Gaza Shelter Attack

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Gaza Shelter Attack

 

Thoughts ? 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28594155

 

Brief Excerpt :

 

The US has said the shelling of a UN shelter in Gaza is "totally unacceptable and totally indefensible". In its strongest criticism yet of Israel's offensive in the Palestinian territory, the US - Israel's closest ally - urged Israel to do more to protect civilian life. A quarter of Gaza's population has been displaced by the fighting, the UN says. Israel says its operation in Gaza is designed to defend its population from attacks by Palestinian militants. It blames the Hamas militant group for most of the civilian deaths in Gaza, saying its fighters deliberately operate from civilian areas.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I admit to being more than

 I admit to being more than a little biased due to personal relationships, but the Palestinians have few stones to throw when it comes to civillian casualties. The only reason Israel hasn't wiped their asses off the face of the planet is because of the restraints the US puts on them and I don't think those restraints have done the world any good at all. We should just give Israel our blessing in anihilating every one of the fuckers and protect them from the inevitable blowback from Iran and Syria. Some nutjobs can only be stopped with a bullet between the eyes, and Hamas & co. falls into that category. Until one side completely kills the other, the conflict will continue, I prefer the side that doesn't want to kill us wins. 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15724
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I admit to being more than a little biased due to personal relationships, but the Palestinians have few stones to throw when it comes to civillian casualties. The only reason Israel hasn't wiped their asses off the face of the planet is because of the restraints the US puts on them and I don't think those restraints have done the world any good at all. We should just give Israel our blessing in anihilating every one of the fuckers and protect them from the inevitable blowback from Iran and Syria. Some nutjobs can only be stopped with a bullet between the eyes, and Hamas & co. falls into that category. Until one side completely kills the other, the conflict will continue, I prefer the side that doesn't want to kill us wins. 

You stupidly assume those 2,000 victims are all 'terrorists". You now when Jon Stewart is blasting Isreal as a Jew himself you are doing something wrong. If you think all Jews worldwide think everything Isreal does is right you'd be full of shit.

"Fuckers" no asshole, those are human beings. And that is the, problem, neither side wants to see the other as a fellow human. 

Now here are some words that did not exist 200,000 years ago, "Israel, Hebrew, Zion, Islam, Muslim, Palestine, Gaza". Neither's borders or religions existed then. Polytheists lived in that land prior to both. Trace our DNA back far enough and all humans started in Africa.

I do not expect Jews or Muslims to leave that area. But "He started it" and "Me me me my land" is what they both claim. FUCK religious nationalism. I am for an Israeli state, not a Jewish state. I am for a Palestinian state, not a Islamic state. RELIGION is the cause of this and until both sides get it out of their politics this shit will not stop. BUT we have never been a separate species. ANYONE will punch when punched. 

You would have no guts to face the parents of the dead children in Palestine or Gaza, anymore than their nuts would have the ts to face the 3 Isreali teens parents and say "they deserved it".    

 

 

"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


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You stupidly

Brian37 wrote:

You stupidly assume those 2,000 victims are all 'terrorists". You now when Jon Stewart is blasting Isreal as a Jew himself you are doing something wrong. If you think all Jews worldwide think everything Isreal does is right you'd be full of shit.

No I didn't dumb ass. Civilian casualties are inevitable in war. War fucking sucks ass, period. Innocent people die in war no matter what the fuck you do and how perfect you are. Hamas routinely intentionally targets civilians. Israel makes at least a small effort to kill a few hostiles along with the civilians. 

 

Quote:

"Fuckers" no asshole, those are human beings. And that is the, problem, neither side wants to see the other as a fellow human. 

Only human beings are capable of being fuckers. And no, neither side sees the other as a fellow. If they did, they wouldn't bee fighting so much.  

 

Quote:

Now here are some words that did not exist 200,000 years ago, "Israel, Hebrew, Zion, Islam, Muslim, Palestine, Gaza". Neither's borders or religions existed then. Polytheists lived in that land prior to both. Trace our DNA back far enough and all humans started in Africa.

So? No one fighting was alive 200,000 years ago. 

 

Quote:

I do not expect Jews or Muslims to leave that area. But "He started it" and "Me me me my land" is what they both claim. FUCK religious nationalism. I am for an Israeli state, not a Jewish state. I am for a Palestinian state, not a Islamic state. RELIGION is the cause of this and until both sides get it out of their politics this shit will not stop. BUT we have never been a separate species. ANYONE will punch when punched. 

A Palestinian state IS an Islamic state. No amount of liberal wishing will make it otherwise. Hence, why I prefer the Jews win because Jews are less likely to try to kill us than the Palestinians. I admit it is peer selfishness on my part, I don't want to have to go to war with Palestine in the future, so let the Israelis kill them all now. RELIGION is not the cause of this. This is purely a political creation as anyone capable of reading a textbook could tell you. Religion is irrelevant. The Palestinians see the Israelis as an invading people, which they were in the early 20th century. Most of those people are dead now and it is a nationalist dispute among the descendants of two extremely different peoples. The main difference from my point of view is that one of those peoples wants to kill ME and the other doesn't. Which makes the choice clear in my book regardless of who committed the original wrong. 

 

Quote:

You would have no guts to face the parents of the dead children in Palestine or Gaza, anymore than their nuts would have the ts to face the 3 Isreali teens parents and say "they deserved it".     

Dude, you don't even have the guts to admit to iwbiek that you were wrong in a relatively anonymous online community. Don't talk to me about guts, I've faced shit that would make you piss your pants and cry for your mommy.

There is no doubt that Hamas soldiers would have the nuts to face the Israeli parents or vice versa. The two sides absoluty hate each other and both want to annihilate the other. They make absolutely no bones about it. The world isn't peace love and kumbaya. Israel is surrounded by countries that have repeatedly declared they want to commit genocide against the Israeli people. On the other side, Israel has demonstrated an ability and willingness to kill anyone they consider a threat. The only difference is that those who have publicly declared they want to kill Israelis have also publicly declared they want to kill Americans. Since I happen to be born American, I don't want them to win. No doubt, some of the Palestinian soldiers are great guys to drink with, but when I enlisted, I came to grips with the idea that the bastard I killed was no different than me except for being born in a different country.

