying one side with arms is a damned silly way to stop a one sided armed conflict. See, I'm actually interested in stopping the conflict instead of making one group of god-botherers badasses. After all, we established earlier that the Hamas attacks aren't doing anything of significance and they're not getting resupplied.

How do you propose to stop it? 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Like I said before, continually resupplying one side with arms is a damned silly way to stop a one sided armed conflict. See, I'm actually interested in stopping the conflict instead of making one group of god-botherers badasses. After all, we established earlier that the Hamas attacks aren't doing anything of significance and they're not getting resupplied.

How do you propose to stop it? 

 

Not by giving them more stuff to use.

Most of my ideas we don't have the balls for because we have politicians who think they need to kiss Israel's ass to get elected.

Frankly, I think we could start by not giving Israel more arms and doing what we didn't do in Vietnam, i.e. enter the conflict on the right damn side. 

Maybe if both sides lose the will and the ability to fight we can start on a peace process.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Not by giving

jcgadfly wrote:

Not by giving them more stuff to use.

Most of my ideas we don't have the balls for because we have politicians who think they need to kiss Israel's ass to get elected.

Frankly, I think we could start by not giving Israel more arms and doing what we didn't do in Vietnam, i.e. enter the conflict on the right damn side. 

Maybe if both sides lose the will and the ability to fight we can start on a peace process.

 

We give Israel $3 billion a year, their government has a budget in the ballpark of $70 billion, do you seriously think that missing $3 billion is going to make them suddenly change their position and say "well we can't afford this anymore?" I highly doubt it, but I do agree with you it is a waste of our money, especially since Israel is more than capable of paying the bill themselves. 

We were on the wrong side of the Vietnam conflict? How so?  

Exactly which side in this conflict is the "right" side? 

If either side lacked the will or ability to fight there wouldn't be a war, it would be over. Both sides have the will to fight and both sides have at least some ability to do so. Can you name one historical war that ended because neither side had the will or ability to fight? I can't think of one. Seems to me that most wars end when one side loses its will or ability to fight and the other still has both.

It is called surrender- which is how most wars end, when one side surrenders whatever the main point of contention was to the other. Which is what I suggested the Palestinians do one of my early responses because I think it is pretty obvious that they are losing and also obvious that the Israelis are never going to lose their will to fight and I don't see how the Palestinians could reasonably expect to have a significant impact on the Israeli's ability to fight.   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 The Palestinians would and

 The Palestinians would and have fought with sticks and rocks. Even if you removed all weapons from both sides you'd still have people being hurt and killed. The cause of the conflict needs to be resolved - taking their toys away won't stop the hatred.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Not by giving them more stuff to use.

Most of my ideas we don't have the balls for because we have politicians who think they need to kiss Israel's ass to get elected.

Frankly, I think we could start by not giving Israel more arms and doing what we didn't do in Vietnam, i.e. enter the conflict on the right damn side. 

Maybe if both sides lose the will and the ability to fight we can start on a peace process.

 

We give Israel $3 billion a year, their government has a budget in the ballpark of $70 billion, do you seriously think that missing $3 billion is going to make them suddenly change their position and say "well we can't afford this anymore?" I highly doubt it, but I do agree with you it is a waste of our money, especially since Israel is more than capable of paying the bill themselves. 

We were on the wrong side of the Vietnam conflict? How so?  

Exactly which side in this conflict is the "right" side? 

If either side lacked the will or ability to fight there wouldn't be a war, it would be over. Both sides have the will to fight and both sides have at least some ability to do so. Can you name one historical war that ended because neither side had the will or ability to fight? I can't think of one. Seems to me that most wars end when one side loses its will or ability to fight and the other still has both.

It is called surrender- which is how most wars end, when one side surrenders whatever the main point of contention was to the other. Which is what I suggested the Palestinians do one of my early responses because I think it is pretty obvious that they are losing and also obvious that the Israelis are never going to lose their will to fight and I don't see how the Palestinians could reasonably expect to have a significant impact on the Israeli's ability to fight.   

1. But as you said, they buy the weapons so that doesn't count in foreign aid according to you. And they're not going to buy weapons from anyone but us. Perhaps, some incentive to reduce their stockile of weapons to only what is needed for defense would be helpful...no wait - now I'm punishing American success (again according to you). 

