So I assume everyone has some inkling of what's going on in Israel at the moment. Just thought I'd sound off here and say Bush is a fucking idiot. His high and mighty "You're with us or you're a terrorist scum that must be eradicated" doctrine may have just backed us into a corner. With Ariel Sharon declaring that Israel's actions are antiterrorist I don't see the US being able to officially condemn them without the Bush ultimatum out the window. Not that I consider that a bad idea.
Not sure exactly what else I want to say about this, just venting as coherently as possible.
Evil Empire and all that
-
paladin2019
- Bulldrek Pimp
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:24 am
- Location: Undisclosed locations in Southwest Asia
Evil Empire and all that
-call me Andy, dammit
-
paladin2019
- Bulldrek Pimp
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:24 am
- Location: Undisclosed locations in Southwest Asia
CNN's front page!
BBC's front page!
How can _anyone_ with an Internet connection and a television miss that Isreal is slowly but surely filling the West Bank with troops?
BBC's front page!
How can _anyone_ with an Internet connection and a television miss that Isreal is slowly but surely filling the West Bank with troops?
-
Crazy Elf
- Footman of the Imperium
- Posts: 3036
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:44 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
This is getting more and more monkeyed by the minute. The conflict over there is utterly ridiculous, and from everything I've seen, it looks like Israel is well into the wrong of the situation. Hell, after the summit met up in Beirut, and said, "Isreal needs to give back land it's taken", the next day Israel moves back into the West Bank, and then wonders why the hell they get so many bombings.
This entire conflict shows one thing for certain, the British are morons. You don't give the Jews large chunks of land without asking the people there first. America is just as bad, because you don't arm them right afterward, and fund aggression.
This is such a cluster monkey, and it's mostly the fault of outside interfearence. Hell, the situation wouldn't exist if it wasn't for outside interfearence.
This entire conflict shows one thing for certain, the British are morons. You don't give the Jews large chunks of land without asking the people there first. America is just as bad, because you don't arm them right afterward, and fund aggression.
This is such a cluster monkey, and it's mostly the fault of outside interfearence. Hell, the situation wouldn't exist if it wasn't for outside interfearence.
-
FlameBlade
- SMITE!™ Master
- Posts: 8644
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
- Contact:
-
FlameBlade
- SMITE!™ Master
- Posts: 8644
- Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am
- Contact:
For some reason, Non-violent parades would work the best. I mean, it may cost people lives, but if Palestines keep hurting them, and Israelites contiune parading non-violently, then...Palestines will look stupid.
Sames goes for Palestinians, they could have non-violent parades, and Israel can't do anything, as hurting them would make them bad.
At least, that's ONLY a theory. It may work. It may not work, but remember, it worked in India under Ghandi's influence.
Sames goes for Palestinians, they could have non-violent parades, and Israel can't do anything, as hurting them would make them bad.
At least, that's ONLY a theory. It may work. It may not work, but remember, it worked in India under Ghandi's influence.
_I'm a nightmare of every man's fantasy.
-
paladin2019
- Bulldrek Pimp
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:24 am
- Location: Undisclosed locations in Southwest Asia
The difference between this conflict and Ghandi's India vs. the Brits is that the Indians and British really didn't want to kill each other. Not in the "I hate you so much I'll strap a bomb to my whatever and walk into a crowded place and blow myself and 100 some of your to the next world." This is a conflict that the European Jews dredged back up by insisting they get a homeland after WWII, a homeland I'm not sure they had an ancestral claim to. Add to that three major wars between them and their neighbors in living memory, including an occupation that's lasted as long, and a siege mentality on both sides; that's a recipe for genocide.
Arafat's another issue. Unlike Sharon, he has been in power continuously in this "recent meory of conflict." My opinion of the man sways between petty, bitter strongman and petty, bitter, ineffectual figurehead. Sharon, I don't have enough information about to form an opinion.
And telling Israel to stop in a UNSC resolution and Bush getting on the phone and telling Sharon to stand down are two entirely different things. I'm not sure Bush the Younger understands this.
And don't approve of the OIC's call to redefine terrorism as any action against civilian targets. I especially don't like the implication that this would term soldiers terrorists. First, terrorists, almost by definition, operate out of uniform. Soldiers do not. A uniform, while it may seem insignificant, forms the basis of many of the laws and customs regarding warfare. For example, combatants who don't wear a recognizable uniform are generally subject to summary execution. This means that it doesn't matter whether you surrender or not, whether your surrender is accepted or not, whether you are taken prisoner or not, you can be shot at the whim of the enemy, for the crime of not wearing a uniform. Does it happen? Rarely. Said individual is usually much more valuable as an intelligence source than a corpse.