Wars are not always (almost never) between good guys and bad guys. Sometimes you have to pick a side based on convenience. In this case, for anyone who is American, there is a pretty clear distinction between who is better to win for us. One side wants us dead, the other doesn't and has hot chicks who carry M-16s. 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15724
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 Jon Stewart tonight on the

 Jon Stewart tonight on the promising sound of a 72 hour cease fire, then playing clips of news reports of America sending Isreal more ammo "We had this. We cant be Isreal's rehab sponser and their drug dealer."

 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15724
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 Ann Frank "In spite of

 Ann Frank "In spite of everything I still believe  that people are really good at heart". 

Do you think she would see any human death as simply a price you pay for war?

Do you think Ayan Hersi Ali having been raised in Islam would say you could never reach any Muslim ever?

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15724
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 https://www.facebook.com/Je

 https://www.facebook.com/JewishVoiceforPeace

ps://www.facebook.com/pages/Israeli-and-Palestinian-atheists/487513174592996

https://www.facebook.com/groups/101464189944996/?ref=br_tf

 

It wasn't that long ago when Christainity was as barbaric as you accuse Islam is today. You are certainly right that far too much of the east is still stuck in it's own dark ages. But those websites above are how change is made.

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Shut up brian, you don't

Shut up brian, you don't know what you're talking about. As usual.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I admit to being more than a little biased due to personal relationships, but the Palestinians have few stones to throw when it comes to civillian casualties.

Come on, no generalisation. Despite every Palestinian having legitimate cause to want Israel wiped out, most of them don't really care.

Beyond Saving wrote:
The only reason Israel hasn't wiped their asses off the face of the planet is because of the restraints the US puts on them and I don't think those restraints have done the world any good at all.

Well that goes both ways. Without the US, Israel would have been wiped out 5 times over by now.

Beyond Saving wrote:
We should just give Israel our blessing in anihilating every one of the fuckers and protect them from the inevitable blowback from Iran and Syria. Some nutjobs can only be stopped with a bullet between the eyes, and Hamas & co. falls into that category. Until one side completely kills the other, the conflict will continue, I prefer the side that doesn't want to kill us wins. 

Personally I have no problem wiping out Hamas, but this shit just gives them more power. Every innocent child that gets killed adds 20 people to Hamas and similar groups (gross estimate). And Israel has absolutely no interest in peace in the middle east. The louder they can bitch the happier they are. Seriously, this is just like every other dumb ass war that both sides share equal blame. Hamas kills a few people so Israel has every right to kill a thousand? I don't think so. Hamas fights the way it does because it's the ONLY way it can fight. I don't blame their tactics in the slightest, though their strategy is foolhardy. I don't blame Israel for wanting it to end, but it can't end when you kill more civilians and children than you do the enemy.

The only way to end it is outside occupation. China, the US, the EU, & Russia ALL have to team up and conquer the entire area. Then occupy it. For a good 50 years at least. Every little bitch in all of Palestine/Israel must be under the guns of the world powers. Only then can the extremists be wiped out. On all sides.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
israel is not tenable long


israel is not tenable long term without the unqualified support of the US, and i just don't believe that support will last forever. if the US were to cut off israel now, sure, they would still have the technology to maintain hegemony in that region for one, two generations tops. eventually, however, that old military aid would break down, and israel has neither the resources nor the manpower to replenish it on their own.

in the meantime, they would be begging at the doors of any nation who might be able to help them. they wouldn't get anywhere with europe and, tbh, europe wouldn't be able to do much for them. so they would go, hat in hand, to russia, china, maybe even india. lmfao, yeah, good luck there. russia and india are both antisemitic as fuck, and the chinese have no love lost for israel either. none of those countries will want to piss off iran and india won't want to make things any worse with pakistan than they already are.

by this point, israel would descend into all-out fascism and wouldn't even be able to keep peace domestically. i daresay they would start to alienate even more jews abroad, and, contrary to popular belief, support for israel in the jewish diapora is far from unanimous, especially as the older generations of jews continue to die out. the all-powerful jewish vote in the US is decreasing, and it's the real reason we stay in bed with israel anyway. you can see this just from the fact that gentile politicians are no longer willing to blindly bankroll israel anymore. that's why israel is lobbying hard for the support of evangelical protestants in the US (and succeeding): they know they can't depend on american jewry forever.

israel is basically a garrison state. i just don't see them still existing in another century or two.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Another round of info

 More info, but this article mentions that the UN is Anti-Israel and Anti-Semitic and have not focused on Hamas : 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/07/31/UN-Condemns-Israel-s-Latest-War-Crime-Not-Sharing-Iron-Dome-with-Hamas

 

The UN's top human rights official again condemned Israel for its military actions to stop Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, accusing the Jewish state of “deliberately defying International Law... in a way that may constitute war crimes.”Navi Pillay told reporters following yet another "emergency" meeting of the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council that Israel was not doing enough to protect civilians. "There is a strong possibility,” said the known Israel critic, “that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes.”Among the UN’s long bill of particulars against the beleaguered Jewish state comes the almost unbelievable accusation that Israel’s refusal to share its Iron Dome ballistic missile defense shield with the "governing authority" of Gaza – i.e. Hamas, the terror group created to pursue the extermination of the Jewish state and now waging a terrorist war against it – constitutes a war crime against the civilians of Gaza.The UN chairwoman criticized the U.S. for helping fund Israel's Iron Dome system which has saved countless Israeli and Palestinian lives. "No such protection has been provided to Gazans against the shelling," she said.Just because Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately aimed at Israeli civilian population centers without provocation and fires them from within its own population centers does not “absolve” Israel from its own legal violations, Pillay told reporters Thursday.Marking the end of her contentious, six-year term as chairman of the notoriously anti-Israel UNHRC, Pillay saved her harshest condemnations for what she termed Israeli "targeting" of UN-run schools and hospitals in Gaza. She did not mention, nor was she reminded by any of the reporters present, that as of this writing, at least three UN-run schools in Gaza have been used as rocket warehouses, a gross violation of international law that clearly falls within the category of war crimes. Neither did she mention, nor was she reminded, that in at least two of the three cases cited above, the terror rockets found on UN property in Gaza were returned to Hamas by the UN."What I'm seeing now is a recurrence of the very acts that the Gaza fact-finding mission indicated as constituting war crimes and crimes against humanity," she said.The UN’s Human Rights Council has long been a source of deep embarrassment to some UN supporters all-too-conscious that the council is widely regarded as a cesspool of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatred, manipulated by the world’s very worst human rights abusers to cover up their own gross abuses of human rights by scapegoating Israel.Current members of the UN Human Rights Council include China, Russia, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Iran and North Korea have been recent active members of the body. So execrable were the actions and abuses of the UNHRC in the past that the body was in fact disbanded in 2006 after the late terrorist leader of Libya Muammar Gaddafi was elected President of the Council. (Rest of the article can be found at link) 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Shut up brian,

Vastet wrote:
Shut up brian, you don't know what you're talking about. As usual.
Beyond Saving wrote:

 I admit to being more than a little biased due to personal relationships, but the Palestinians have few stones to throw when it comes to civillian casualties.