2. In the Vietnam conflict we sided with the French colonialists in a war for independence - you'd have thought we would have learned from our own revolution.

3. And as I have said, continually giving on side the ability to continue doesn't do anything to stop or slow down the conflict..

4. Your solution of surrender interests me - how would surrender and future subjugation of the "losers" end the conflict? Glad you weren't around during the American Revolution - there would have been a lot of chapped British ass from your wet, sloppy kisses.

5. As for which side is "right" - technically neither. But I would tend to go for the oppressed over the oppressors.

---

You sound like some Christian reconstructionists I know who believe that the Jews must kil the Muslims and Palestinians so Jesus can come and the good Christians can kill the Jews.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 The Palestinians would and have fought with sticks and rocks. Even if you removed all weapons from both sides you'd still have people being hurt and killed. The cause of the conflict needs to be resolved - taking their toys away won't stop the hatred.

But Israel might stop fighting if they didn't have a position of advantage. That's why they'e being as belligerent as they are - they're the only nuclear badass over there.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 I think that if Israel

 I think that if Israel didn't have military advantage, that would hasten its invasion and occupation by its neighbours. It's not an accident it survives as it does with mortal enemies all around it.

And that's the rub. It's a stalemate, albeit uneven.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 I think that if Israel didn't have military advantage, that would hasten its invasion and occupation by its neighbours. It's not an accident it survives as it does with mortal enemies all around it.

And that's the rub. It's a stalemate, albeit uneven.

 

 

You're assuming Israel has anything worth invading for. they don't.

Also, the only reason I can see that they have mortal enemies is their belligerence to them. It's not hard to have people pissed off at you when you go out of your way to piss them off.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You're

jcgadfly wrote:

You're assuming Israel has anything worth invading for. they don't.

Also, the only reason I can see that they have mortal enemies is their belligerence to them. It's not hard to have people pissed off at you when you go out of your way to piss them off.

The temple mount?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You're assuming Israel has anything worth invading for. they don't.

Also, the only reason I can see that they have mortal enemies is their belligerence to them. It's not hard to have people pissed off at you when you go out of your way to piss them off.

The temple mount?

OK - nothing useful.

Besides, the al-Aqsa mosque is sitting on it already so it's not like it's not Muslim territory.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. But as you

jcgadfly wrote:

1. But as you said, they buy the weapons so that doesn't count in foreign aid according to you. And they're not going to buy weapons from anyone but us. Perhaps, some incentive to reduce their stockile of weapons to only what is needed for defense would be helpful...no wait - now I'm punishing American success (again according to you). 

2. In the Vietnam conflict we sided with the French colonialists in a war for independence - you'd have thought we would have learned from our own revolution.

3. And as I have said, continually giving on side the ability to continue doesn't do anything to stop or slow down the conflict..

4. Your solution of surrender interests me - how would surrender and future subjugation of the "losers" end the conflict? Glad you weren't around during the American Revolution - there would have been a lot of chapped British ass from your wet, sloppy kisses.

5. As for which side is "right" - technically neither. But I would tend to go for the oppressed over the oppressors.

---

You sound like some Christian reconstructionists I know who believe that the Jews must kil the Muslims and Palestinians so Jesus can come and the good Christians can kill the Jews.

1. Bullshit, Israel buys weapons from countries other than the US including but not limited to Germany, UK, India and China. They are also a significant producer of weapons themselves both for their own use and selling. The weapons are not going to simply disappear if the US simply refused to sell them weapons, they would simply buy them from someone else. If we severed all military ties probably the most damaging thing to them would be a loss in future technology because we share many of our new advances with them. However, that would also be a loss to us because Israel has been a leader in developing UAV, small arms and missile shield technology and I would assume that if we stopped sharing with them they would stop sharing with us. 

2. So are you saying we should have sided with the North or are you saying we should have stayed out of it?

3. Seems to me that the quickest way to end a war is to completely annihilate one side to the point where they give up. The other side being well armed speeds up that process. Can you name a single historical war that ended another way? The bombs we dropped on Japan for example ended the war very quickly. Wars are won through superiority and extreme violence, not through disarming. I would love for you to cite me a single example in history where a war ended through both sides somehow being disarmed. 