The purpose of this draconian policy is to separate the combatants from the civilians. If the guy on the business end of your weapon is in uniform, it's probably a safe bet that he has a weapon and will use it against you at the first opportunity. But if he doesn't, he shouldn't have to be considered a threat. And if everyone obeys the rules and wears a uniform, he won't. But terrorists don't wear uniforms. That's part of their camouflage. By looking like civilians, they can use civilians to hide themselves. And then the soldiers have no choice but to treat every civilian they come across as a possible combatant. Thus, I consider terrorists one of the lowest forms of life, as they put the people they claim to protect in harm's way.
Okay, that's the idealism. But the reality of war is that sometimes a civilian target is a necessary objective. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, St Petersburg, these are all examples. And in this case, these objectives were considered essential to winning the war in question. As soldiers, we have our own code of how war should be conducted, a code agreed upon by our political, and in most cases civilian, leadership and whose purpose is to reduce civilian casualties. These have become the "rules of the game" if you will, and eveeryone is expected to play by them. And the do allow attacks on civilian, and especially political targets. Like Arafat's presidential compound. I'm not saying it was right to order the attack, but it wasn't wrong for the troops to carry out the order.
That's all I have to say now. More later, I'm sure.
Arafat's another issue. Unlike Sharon, he has been in power continuously in this "recent meory of conflict." My opinion of the man sways between petty, bitter strongman and petty, bitter, ineffectual figurehead. Sharon, I don't have enough information about to form an opinion.
And telling Israel to stop in a UNSC resolution and Bush getting on the phone and telling Sharon to stand down are two entirely different things. I'm not sure Bush the Younger understands this.
And don't approve of the OIC's call to redefine terrorism as any action against civilian targets. I especially don't like the implication that this would term soldiers terrorists. First, terrorists, almost by definition, operate out of uniform. Soldiers do not. A uniform, while it may seem insignificant, forms the basis of many of the laws and customs regarding warfare. For example, combatants who don't wear a recognizable uniform are generally subject to summary execution. This means that it doesn't matter whether you surrender or not, whether your surrender is accepted or not, whether you are taken prisoner or not, you can be shot at the whim of the enemy, for the crime of not wearing a uniform. Does it happen? Rarely. Said individual is usually much more valuable as an intelligence source than a corpse.
The purpose of this draconian policy is to separate the combatants from the civilians. If the guy on the business end of your weapon is in uniform, it's probably a safe bet that he has a weapon and will use it against you at the first opportunity. But if he doesn't, he shouldn't have to be considered a threat. And if everyone obeys the rules and wears a uniform, he won't. But terrorists don't wear uniforms. That's part of their camouflage. By looking like civilians, they can use civilians to hide themselves. And then the soldiers have no choice but to treat every civilian they come across as a possible combatant. Thus, I consider terrorists one of the lowest forms of life, as they put the people they claim to protect in harm's way.
Okay, that's the idealism. But the reality of war is that sometimes a civilian target is a necessary objective. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, St Petersburg, these are all examples. And in this case, these objectives were considered essential to winning the war in question. As soldiers, we have our own code of how war should be conducted, a code agreed upon by our political, and in most cases civilian, leadership and whose purpose is to reduce civilian casualties. These have become the "rules of the game" if you will, and eveeryone is expected to play by them. And the do allow attacks on civilian, and especially political targets. Like Arafat's presidential compound. I'm not saying it was right to order the attack, but it wasn't wrong for the troops to carry out the order.
That's all I have to say now. More later, I'm sure.
-call me Andy, dammit
Yes, that, and every single other detail about this make it different from India. In fact, I can't think of a single thing they have in /common/.The difference between this conflict and Ghandi's India vs. the Brits is that the Indians and British really didn't want to kill each other.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
Two groups are fighting?Marius wrote:Yes, that, and every single other detail about this make it different from India. In fact, I can't think of a single thing they have in /common/.The difference between this conflict and Ghandi's India vs. the Brits is that the Indians and British really didn't want to kill each other.
Seriously, they need to find a way to address the citizens of the area-- after all it's the two groups' hate for each other that keeps spurring this along.
Problem is that it's next to impossible to convince a group that thinks they're right that they're wrong.
I tend to dislike the thought of peace through superior firepower, but perhaps (seeing as negotiations still haven't worked) that may be the only solution?
And when the disagreement is such a painfully polar opposite, one group clearly must be wrong.Problem is that it's next to impossible to convince a group that thinks they're right that they're wrong.