Come on, no generalisation. Despite every Palestinian having legitimate cause to want Israel wiped out, most of them don't really care.

Fair enough. I really meant the Palestinians in control- ie Hamas. There are plenty of Palestinians who live quite peacefully inside the borders of Israel (I believe roughly 20% of the population). 

 

 

Vastet wrote:

Personally I have no problem wiping out Hamas, but this shit just gives them more power. Every innocent child that gets killed adds 20 people to Hamas and similar groups (gross estimate). And Israel has absolutely no interest in peace in the middle east. The louder they can bitch the happier they are. Seriously, this is just like every other dumb ass war that both sides share equal blame. Hamas kills a few people so Israel has every right to kill a thousand? I don't think so.

Of course it does. It is war. The entire goal of war is to kill as many of the other side and minimize casualties on your side. There is nothing fair about war. And who is to blame doesn't matter. All that matters in my determination is who is more dangerous to us if they win. Clearly, Hamas is much more likely to be a hostile state towards us than Israel. Whether Israel is morally right or not is irrelevant. Hamas winning would be very bad for us in the future, Israel winning would be really good for us. If peace was possible, it might be worthwhile to push for it, but I think it is beyond obvious that any lasting peace is not possible until one side crushes the other. The last 80 years should be proof of that. 

 

Quote:

I don't blame Israel for wanting it to end, but it can't end when you kill more civilians and children than you do the enemy.

How do you take our a mortar team that is surrounds by civilians, without killing a few civilians? The IDF is pretty impressive and has some high quality hardware, but they aren't magic. Now if the DARPA self guided bullets actually work and we sell that technology to the IDF, maybe they can just set up snipers a few miles away and pick off the scum without hitting a civilian. Right now, the only weapons they have capable of going far enough and have a chance of killing them are explosives. So what choice do they have? Allow Hamas to shoot indiscriminately and never fire back? What the fuck would you do if it was your city? It doesn't seem to me that they have a lot of practical tactical options. Probably the best tactical option to limit civillian casualties would be to occupy the West Bank and Gaza. Then you can respond to mortar attacks with troops in the area using guns rather than missiles. We (the US), actively prevent them from doing that. We shouldn't. 

 

Quote:

The only way to end it is outside occupation. China, the US, the EU, & Russia ALL have to team up and conquer the entire area. Then occupy it. For a good 50 years at least. Every little bitch in all of Palestine/Israel must be under the guns of the world powers. Only then can the extremists be wiped out. On all sides.

That might work, but it will also never ever happen. Why not let Israel do the occupying? They are the ones that want to do it. I don't see why we should risk our soldiers lives. Besides, the US and the UN have proven to be incompetent as occupying forces- they are not willing to shoot the enemy freely enough. The IDF is willing to shoot the enemy. When you occupy a hostile country, you have to be willing to be very violent and very brutal until order is restored. It is war, not a police action. If you aren't, you lose the moment you are unable to maintain constant patrols. 

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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

 https://www.facebook.com/JewishVoiceforPeace

ps://www.facebook.com/pages/Israeli-and-Palestinian-atheists/487513174592996

https://www.facebook.com/groups/101464189944996/?ref=br_tf

 

It wasn't that long ago when Christainity was as barbaric as you accuse Islam is today. You are certainly right that far too much of the east is still stuck in it's own dark ages. But those websites above are how change is made.

I'm not accussing Islam of being violent, I am accussing Hamas of being violent. Many of the Israeli citizens who are being killed are muslims. There are muslims in the IDF. Hamas is an extreme Islamic organization that ultimately wants to wage jihad against all infidels- it says so right in their charter (that means they want to kill you and me after they finish the jews.) Hence why I prefer the Israelis win because they don't seem to have any dreams of world domination. As long as Palestine is controlled by Hamas, they are as much our enemies as they are Israels. Anyone who ignores that is an idiot. You can't make peace with people who are willing to blow themselves up to kill you. I have no problem with muslims setting up an islamic state as long as they don't intend to come kill us.  

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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
and here would be a good

and here would be a good time to point out the difference between the terms "islam" and "islamism." but certain members here will probably just accuse me of "woo."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Of

Beyond Saving wrote:
Of course it does. It is war.

It's an illegal occupation dealing with a rebellion.

Beyond Saving wrote:
All that matters in my determination is who is more dangerous to us if they win. Clearly, Hamas is much more likely to be a hostile state towards us than Israel.

Pfft mosquitos are a bigger threat than Hamas. In fact, given Israels track record, Israel is a bigger threat than Hamas. In more than one way.
If Hamas ever got its hands on real weapons and some training then maybe that could have a non-0 chance of changing, but I do not see any chance of that ever happening. The whole reason for Hamas' existence is dependant on Israels existence and methods. They'd have a lot harder time recruiting if there weren't a constant stream of victims of Israeli aggression. Hamas LOVES it when Israel takes out thousands of civilians to kill a few dozen freedom fighters. Every person they lose is replaced, with interest.

Beyond Saving wrote:
How do you take our a mortar team that is surrounds by civilians, without killing a few civilians?

Pretty much anything that doesn't involve tanks or missiles would work. They know exactly where it is but the best they can do is indiscriminate fire? They've taken too many lessons from the US military to heart.

Beyond Saving wrote:
What the fuck would you do if it was your city?

Well for one thing I wouldn't have kicked people off their land and then built a city right in front of the evictees to rub it in their faces.
Anyway, I'd send the army in. Do you appreciate how tiny Gaza is? Israel is pretty small I'll grant, but it is dozens of times the size of Gaza. The Gaza strip could fit into the smallest Canadian Province more than ten times over, and it only takes a few hours to drive across that entire Province. The Israeli military is quite capable of taking the whole damn thing with two squads of troops at every street corner.
Would the military take more losses? Sure. But so would Hamas, and the sticking point is it would reduce civilian casualties and as a result Hamas would see a significantly smaller success in recruitment.
As long as Israel just keeps dropping bombs on children, Hamas will thrive.