4. The US revolution was different, it wasn't religiously based and the side we were fighting against lived on the other side of the ocean, meaning that the war could be won through attrition despite the technological, training and monetary advantages of the British Empire. The Palestinians are faced with an enemy that they live next door to. The Israelis are not going anywhere no matter how expensive the war gets. Which leaves them two options: win the war by annihilating so many Israelis that they get sick of dying or surrender. It appears they are not capable of the first one short of significant international help and as long as they continue terrorist style attacks against civilian targets like the indiscriminate artillery fire or the bus bombing last week (that killed 29 civilians-not a soldier in sight) they are not going to get too much sympathy from most western countries. 

5. I tend support the side that I have the most confidence isn't going to kill me later. A little selfish of me I admit but I am confident that Israel is never going to launch a nuke at the US. I am not at all confident that Hamas is going to refrain from killing us if they had the opportunity. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I would love for you to cite me a single example in history where a war ended through both sides somehow being disarmed. 

Not to butt in on the debate of others, but the Swedish–Novgorodian Wars in the 13th century were fought to a stalemate when both sides were effectively incapacitated by the outbreak of the Black Death.

Eye-wink

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You're assuming Israel has anything worth invading for. they don't.

Also, the only reason I can see that they have mortal enemies is their belligerence to them. It's not hard to have people pissed off at you when you go out of your way to piss them off.

The temple mount?

OK - nothing useful.

Besides, the al-Aqsa mosque is sitting on it already so it's not like it's not Muslim territory.

 

Jews believe that whoever controls the Temple mount will control the world, so even though it's bullshit, to them it's worth fighting for I think... Even if the reality is it's just a desolate lump of earth.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I would love for you to cite me a single example in history where a war ended through both sides somehow being disarmed. 

Not to butt in on the debate of others, but the Swedish–Novgorodian Wars in the 13th century were fought to a stalemate when both sides were effectively incapacitated by the outbreak of the Black Death.

Eye-wink

 

Thank you, I will have to look into that. Have to admit that my 13th century Swedish history isn't exactly up to snuff. I suppose if we could mimic that kind of destruction, say by landing a few nuclear bombs on Israel and Palestine that probably would end the conflict, at least for an extended period of time. Well at least I have something to research today and distract me from doing something productive 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
  Yup, nothing like a bit

  Yup, nothing like a bit of dark age conflict research to break the monotony of a working afternoon. Go nuts.

 

I take your original point though, however I would like to hope that it can eventually be solved in the same vein as Northern Ireland was, where everyone involved was so weary with bloodshed that peace became preferable for all. This would hopefully happen with fewer deaths than a shock and awe ending, though probably in a longer timeline.

To do this requires the willingness to concede certain points from both sides (Right of Palestine to exist, withdrawal of palestinian territories by Israeli settlers among other things) and a united front towards resolution from neighbours and involved parties over a sustained period. In my eyes there is no other (ethical) way.

 

 

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4568
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote: 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

  Yup, nothing like a bit of dark age conflict research to break the monotony of a working afternoon. Go nuts.

 

I take your original point though, however I would like to hope that it can eventually be solved in the same vein as Northern Ireland was, where everyone involved was so weary with bloodshed that peace became preferable for all. This would hopefully happen with fewer deaths than a shock and awe ending, though probably in a longer timeline.

To do this requires the willingness to concede certain points from both sides (Right of Palestine to exist, withdrawal of palestinian territories by Israeli settlers among other things) and a united front towards resolution from neighbours and involved parties over a sustained period. In my eyes there is no other (ethical) way.

Well based on what I could find the black death merely caused a ceasefire in the Swedish-Novgorodian wars so perhaps we should set aside the create a modern plague and release it in Israel and Palestine idea. Fortunately, the Novgorodians kept pretty decent records of major events, especially wars and thanks to the wonders of the internet are available for our reading pleasure. Here are a few quotes that I found interesting/possibly relevant (ok not really relevant as the whole tangent isn't really all that relevant to modern Israel/Palestine but it is interesting I think.)

http://www.archive.org/stream/chronicleofnovgo00michrich/chronicleofnovgo00michrich_djvu.txt 

The Chronicles of Novgorodia record the last major battle before the plague which occurred because the Novgorod refused to convert.   