Which viewpoint seems more correct.
Palestinian: Israel should not exist.
Israeli: We're not real cool on committing suicide or being exterminated, thanks anyway.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
-
Crazy Elf
- Footman of the Imperium
- Posts: 3036
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:44 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
Maybe not on commiting suicide, but remember that one of the main reasons that Israel exists is due to terrorism on the British government in the late 40's. Israel aren't exactly in there for the right reasons to begin with, as they don't bloody well deserve to be there. The Palastinians have a right to be pissed off, esspecially when the holy city itself was seized back in 48 I think it was.
Also, being mainly European Jews, you'll note that they have little or no ancestal claim to the turf. Most of the European Jews sprung up between Constantinople (I can't spell) and Muslem turf way back in the pre-Crusades era, so that they wouldn't get killed by the Christians for being Muslem, or Muslems for being Christian. It was political more than anything else, and certainly not genetic. Hell, probably the only "genetic" Jews you're going to get are in Ethiopia, who are black, like Mohamed was.
It's amusing that the sterotypical Jew (white, big nose, angular) has very little to do with what the original line was.
In any case, they can have the religion, no problems with that, but the land that other people that they coppied so they wouldn't get killed used to claim a liniage to? The UN once again monkeyed up.
I'm afraid I'm on the Palastinians side on this one. I don't think that all of the Israelies should die die die, but they sure as hell shouldn't be there, esspecially not in Jeruselum, which was originally a neutral zone for three major religions.
So until they get the hell out of there, they can suck on explosives. The Beirut conference spoke, the rest of the world have been speaking, but Israel just can't seem to manage to listen to what everyone's telling them.
Where's Hitler when you need him?
Also, being mainly European Jews, you'll note that they have little or no ancestal claim to the turf. Most of the European Jews sprung up between Constantinople (I can't spell) and Muslem turf way back in the pre-Crusades era, so that they wouldn't get killed by the Christians for being Muslem, or Muslems for being Christian. It was political more than anything else, and certainly not genetic. Hell, probably the only "genetic" Jews you're going to get are in Ethiopia, who are black, like Mohamed was.
It's amusing that the sterotypical Jew (white, big nose, angular) has very little to do with what the original line was.
In any case, they can have the religion, no problems with that, but the land that other people that they coppied so they wouldn't get killed used to claim a liniage to? The UN once again monkeyed up.
I'm afraid I'm on the Palastinians side on this one. I don't think that all of the Israelies should die die die, but they sure as hell shouldn't be there, esspecially not in Jeruselum, which was originally a neutral zone for three major religions.
So until they get the hell out of there, they can suck on explosives. The Beirut conference spoke, the rest of the world have been speaking, but Israel just can't seem to manage to listen to what everyone's telling them.
Where's Hitler when you need him?
-
paladin2019
- Bulldrek Pimp
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:24 am
- Location: Undisclosed locations in Southwest Asia
To clarify some of what CE said, first off the Jews, the etnic not the religious group, are a semitic people, like the Arabs. Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed, all of this ethnic group. And Jerusalem is not THE holy city of Islam. That's Mecca. Jerusalem is also not THE holy city of Christianity. That's Rome for the Catholics, and I don't know where else for the rest. But Jerusalem is the holy city of Judaism, and it's fairly important to the other two. But the solution, making Jerusalem her own country like the Vatican, just isn't going to happen.
And the Beirut conference, this is the only time the Arab worlf has come together and unilaterally declared that they will recognize Israel's right to exist. But they put some conditions on recognition. Among the withdrawals from thier occupied territories, including Jerusalem. Again, Israeli withdrawal is probably not on option. The PM who withdraws won't be a leader come the next election and the next will then have a clear mandate from the people to take the city back.
And it's not like the Israelis haven't sat down to talk before. They have met countless times in our (US) previous two presidential administrations with varous Arab leaders to try to come up with some form of workable peace. But withdrawal from the westr bank of the Jordan and Jerusalem has always been a condition the Israelis would never accept. They have made that clear. And it is one condition the Arab world seems to consider vitally important to recognizing Israel. Go figure.
And someone else asked what other similarities existed between this situation and India/Britain. Well, for one, an occupying army vs. a native insurgents. But you're right, there isn't much more than that.
And the Beirut conference, this is the only time the Arab worlf has come together and unilaterally declared that they will recognize Israel's right to exist. But they put some conditions on recognition. Among the withdrawals from thier occupied territories, including Jerusalem. Again, Israeli withdrawal is probably not on option. The PM who withdraws won't be a leader come the next election and the next will then have a clear mandate from the people to take the city back.