Beyond Saving wrote:
We (the US), actively prevent them from doing that. We shouldn't.

Well shit, you learn something every day. What the fuck. What fucking idiot decided that was a good idea?
Well that ends my strategy. I haven't had any time to consider this obstacle, but I can still definitively say that the current strategy in use by Israel cannot and will not ever be effective against anyone but themselves. It will not prevent any attacks, and it will encourage more. It also further isolates Israel politically. Both locally and abroad. It will inevitably destroy them, because the US can't hold their hands forever.

Beyond Saving wrote:
That might work, but it will also never ever happen.

Never say never ever. Stranger things have happened.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Why not let Israel do the occupying? They are the ones that want to do it. I don't see why we should risk our soldiers lives.

Because Israel has no credibility in being capable of doing so, and it would enflame all their neighbours. If the authority that held the area put Israel in the same basket as everyone else it would go a long way in changing the perception of Israel locally. Palestine and Israel would have something in common for the first time.

Mind you, I didn't appreciate the scale of US interference when I came up with this. I wouldn't be opposed to letting Israel try it now that I know they've been prevented from doing so for decades. But it'd still be better for a outside source to handle it. Russia and China don't share the US' tactical vulnerability in being slow to shoot the enemy. That's why I think a multinational force would be best. The issues one nation might be weak on are reinforced by other nations strength. Hell, the US might actually come off as the good guys for once. It could do wonders for your image.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: israel is

iwbiek wrote:



israel is basically a garrison state.

 

  ...a garrison state with nukes.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
Of course it does. It is war.
It's an illegal occupation dealing with a rebellion.

Well that depends on the victor doesn't it? A hostile occupation is part of war, so is a rebellion. It is a war. The concept of legality only enters in when one side has overwhelming enough power to enforce laws.  

 

Quote:

Pfft mosquitos are a bigger threat than Hamas. In fact, given Israels track record, Israel is a bigger threat than Hamas. In more than one way. If Hamas ever got its hands on real weapons and some training then maybe that could have a non-0 chance of changing, but I do not see any chance of that ever happening. The whole reason for Hamas' existence is dependant on Israels existence and methods. They'd have a lot harder time recruiting if there weren't a constant stream of victims of Israeli aggression. Hamas LOVES it when Israel takes out thousands of civilians to kill a few dozen freedom fighters. Every person they lose is replaced, with interest.

Israel is no threat to us and never has been. To their neighbors maybe, but I don't give a shit about their neighbors. If Hamas did somehow take over Israel, they would no longer be a mosquito. Although, it doesn't take much more than a mosquito to cause us a headache and I don't like unnecessary headaches.

 

Quote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
How do you take our a mortar team that is surrounds by civilians, without killing a few civilians?
Pretty much anything that doesn't involve tanks or missiles would work. They know exactly where it is but the best they can do is indiscriminate fire? They've taken too many lessons from the US military to heart.

Yeah, but currently, only tanks and missiles are capable of firing that far. Which is my point. There are technological limitations. Even knowing exactly where a mortar team is can be difficult. If you can narrow down to +- 50 feet you are doing great unless you have boots on the ground and someone to paint the target. There are simply realities that warfare isn't like a video game. It is chaotic, confusing, loud, really fast paced and pretty damn terrifying. Hitting something precisely 2-3 miles away is easy when you are at the target range. In a combat situation, it isn't easy at all. Mistakes happen and people die. Sometimes it is the bad guys, sometimes it is civilians and sometimes it is even your own team. War is not a sterile controlled environment. Technology has helped alot, but it isn't perfect. 

 

Quote:

Well for one thing I wouldn't have kicked people off their land and then built a city right in front of the evictees to rub it in their faces. Anyway, I'd send the army in. Do you appreciate how tiny Gaza is? Israel is pretty small I'll grant, but it is dozens of times the size of Gaza. The Gaza strip could fit into the smallest Canadian Province more than ten times over, and it only takes a few hours to drive across that entire Province. The Israeli military is quite capable of taking the whole damn thing with two squads of troops at every street corner. Would the military take more losses? Sure. But so would Hamas, and the sticking point is it would reduce civilian casualties and as a result Hamas would see a significantly smaller success in recruitment. As long as Israel just keeps dropping bombs on children, Hamas will thrive.

I agree completely The problem is that the whole world goes apeshit everytime they send troops across the border and the US puts substantial pressure on them to pull out. The US should say "Occupy the fuckers, we will take care of your back if the other Arab states sound the drums" I don't think the surrounding countries really want to mess with the US and would just sit there. Maybe offer support under the table and maybe beat their chests a bit. We do that and Gaza is occupied in days, the West Bank in probably a week. Up front civilian casualties probably a bit high, but long term would be much lower. When it comes to urban combat, the IDF is the best force in the world, even better than the US.  

 

Quote:
 Because Israel has no credibility in being capable of doing so, and it would enflame all their neighbours. If the authority that held the area put Israel in the same basket as everyone else it would go a long way in changing the perception of Israel locally. Palestine and Israel would have something in common for the first time. Mind you, I didn't appreciate the scale of US interference when I came up with this. I wouldn't be opposed to letting Israel try it now that I know they've been prevented from doing so for decades. But it'd still be better for a outside source to handle it. Russia and China don't share the US' tactical vulnerability in being slow to shoot the enemy. That's why I think a multinational force would be best. The issues one nation might be weak on are reinforced by other nations strength. Hell, the US might actually come off as the good guys for once. It could do wonders for your image.

Nah, we are never the good guys. We won't enjoy that again unless someone decides to conquer all of Europe and we have to go bail them out again. Putin is probably our best chance of being good guys in the future if he decides to keep headed west. 

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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
I think the choice is a slam dunk

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

iwbiek wrote:



israel is basically a garrison state.

 

  ...a garrison state with nukes.

Israel

Or Hamas:

 

 

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Israel

Or Hamas:

 

 

 

                                                  The two Shebrews holding their M16 rifles are truly a gift from "god"....

 

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Ann Frank

Brian37 wrote:

 Ann Frank "In spite of everything I still believe  that people are really good at heart". 

Do you think she would see any human death as simply a price you pay for war?

Anne Frank died at age 15. Hardly someone with the worldly  experience to make global political analysis. I was an idealist at 15 too-most 15 year olds are.

 

Quote:

Do you think Ayan Hersi Ali having been raised in Islam would say you could never reach any Muslim ever?