 

Quote:

 

A.D. 1348. A.M. 6856. Magnush, King of the Svei, sent to the men of 

Novgorod saying: " Send your philosophers 

to a conference, and I will send my own philosophers, that they 

may discuss about faith; they will ascertain whose faith is the 

better; if your faith is the better, then I will go into your faith, but 

if our faith is the better, you will go into our faith, and we shall all 

be as one man. But if you do not agree to uniformity, then I will 

come against you with all my forces." And Vladyka VasiU and 

Posadnik Fedor Danilovich and the Tysyatski Avraam and all the 

men of Novgorod having taken counsel together, repHed to Mag- 

nush: " If thou wishest to know whose is the better faith, ours or 

yours, send to Tsargrad^ to the Patriarch, for we received the Ortho- 

dox faith from the Greeks; but with thee we will not dispute about 

the faith. As to what grievances there may be between us, we will 

send about that to thee to the conference." And the men of 

Novgorod sent to Magnush the Tysyatski Avraam, Kuzma Tverdis- 

lav, and other Boyars. And Avraam and the others arriving at 

Orekhovets wished to go to Magnush, but Magnush was then on 

Berezov* island with all his forces. And the men of Orekhov beat 

with their foreheads to Avraam not to leave their town, but Kuzma 

Tverdislav with others went to Magnush; and Magnush replied to 

Kuzma: " I have no grievance whatever against you "; but he said 

thus: " Adopt my faith, or I will march against you with my whole 

force "; and he dismissed Kuzma and the others. On their return 

to Orekhovets they all shut themselves in the town, and Magnush 

came up against the town with his whole force, and began baptizing 

 

1 West of lake Ilmen. 

 

2 The places in these districts. 

- Constantinople. 

 

* " Birch-tree." 

 

 

 

142 THE CHRONICLE OF NOVGOROD 

 

the Izhera people into his own faith, and let loose his troops among 

those who refused baptism. And hearing that the king had turned 

his force on the Izhera people, the men of Novgorod sent Ontsifor 

Lukinits, Yakov Khotov and Mikhail Fefilatov^ against them with a 

small company^ and through the prayers of the Holy Mother of God, 

and with the help of St. Sophia and of the holy Martyrs Boris and 

Gleb, God aided Ontsifor; they killed 500, and others they took 

alive, and executed the traitors, and the men of Novgorod returned 

all well, having lost only three men. 

 

And Posadnik Fedor Danilovich with the lieutenants of the 

Veliki Knyaz and all the men of Novgorod and of Pleskov, with the 

whole of the Novgorod district and a few men of Novi-torg went to 

Ladoga, and to Knyaz Simeon Ivanovich they sent envoys, saying : 

" Come to us, Sire,^ to defend thy patrimony according to thy 

kissing of the Cross ; the king oiihe Sveiis coming against us. " And the 

'Veliki Knyaz Simeon replied to the men of Novgorod: " I come 

gladly to you." And after long delay the Knyaz went to Novgorod; 

but on reaching [the village of] Sitno from Torzhok, he turned back 

to Moscow, and sent his brother Ivan to Novgorod. And Knyaz 

Ivan came to Novgorod but did not go to the men of Novgorod at 

Ladoga. In the meanwhile King Magnush captured the town of 

Orekhovets on Transfiguration Day, and he seized Avraam and 

Kuzma with eight other Boyars, and let all the others go out of the 

town, and himself went away from it, leaving a force behind in 

Orekhovets. And Knyaz Ivan hearing of the capture of Orekhovets, 

by the Nemisy, went back from Novgorod without the benediction 

of the Vladyka, and not listening to the petition of the men of 

Novgorod. And the men of Novgorod went from Ladoga, and 

halted by Orekhovets. 

 

Then you have to love how it describes the plague. 

Quote:

 

The same year there was a great plague in Novgorod; it came 

on us by God's loving kindness, and in His righteous judgment, 

death came upon people, painful and sudden, it began from Lady 

Day till Easter; a countless number of good people died then. 