And it's not like the Israelis haven't sat down to talk before. They have met countless times in our (US) previous two presidential administrations with varous Arab leaders to try to come up with some form of workable peace. But withdrawal from the westr bank of the Jordan and Jerusalem has always been a condition the Israelis would never accept. They have made that clear. And it is one condition the Arab world seems to consider vitally important to recognizing Israel. Go figure.
And someone else asked what other similarities existed between this situation and India/Britain. Well, for one, an occupying army vs. a native insurgents. But you're right, there isn't much more than that.
-call me Andy, dammit
-
Crazy Elf
- Footman of the Imperium
- Posts: 3036
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:44 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
Israelies shot peace protestors.
Also, the Israelies aren't all Jews, they're mixed, much like the Palastinians aren't all Muslem. It's more political than religious, although there are some political ramifications as a result of the nature of the Israeli's land claim. Religion and politics, shouldn't be mixed.
Also, the Israelies aren't all Jews, they're mixed, much like the Palastinians aren't all Muslem. It's more political than religious, although there are some political ramifications as a result of the nature of the Israeli's land claim. Religion and politics, shouldn't be mixed.
Actually, it's more like:Marius wrote: And when the disagreement is such a painfully polar opposite, one group clearly must be wrong.
Which viewpoint seems more correct.
Palestinian: Israel should not exist.
Israeli: We're not real cool on committing suicide or being exterminated, thanks anyway.
Palestinian (and the rest of the Arabic middle east): Israel does not exist.
-
paladin2019
- Bulldrek Pimp
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:24 am
- Location: Undisclosed locations in Southwest Asia
That's really interesting, CE. Maybe we should at least hear Israel's official response to the incident. Being in similar situations, just without the imminent threat of suicide bombers, I can understand the apparent actions of the Israeli troops. Hmm, I'm in a warzone, I've got a bunch of idiots coming towards my position and they don't appear to be carrying any weapons but we've had a shitload of suicide bombings in the last two weeks and I can't see everyone clearly because there's too many people there. I'm at least going to make sure everyone backs off. And the subject interviewed for this article said warning shots may have been fired, she didn't know. So now we have the apparent situation of warning shots haven't turned these people around, dammit there may be bombers in this crowd.
I'm obviously extrapolating scenarios here, and with the lack of information available, this is a generally bad thing. Like simply posting "Israelies shot peace protestors". Headlines are inflammatory and the article linked to is very one-sided, even though the primary source used didn't seem to be.
The moral to this story seems to be "Don't antagonize the people with guns."
I'm obviously extrapolating scenarios here, and with the lack of information available, this is a generally bad thing. Like simply posting "Israelies shot peace protestors". Headlines are inflammatory and the article linked to is very one-sided, even though the primary source used didn't seem to be.
The moral to this story seems to be "Don't antagonize the people with guns."
-call me Andy, dammit
Exactly. But even though they are polar opposites, it's still hard to tell who is wrong here. Until recently I thought Israelis were the 'good guys' because of US news and my own ignorance to the situation.Marius wrote:And when the disagreement is such a painfully polar opposite, one group clearly must be wrong.Problem is that it's next to impossible to convince a group that thinks they're right that they're wrong.
Which viewpoint seems more correct.
Palestinian: Israel should not exist.
Israeli: We're not real cool on committing suicide or being exterminated, thanks anyway.
But, supposing the Israelis don't have a stake to the land, and the Palestinians are in the right, who's going to march in there and tell Israel to clear out? I'm thinking that that conflict would probably cause more loss of life than what's going on now.
Actually no, it's not, but that's because it's not an intuitive answer that both sides are wrong.Szechuan wrote: Exactly. But even though they are polar opposites, it's still hard to tell who is wrong here.
There's never going to be peace in that part of the world. Not until one side gets exterminated anyway.
-
Crazy Elf
- Footman of the Imperium
- Posts: 3036
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:44 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
So suicide bombers are cunningly disguised as people of various nationalities acompanied with several newscrews from several different countries. Obviously. The whole world wants to send suicide bombers to Israel, why not let the Israelies shoot everyone, seems fair by that rational.
They shot at peace protestors and international news crews. I don't care why the hell they did it, it's not on.
They shot at peace protestors and international news crews. I don't care why the hell they did it, it's not on.
-
Tim the Enchanter
- Bulldrek Junkie
- Posts: 536
- Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2002 4:04 am
- Location: Hell, California
Even given the problems that arose when the brits displaced the palestinians in the '40s (a real dumb move by anyone's standards), there would not be so much trouble if we could just do something about the fanatics.