We aren't talking about 'any muslim' we are talking about a specific group of militant muslims who have joined a group called Hamas for the expressed purpose of killing all infidels and violently spreading their religion around the world. They will and have readily killed muslims they don't consider extreme enough. Ask a Druze or Bedouin. There is also a such thing as Muslim Zionists. Like I told you, this is a nationalist/political conflict not religious. Religion only plays a role because of Hamas and Israel being mostly Jewish,  but that is secondary to the issue on borders and settlement. Of course, you would never let facts through your thick skull.

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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

iwbiek wrote:



israel is basically a garrison state.

 

  ...a garrison state with nukes.

Israel

Or Hamas:

 

 


well, like it or not, eventually it will be hamas, or something similar. israel is an anomaly. eventually it will be swallowed up. israelis just aren't at home there, culturally or historically. yes, they have nukes, but nukes are pretty piss-poor weapons against guerillas in your own backyard. they maintain their existence solely on foreign military aid, the vast majority of which comes from a single country. that just isn't workable in the long run.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Is breast feeding in public really a modesty issue ???

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Israel

Or Hamas:

 Is breast feeding in public really a modesty issue ???

 

 

                                                  The two Shebrews holding their M16 rifles are truly a gift from "god"....

 

 

 

 



 



Url  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33313?page=2 Nu # 138 and/or http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33313?page=2#comment-411533

 

 

   Attitudes towards  breastfeeding in public running the gambit as they do.  Is the mother to wait for the best place, that secluded unfrequented little spot or best to be prepared and always remain covered .. modestly ?

 

 

    p.s.   --    Off site   Scratching at the door of your heart   '' .. and no  I am  not worried about it . . . ''  

  Way cool 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Well

Beyond Saving wrote:
Well that depends on the victor doesn't it? A hostile occupation is part of war, so is a rebellion. It is a war. The concept of legality only enters in when one side has overwhelming enough power to enforce laws.

That isn't always true. Israel won the war, and yet the majority of the Earths population considers their actions illegal. Even the US isn't happy at Israels continuous land grab.
If Israel ever conquers the world, then they can decide their actions were legal. But that ain't happening.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Israel is no threat to us and never has been. To their neighbors maybe, but I don't give a shit about their neighbors. If Hamas did somehow take over Israel, they would no longer be a mosquito. Although, it doesn't take much more than a mosquito to cause us a headache and I don't like unnecessary headaches.

Israel has killed more American soldiers than Hamas ever did, from the sources I'm aware of. That makes Israel the bigger threat.
Israel is capable of launching successful invasions of another country, while Hamas can't even beat their oppressors. Again, Israel is the bigger threat.
Israel has nukes, Hamas doesn't. Israel even lies about having nukes, which makes them worse than North Korea as far as I'm concerned. It has been said that if Israel is ever on the verge of defeat, that they'd launch their nukes in multiple directions. Maybe this isn't true, but considering they won't even admit to having nukes it is a legitimate concern. Israel is a far bigger threat.
Even if Hamas conquered Israel, they'd still be a mosquito. Iran is infinitely more capable than Hamas' wildest dreams, and Iran has never been an existensial threat to the west. Even with nukes, only Israel would have to worry about Iran. Israel is a bigger threat.
Israel pisses off their neighbours constantly, and is a destabilising force that may one day be responsible for starting WW3. Hamas is actually the opposite, providing a common cause to the region.

In every possible way, Israel is a threat to world peace and Hamas is effectively irrelevant.
I don't have anything to say to the rest of your responses. I was operating under a false assumption and I have to agree with you.

I have to wonder though, would not the US be forced to assist Israel even if Israel ignored them and stuck the occupation out? Not assist the occupation itself obviously, but if it caused another assault on Israel by their neighbours. It seems to me that the US has invested too much to just wipe their hands clean.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
Well that depends on the victor doesn't it? A hostile occupation is part of war, so is a rebellion. It is a war. The concept of legality only enters in when one side has overwhelming enough power to enforce laws.
That isn't always true. Israel won the war, and yet the majority of the Earths population considers their actions illegal. Even the US isn't happy at Israels continuous land grab. If Israel ever conquers the world, then they can decide their actions were legal. But that ain't happening.
Beyond Saving wrote:
Israel is no threat to us and never has been. To their neighbors maybe, but I don't give a shit about their neighbors. If Hamas did somehow take over Israel, they would no longer be a mosquito. Although, it doesn't take much more than a mosquito to cause us a headache and I don't like unnecessary headaches.
Israel has killed more American soldiers than Hamas ever did, from the sources I'm aware of. That makes Israel the bigger threat. Israel is capable of launching successful invasions of another country, while Hamas can't even beat their oppressors. Again, Israel is the bigger threat. Israel has nukes, Hamas doesn't. Israel even lies about having nukes, which makes them worse than North Korea as far as I'm concerned. It has been said that if Israel is ever on the verge of defeat, that they'd launch their nukes in multiple directions. Maybe this isn't true, but considering they won't even admit to having nukes it is a legitimate concern. Israel is a far bigger threat. Even if Hamas conquered Israel, they'd still be a mosquito. Iran is infinitely more capable than Hamas' wildest dreams, and Iran has never been an existensial threat to the west. Even with nukes, only Israel would have to worry about Iran. Israel is a bigger threat. Israel pisses off their neighbours constantly, and is a destabilising force that may one day be responsible for starting WW3. Hamas is actually the opposite, providing a common cause to the region. In every possible way, Israel is a threat to world peace and Hamas is effectively irrelevant. I don't have anything to say to the rest of your responses. I was operating under a false assumption and I have to agree with you. I have to wonder though, would not the US be forced to assist Israel even if Israel ignored them and stuck the occupation out? Not assist the occupation itself obviously, but if it caused another assault on Israel by their neighbours. It seems to me that the US has invested too much to just wipe their hands clean.

The government of Israel sucks, but so does Hamas. I think they both need to get booted off this planet. Fucking trouble makers, the both of them.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'd vote for that. I don't

I'd vote for that. I don't like either of them. I find myself defending Hamas when people try to compare the two, because they aren't comparable. Hamas is not a nation with a standing army that can challenge Israel. What they do is what they have to do. What every oppressed people have ever done. Hamas puts their weapons amongst civilians because they have no choice. If they put them anywhere else they'll never get to use them. Blaming Hamas for using the only tactics available to them is just stupid. It's exactly the same as blaming French people for fighting the Nazi's the way they did in WW2. I'm not comparing Israel to the Nazi's ideologically, but strategically the situation is effectively identical. When all you can use is guerrilla warfare, blaming you for using it is ridiculous.