These were the symptoms of that death: a man would spit blood 

and after three days he was dead. But this death did not visit 

Novgorod alone; I believe it passed over the face of all the land; 

and whom ever God commanded, that man died, and whomever 

he saved, him he admonished and punished, that the rest of our days 

we may live in the Lord virtuously and sinlessly. 

Nothing like God showing "loving kindness" by releasing a plague- religious apologists haven't changed over the last 700 years. 

 

Then for over a decade there is no war with the Swedish or anyone else- from what I could gather the Novgorodians were prolific pirates and frequently raided any towns or villages along waterways which led to them constantly fighting not only the Swedish but all of their other neighbors as well. 

Then by the late 1350's Novgorod faced a civil war, 

 

Quote:

 

The same spring God inflicting it on account of our sins, and the 

devil acting with his help, and by the advice of wicked men, there 

was a great tumult in Novgorod; they took the Posadnik-ship from 

Ondreyan Zakharich, but not all Novgorod, only the Slavno quar- 

ter, and they gave the Posadnik-ship to Selivester Lentiev. And 

no small confusion arose in the Yaroslav Court and there was a 

fight : because the Slavno men had come up unexpectedly in arms, 

and dispersed the men from across the river^ who were without 

arms, and they attacked and robbed many nobles, and killed Ivan 

Borisov Likhinin. 

 

 

148 THE CHRONICLE OF NOVGOROD 

 

And then the two sides armed themselves against each other; 

the Sophia side sought to avenge the dishonour to its brothers, 

and the Slavno side fought for their hves and property. And they 

stood opposite to each other for three days, for the Slavno men had 

dismantled the bridge. And Vladyka Moisei came out from the 

monastery taking with him Olexei, and the Archimandrite and the 

Igumens, and blessed them, saying: " My children, do not cause 

strife among yourselves, exultation to the pagans, and devastation 

to the sacred churches and this place; engage not in battle." And 

they accepted his word, and dispersed; and they sacked Sehvester's 

villages, and many villages of the Slavno quarter were seized; 

and also many innocent people perished then. And they gave the 

Posadnik-'i\\\Y) to Mikita Matveyevich, and so they were reconciled. 

God did not suffer the devil utterly to exult, but Christianity was 

exalted to generation and generation. 

 

By the end of the 14th century Novgorod seems to have returned to its ransacking ways and was fighting sporadic battles and launching occasional raids against many of their neighbors including the Swedish.

In 1411 the Swedish launched their next major assault. 

 

Quote:

 

A.D. 1411. A.M. 6919. The Svei having come to make war took the 

Novgorod town of Tiversk; the men of 

Novgorod went quickly against the Svei only three days after this 

news, with Knyaz Simeon Olgerdovich; and having come to the 

Sveiski country they ravaged and burned their villages, and killed 

many Svei and captured others, and took and burned an outwork 

of Viborg on March 26, the day of the Festival of the Archangel 

Gabriel, and returned to Novgorod with a large number of captives. 

And the Voyevodas of the Novgorod troops were: Posadnik Yuri 

Ontsiforovits, Posadnik Foma Esifovits, Posadnik Alexander 

Fominits, Ivan Danilovits, Gregori Bogdanovits, Ofonos Esifov, 

Posadnik's son, Mikhailo Ivanovits, Posadnik's son, Andrei Ivano- 

vits, Ivan Fedorovits, Posadnik's son, Foma Troshcheikin, Dmitri 

Ivanovits, Esip Philipovits, Avram Stefanovits. 

 

 

The Novgorod raiding continued but increasingly Novgorod was facing larger armies from their Eastern border. The final conflict between the Novgorodians and the Swedish occurred in 1445, almost 100 years after the black plague.

Quote:

 

The same year the Murman Svei''- came in force by surprise to the 

Dvina^ beyond the Volok, to Nenoksa, plundering and burning, 

killing people and making many captives. And the people of the 

Dvina having heard, came up quickly, slew some and sent about 

forty to Novgorod, putting to death their Voyevodas Ivor and Peter 

and a third one; a few others jumping into their boats escaped.