I was talking with a guy I know who is palestinian. He says that at one time Mohammed had a real nasty grudge against christians for some reason (don't know, not important), and so he added a section to the koran which says pretty much "Allah wants all christians dead. kill them and you will automatically go to heaven."
Rational muslim's response: ...that makes no sense.
fanatic muslim's response: Allah has decreed it! Death to the infidels!
which viewpoint would you prefer?
I was talking with a guy I know who is palestinian. He says that at one time Mohammed had a real nasty grudge against christians for some reason (don't know, not important), and so he added a section to the koran which says pretty much "Allah wants all christians dead. kill them and you will automatically go to heaven."
Rational muslim's response: ...that makes no sense.
fanatic muslim's response: Allah has decreed it! Death to the infidels!
which viewpoint would you prefer?
_"When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed, Job knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, "Why God? Why me?" and the thundering voice of God answered, "There's just something about you that pisses me off."
--Stephen King
--Stephen King
-
paladin2019
- Bulldrek Pimp
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:24 am
- Location: Undisclosed locations in Southwest Asia
To answer Tim, the Palestine/Israel thing is more secular than religious. The face the PLO is trying to put forward is that their suicide bombers know exactly what they are doing-attempting to undermine Israel's resolve in the conflict. The bombers are sacrificing themselves for their families so that they might have home no one can take away. That's the propaganda, anyway.
And CE, the primary source for the article you referenced said warning shots may have been fired. She also said the demonstrators were moving away slowly. We have no demographics on the demonstration besides the primary source being Australian and the rest was "international". As has been seen, the PLO is making the attempt to paint everyone as a potential bomber. The goal is to overwhelm and overwork security forces, this includes police, military, EMS, et al., and make them either overreact, which probably happened in this instance, or give up in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. I blame terrorists for their indirect involvement in this tragedy more than any boots on the ground. I've been in that situation. I've had to draw down on a father driving his children around on a Sunday afternoon. And he's alive today because he also believes in the adage "Don't antagonize the people with the guns."
And CE, the primary source for the article you referenced said warning shots may have been fired. She also said the demonstrators were moving away slowly. We have no demographics on the demonstration besides the primary source being Australian and the rest was "international". As has been seen, the PLO is making the attempt to paint everyone as a potential bomber. The goal is to overwhelm and overwork security forces, this includes police, military, EMS, et al., and make them either overreact, which probably happened in this instance, or give up in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. I blame terrorists for their indirect involvement in this tragedy more than any boots on the ground. I've been in that situation. I've had to draw down on a father driving his children around on a Sunday afternoon. And he's alive today because he also believes in the adage "Don't antagonize the people with the guns."
-call me Andy, dammit
-
Crazy Elf
- Footman of the Imperium
- Posts: 3036
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 4:44 am
- Location: Oz
- Contact:
I saw the footage of the incident. The peace protestors had their arms in the air and were making peace signs with their fingers, and moving forward. The Israilies in a tank started firing in front of the crowd, and the crowd stopped, then the bullets kept getting closer to the crowd in question. Then, they started shooting at the cameramen who were filing the incident, and hit a few, then they started shooting at reporters.
It was all on film.
Also, not all Israelies are Jews, and not all the Palastinians are fanatical Muslems, or Muslems period. The religions are diverse, typically. Certainly, Israel is made up mainly of Jews, but Palastine is a mixed kettle, due to Jeruselum being such a holy city for so many religions.
You're right, some Palastinians are fanatical, but it's not primarily religious motivation. Just like the IRA aren't all about differing views on Christianity. Sure, that's one issue, but not all of it.
Incidentally, the IRA seem to be seen in a rather positive light, all things considered. Many media pieces have glorified what they're on about, however the Palastinians seem to be demonised quite often. I have no understanding as to why there is such a difference in opinion on the two subjects, which are quite similar at the base.
It was all on film.
Also, not all Israelies are Jews, and not all the Palastinians are fanatical Muslems, or Muslems period. The religions are diverse, typically. Certainly, Israel is made up mainly of Jews, but Palastine is a mixed kettle, due to Jeruselum being such a holy city for so many religions.
You're right, some Palastinians are fanatical, but it's not primarily religious motivation. Just like the IRA aren't all about differing views on Christianity. Sure, that's one issue, but not all of it.
Incidentally, the IRA seem to be seen in a rather positive light, all things considered. Many media pieces have glorified what they're on about, however the Palastinians seem to be demonised quite often. I have no understanding as to why there is such a difference in opinion on the two subjects, which are quite similar at the base.