Sadly it would appear that Israel is in a similar boat, restricted as they are. They have more options than Hamas does, but not as much as they should have. They might actually do better to drop democracy and institute a monarchy or military dictatorship. They'd have a few more options with a single unchanging seat of power that could utilise long term strategies that weren't subject to abandonment every few years. But absent that, the US should stop holding them back. If they go too far, we'll crush them. But if they can come up with solutions, they'll be praised and respected. And, more importantly, they'll have a much better chance to survive as a nation.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'd vote for

Vastet wrote:
I'd vote for that. I don't like either of them. I find myself defending Hamas when people try to compare the two, because they aren't comparable. Hamas is not a nation with a standing army that can challenge Israel. What they do is what they have to do. What every oppressed people have ever done. Hamas puts their weapons amongst civilians because they have no choice. If they put them anywhere else they'll never get to use them. Blaming Hamas for using the only tactics available to them is just stupid. It's exactly the same as blaming French people for fighting the Nazi's the way they did in WW2. I'm not comparing Israel to the Nazi's ideologically, but strategically the situation is effectively identical. When all you can use is guerrilla warfare, blaming you for using it is ridiculous. Sadly it would appear that Israel is in a similar boat, restricted as they are. They have more options than Hamas does, but not as much as they should have. They might actually do better to drop democracy and institute a monarchy or military dictatorship. They'd have a few more options with a single unchanging seat of power that could utilise long term strategies that weren't subject to abandonment every few years. But absent that, the US should stop holding them back. If they go too far, we'll crush them. But if they can come up with solutions, they'll be praised and respected. And, more importantly, they'll have a much better chance to survive as a nation.

Good response.

I agree. I find myself picking the Palestinians over Israel because they are really getting bullied. It's like seeing a weaker kid in the playground get beatup by the bigger kid.

I also believe that the long term goals of peace would be more possible if they had one ruler. A king or along those lines would enable them to form long term goals. The current people in power are real douches; I see no chance for peace.

Damn spell checker still isn't working for me.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: The

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 The current people in power are real douches; I see no chance for peace.

 

 

 

     Wrong !      Cut their nuts off > reduce levels of testosterone > instant peace in the middle east. 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Wouldn't nuking them be

Wouldn't nuking them be cheaper? > >

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  I don't know about the

  I don't know about the costs of a mass neutering program but nuking both sides would certainly be quicker.   Loud bang...flash of light....big cloud in the sky.... in a few seconds it's done.  Instant peace.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 The current people in power are real douches; I see no chance for peace.

     Wrong !      Cut their nuts off > reduce levels of testosterone > instant peace in the middle east. 

I believe Vaztet already covered that as not being a viable option, besides it would be easier to put an additive in the water.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I don't know about the costs of a mass neutering program but nuking both sides would certainly be quicker.   Loud bang...flash of light....big cloud in the sky.... in a few seconds it's done.  Instant peace.

I'm curious. What size nukes and where do you place it?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I'm

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'm curious. What size nukes and where do you place it?

                             

 

 

                                                                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

 

                             

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I believe Vaztet already covered that as not being a viable option....

 

    ....and instead he suggested nuking them.  I guess Vastet has his own standards of what's viable ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15724
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:I'd vote for

Vastet wrote:
I'd vote for that. I don't like either of them. I find myself defending Hamas when people try to compare the two, because they aren't comparable. Hamas is not a nation with a standing army that can challenge Israel. What they do is what they have to do. What every oppressed people have ever done. Hamas puts their weapons amongst civilians because they have no choice. If they put them anywhere else they'll never get to use them. Blaming Hamas for using the only tactics available to them is just stupid. It's exactly the same as blaming French people for fighting the Nazi's the way they did in WW2. I'm not comparing Israel to the Nazi's ideologically, but strategically the situation is effectively identical. When all you can use is guerrilla warfare, blaming you for using it is ridiculous. Sadly it would appear that Israel is in a similar boat, restricted as they are. They have more options than Hamas does, but not as much as they should have. They might actually do better to drop democracy and institute a monarchy or military dictatorship. They'd have a few more options with a single unchanging seat of power that could utilise long term strategies that weren't subject to abandonment every few years. But absent that, the US should stop holding them back. If they go too far, we'll crush them. But if they can come up with solutions, they'll be praised and respected. And, more importantly, they'll have a much better chance to survive as a nation.

I am at that point of not taking sides myself. I do think there is some heavy dogmatism ruling Palestine and Gaza, but I do not buy the idea with the shear size of the population of civilians that every action they take is comming from a place of evil. You push anyone hard enough and they can get to the point of turning to the only people that are helping them.

But I do not fully support Israel either. I support their right to exist, as a SECULAR STATE, not a Jewish state. Some secular Jews call it a race while other Jews call it a race and a religion. I'd ask them if it made no sense for Hitler to call Germans "God's chosen people" even if that was merely his ploy to get support, it worked. Germans were both a race and or a German Christanity based on being "Chosen" as Hitler sold them. 

I think it is way past the point since this is going on for so long for either side do say "he started it", "my land". I also agree that it would not take much for Israel and the US to end it real quickly forever. Problem is we are not dealing with just Gaza and Palistine, but the entire Islamic world. So I do not buy claims on Palestine or Gaza's part that we are trying to exterminate them. We already have the power to do that.

Knowing that violence and cooperation, our ability to be cruel or compassionate has always been part of our species existence, I cannot fully support either side becasue what I see humans doing on both side is unfortunately a natural reaction.

In my "utopia" at this point, which I really would not do. But a nuke on both sides and the statement "I don't care who throws the next punch, both of you are gone". Much like if you have to children fighting over a toy, at first you might chose a side, but after a while if it continues you get to the point of simply taking the toy away.

I refuse to see my fellow human as a separate species. Understanding why people do what they do is not advocating what they do.

 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15724
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 Ann Frank "In spite of everything I still believe  that people are really good at heart". 

Do you think she would see any human death as simply a price you pay for war?

Anne Frank died at age 15. Hardly someone with the worldly  experience to make global political analysis. I was an idealist at 15 too-most 15 year olds are.

 

Quote:

Do you think Ayan Hersi Ali having been raised in Islam would say you could never reach any Muslim ever?