 

 

That was the end of the Swedish-Novgorodian wars because Muscovy (the Grand Principality of Moscow) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscovy was waging full scale war on Novgorod and annexed it in 1478.

 

It is interesting to note that during the slowdown in violence between Sweden and Novgorod shortly after the plague Sweden was also had internal conflict and civil war and during this time became part of the Union of Kalmer, no doubt one of the reasons that Sweden didn't attack again until 1411. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Kalmar

I wasn't able to find such awesome source material on Sweden as I did of Novgorod, most of the websites I found referenced books that were not online. However, I did find an interesting little blurb on the life of Albrecht of Mecklenburg the King of Sweden who was overthrown during this period.

http://runeberg.org/nfaa/0371.html (translated imperfectly using google)

 

Quote:

 Albrecht of Mecklenburg, King of Sweden from 1364 to 1389, was born c. 1340th He was the second son of Duke Albrecht I of Mecklenburg (whom reigned in this country as prince from 1329 to 1348, as Duke from 1348 to 1379) and the Swedish king Magnus Eriksson's sister Euphemia. At the invitation of the King of Magnus Eriksson and his son Hakan discontented Swedish nobles fell upon the two mecklenburgske Dukes, supported by several German princes, their relatives kings of Sweden, 1363rd Stockholm and Kalmar, who were met by Germans, opened its doors to them, and Albrecht Jr. hailed illegally as king at Mora things, 1364th Now, we had one eight -year civil war. In the neighborhood of Enkoping became Magnus and Hakan defeated by the Germans, and the former taken prisoner by Albrecht, 1365th On Håkans side stood now King of Denmark Valdemar Atterdag on mecklenburg arnes his cities and several north German princes. Mecklenburg Arne were given, however, a more difficult enemy in the Swedish peasantry. Albrecht sounded namely completely lead themselves with the Germans and most of his cunning and hersklystne father. To these strangers förpantades vast stretches of Sweden, and the people suffered enormously under their oppression. It rose derför and supported Hakan, who also came close to winning, since he with an army encamped in Norrmalm in Stockholm, 1371st But the Swedish men gave Albrecht Now one more effectual succor, however, since the first aftvungit him a royal assurance, which put almost all the power in the hands of the Council. In this way, a peace came into being, through which Magnus frigafs. Albrecht kept the Swedish crown, but Varmland and Dal and some parts of the actual Vestergötland succeeded he would never take. However, Albrecht now completely dependent upon the Council and its powerful man, Bo Jonsson Grip, and every view beröfvades him, even if he liked it, put a limit on the great lords sjelfsvåld and lawless rampage. After Bo Jonsson's death, in 1380, the king made ​​yet an attempt to restore the monarchy. He wanted to make himself the guardian of Bo Jonsson's widow and children and is said to have thought of a withdrawal of nobility goods. This had the consequence that the mighty men, who by Bo Jonsson were appointed as executors of his will, turned to Queen Margaret of Denmark with a prayer for help. Albrecht passed over to Germany and hemtade a German here. But at Falkirk became his defeat by Margaret and along with his son Erik taken prisoner, Febr. 1389th They were kept imprisoned to 1395, when they lössläpptes to be of use after three years either pay more than a sum of money or öfverlemna Stockholm to Margaret. Because of this treaty took Margaret Stockholm possession, 1398th Albrecht proceeded to Mecklenburg, but his supporters, known Vitalianerna (German hijackers, which gets its name of it, they succoured Stockholm with necessaries of life, viktualier ), captured Gotland and held themselves qvar der to 1398, when the island was occupied by German words. In monetary compensation was induced at last Albrecht and German words to give up the island, and this öfverlemnades 1408 for King Erik of Pomerania. Albrecht died in 1412 at the monastery Dobberan in Mecklenburg. 

It makes me wonder if the plague had some role in both countries having civil unrest in the late 14th century. It makes sense that the negative economic effects of the plague and decline in the standard of living would make the lower classes restless and provide an opportunity for the ambitious to raise a revolt and a rather large coincidence that both faced internal struggles at the same time after nearly 500 years of being at war with each other, but that is pure speculation on my part. 

 

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X