We aren't talking about 'any muslim' we are talking about a specific group of militant muslims who have joined a group called Hamas for the expressed purpose of killing all infidels and violently spreading their religion around the world. They will and have readily killed muslims they don't consider extreme enough. Ask a Druze or Bedouin. There is also a such thing as Muslim Zionists. Like I told you, this is a nationalist/political conflict not religious. Religion only plays a role because of Hamas and Israel being mostly Jewish,  but that is secondary to the issue on borders and settlement. Of course, you would never let facts through your thick skull.

I'd prefer her compassion over "fuck you I got mine", I think she was wise beyond her years. I certainly would not agree that her god or any god exists at all. But I see nothing wrong at focusing on the good humans are capable of even in the face of such horrors. Oscar Shilder was an example of compassion. There was also a Japanese husband and wife who risked arrest to save Jews. And I also have no doubt if she survived, she would not hold a grudge against Germans but would want them to learn from it.

Malala also stood up to religious bullies around the same age and got shot for it. Ayan Hersi ali who left Ilsam had doubts as a teen as well. I do not think either of them would agree in blanket war as a solution. I do think all mentioned above would advocate compassion and deplomacy.

Using brute force as a solution is short term thinking, and your enimies weither they have equal weapons or not think the same way. 

 

"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


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'm curious. What size nukes and where do you place it?

                                                                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

So you are talking 50 tons?

Are you going to hit the city or were the fighting is?


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I believe Vaztet already covered that as not being a viable option....

 

    ....and instead he suggested nuking them.  I guess Vastet has his own standards of what's viable ?

Vastet said he was the one with the most common sense! Why wouldn't you want to believe him?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:So you

digitalbeachbum wrote:

So you are talking 50 tons?

 

    50 tons of what ?  Your terminology is imprecise. 

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Are you going to hit the city or were the fighting is?

 

          Do you even undestand what a tactical nuke is ?     Reference the link I provided and scroll down to "types".   (  ....or just ignore the info and continue asking dumb questions )

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'd prefer her

Quote:

I'd prefer her compassion over "fuck you I got mine", I think she was wise beyond her years. I certainly would not agree that her god or any god exists at all. But I see nothing wrong at focusing on the good humans are capable of even in the face of such horrors. Oscar Shilder was an example of compassion. There was also a Japanese husband and wife who risked arrest to save Jews. And I also have no doubt if she survived, she would not hold a grudge against Germans but would want them to learn from it.

You are the one who supports the people who started bombing the jews 90 minutes into the "ceasefire". You have no clue what Anne Frank would have turned into if she had survived. No one possibly could and anyone who claims to is a liar. I think your constant leaning on what dead people would have done is extremely disrespectful. Unless the person actually commented on the issue at hand, you have no business claiming what they would or would not have supported. How about you just state your own opinions as your own? 

 

Quote:

Malala also stood up to religious bullies around the same age and got shot for it. Ayan Hersi ali who left Ilsam had doubts as a teen as well. I do not think either of them would agree in blanket war as a solution. I do think all mentioned above would advocate compassion and deplomacy.

Yeah, they have tried diplomacy for the last 50 years. It isn't working. Of course, that would require you to read a history book. 

 

Quote:

Using brute force as a solution is short term thinking, and your enimies weither they have equal weapons or not think the same way. 

Brute force has a long and successful history. It might not be the best solution, but it is A solution that is time tested and proven. Every country in existance today has had their borders shaped by brute force. Ironic that you speak out against brute force against Hamas, but you readily support brute force when it comes to taking tax dollars away from your fellow citizens to redistribute it to yourself. You are such a fucking hypocrite. 

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
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I have to

Vastet wrote:
I have to wonder though, would not the US be forced to assist Israel even if Israel ignored them and stuck the occupation out? Not assist the occupation itself obviously, but if it caused another assault on Israel by their neighbours. It seems to me that the US has invested too much to just wipe their hands clean.

One would think so, but I don't think the American public would have the stomache to support them. Ultimately, such decisions are made by people who have short term interests and are mostly looking for money or votes. Right now, supporting Israel brings in good campaign donations, with little risk. If the situation was actual American boots on the ground and soldiers dying, there would be a lot more risk. If I was in Israel, I wouldn't count on US support. 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15724
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Quote:

I'd prefer her compassion over "fuck you I got mine", I think she was wise beyond her years. I certainly would not agree that her god or any god exists at all. But I see nothing wrong at focusing on the good humans are capable of even in the face of such horrors. Oscar Shilder was an example of compassion. There was also a Japanese husband and wife who risked arrest to save Jews. And I also have no doubt if she survived, she would not hold a grudge against Germans but would want them to learn from it.

You are the one who supports the people who started bombing the jews 90 minutes into the "ceasefire". You have no clue what Anne Frank would have turned into if she had survived. No one possibly could and anyone who claims to is a liar. I think your constant leaning on what dead people would have done is extremely disrespectful. Unless the person actually commented on the issue at hand, you have no business claiming what they would or would not have supported. How about you just state your own opinions as your own? 

 

Quote:

Malala also stood up to religious bullies around the same age and got shot for it. Ayan Hersi ali who left Ilsam had doubts as a teen as well. I do not think either of them would agree in blanket war as a solution. I do think all mentioned above would advocate compassion and deplomacy.

Yeah, they have tried diplomacy for the last 50 years. It isn't working. Of course, that would require you to read a history book. 

 

Quote:

Using brute force as a solution is short term thinking, and your enimies weither they have equal weapons or not think the same way. 

Brute force has a long and successful history. It might not be the best solution, but it is A solution that is time tested and proven. Every country in existance today has had their borders shaped by brute force. Ironic that you speak out against brute force against Hamas, but you readily support brute force when it comes to taking tax dollars away from your fellow citizens to redistribute it to yourself. You are such a fucking hypocrite. 

What fucking channel are you watching? Fox News?

There are reporters. from all over the globe on both sides of that conflict. The reports coming out of Gaza are that YES they are given warning, but the civilians DO NOT HAVE ANYWHERE TO GO. But they are also reporting that it is NOT THE CASE every single time that Hamas is using civilians every single time, which means that it is more likely that when that is done is is a sympathizer and not an order comming directly from their leaders. But who do you expect Gazans or Palestinians to turn to? If you killed my family and friends I would fight back any way I could. That is what you get when you turn a population into one giant open air prison.

The UN has said that both sides are making mistakes and breaking international law. I also do not think the U.S State department would condemn Isreal for hitting UN targets if they though Isreal had the evidence. But I guess a black man cant do anything right. I forgot, Obama is the only empolyee of the State Department and there are no republican voting employees there.

Now there was just a story on CNN about age and who is more likely to support who on age. In the west younger people ARE NOT buying into the tribalism and labels of their parents. One young 20 something Jew talked about his debate with his dad, his dad said "If we don't do this we risk our security", his son said "If you continue to do this you will risk your security". Now if younger republicans or young libertarians don't buy into the homophobia of their parents, surely maybe because of their youth and exposure to a bigger world, maybe they are onto somethinIng..

They interviewed an older guy who tried to pass off the younger generations attitude as being disconnected to what Jews of the Holocaust suffered. Problem is that Jon Stewart is old enough and more direct, he is old enough to be aware of what Jews went through at the hands of Nazis. However that does not mean because one has been the target of oppression they can hide behind it forever. Netenyahoo is old school and the only reason Israelis support him is because they are being threatened. But to me that is no different than Palestinians and Gazans turning to whomever will help them.

Now, I am on line every single day, and I can tell you there ARE Jews who do not think what Israel is doing is working. Maybe you personally know Jews who do, but I also personally know Jews who don't.

I think it is not as one sided as you want to make it out to be. I do not agree with either side on everything nor do I think either side is doing anything surprising. Both are punching because they are getting punched because that is what humans do. I can only hope that the growing pluralism of the youth in the west can be the loudest voice to put pressure on both sides.

 But I am not as fatalistic in our species as you'd try to paint. I do not see Israel as being wrong all the time, but I do not like Netenyahoo. I think he is an Israeli version of Dick Cheney and the same type of warmonger as those whom you claim supply Gaza with their weapons. 

I know enough of Americas own transgressions with Blacks and Native Americans and Japanese to know passing judgment is not a good idea.

 

My biggest question to both Jews and Christians for that matter is this. No sane person I know thinks Germans were God's chosen people or the master race for that matter, especially not Jews. Even if if one wants to claim Hitler was not a Christain he certainly marketed land entitlement to Germans based on race and God and sold state pride on blood and race.

So why is it Christians and Jews claim the word "secular" while at the same time clammoring for government favoritism? Which is it? Are America and Isreal based on common secular law, or they religious states? It seems they want it both ways?  Secular to me is "no religious test". Not "Our official religion is Christianity with guests welcome".

Not saying Isreal has to go away, but I do think too much time has passed and I do think they have forgotten what religious nationalism based on land and blood did to them.

Religious pluralism cannot involve language that sets up social pecking orders based on the issue of religion. Those states are called theocracies no matter how much you try to water it down. You start doing that and minorities are simply mere pets at best and a threat to the state at worst.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I believe Vaztet already covered that as not being a viable option....

 

    ....and instead he suggested nuking them.  I guess Vastet has his own standards of what's viable ?

There are multiple options for dealing with the mid east. But the faster you want to work it out, the more cooperation you need from the world.
Actually dropping nukes there wouldn't work. It's too close to Russia, China, and Europe. I was just offering a strategy that would effectively do the same thing as yours, just cheaper and, as you point out, faster. I don't honestly think either option is viable.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I believe Vaztet already covered that as not being a viable option....

 

    ....and instead he suggested nuking them.  I guess Vastet has his own standards of what's viable ?

Vastet said he was the one with the most common sense! Why wouldn't you want to believe him?

That was you who said that. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:There are

Vastet wrote:

There are multiple options for dealing with the mid east. But the faster you want to work it out, the more cooperation you need from the world. Actually dropping nukes there wouldn't work. It's too close to Russia, China, and Europe. I was just offering a strategy that would effectively do the same thing as yours, just cheaper and, as you point out, faster. I don't honestly think either option is viable.

 

   Of course.  Both options were offered purely tongue in cheek, without serious intent.   In reality I have no idea how to effectively bring the Arab / Israeli conflict to an end in a way that would satisfy both sides.

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yeah satisfying both sides

Yeah satisfying both sides is literally impossible. The trick would be to find an agreement they both disliked, but would tolerate. I don't know if that's possible either, but it is more likely.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:

[quote-digitalbeachbum]

Vastet said he was the one with the most common sense! Why wouldn't you want to believe him?

That was you who said that. Sticking out tongue

You told me to get in line so I'm assuming you were #1 and I was going to be #2.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Nah the get in line had

Nah the get in line had nothing to do with common sense. I stated that I should rule the world a couple years ago, so there's a line of dictators-in-waiting already. Eye-wink

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Nah the get in

Vastet wrote:
Nah the get in line had nothing to do with common sense. I stated that I should rule the world a couple years ago, so there's a line of dictators-in-waiting already. Eye-wink

Oh I wouldn't be a dictator, people would vote me in to power because I'm so lovable.

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
many dictators have been

many dictators have been fairly elected. hitler's rise to power, for example, was entirely legal and constitutional.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:many dictators

iwbiek wrote:
many dictators have been fairly elected. hitler's rise to power, for example, was entirely legal and constitutional.

Mua ha ha ha ha ha

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:many dictators

iwbiek wrote:
many dictators have been fairly elected. hitler's rise to power, for example, was entirely legal and constitutional.

Hitler was a douche and gave real dictators, such as myself, a bad reputation. I shudder every time true dictators are grouped in association with wanna-be's like him, Stalin and Jong.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:iwbiek

Vastet wrote:
iwbiek wrote:
many dictators have been fairly elected. hitler's rise to power, for example, was entirely legal and constitutional.
Mua ha ha ha ha ha

Laugh it up fuzzball.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15724
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
 I believe it when either

 I believe it when either side says "We once lived side by side in peace". I believe religious leaders in the west who find overlap when they say "we all have the same god. " I have seen Jews and Muslims setting side by side in the news who find that agreement.

Here is the problem with that, while it is true there have been periods in both religions history in that region where they did live in peace, it is the same tokenism and setting up social pecking orders that non-Christians of all religions and atheists as well hear when a  Christian argues "Christian nation". Power has shifted over the thousands of years from different hands. The truth is each side is fine living with the other as long as the minority not in power knows their statuse is house guest. That is not equality, that is tokenism.

 

It is impossible not to have conflict when you put issues of religon or race into a state's constitution. The only thing that can protect pluralism is a government that does not play favorites. That is not to say banning religion, but bans on social pecking orders and bans on favortism. This type of conflict was what Jefferson had in mind with his "wall".

"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