[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
special troops and snipe away those fuckers with rockets. Again I am not an military expert so if that suggestion seemed naive or just batshit idiotic, its because of that.[/quote]
Yeah, the super duper sniper answer. Now I understand.[/quote]
Oh, the super duper smartass comment 
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
special troops and snipe away those fuckers with rockets. Again I am not an military expert so if that suggestion seemed naive or just batshit idiotic, its because of that.[/quote]
Yeah, the super duper sniper answer. Now I understand.[/quote]
Oh, the super duper smartass comment
[/quote]
Sometimes, it just isn’t worth the trouble to make a serious response. A sure sign of that is the super duper anti-jihadi sniper team answer. Or, the arrest-warrant carrying deputy knocking on Hamas and pals’ front door. I understand where you’re coming from now, and will trouble you no further. Carry on.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
I know this is a joke, but the sad truth is that many people think of muslims/arabs when they hear the word terrorist.[/quote]
I wonder what ever led them to associate the two? Perhaps it has something to do with the 17000+ seperate Islamist terrorist attacks since 9/11 carried out by Muslims, in the name of their religion and whilst yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’?
Perhaps if Hindus had flown commercial airliners into skyscrapers and committed 17000+ seperate terrorist attacks in the last decade yelling ‘om mani padme hum’ and claiming religious justification for said attacks we’d associate Hindus with terrorism? Or is that too far fetched?[/quote]
Funny you should mention hindus. There have been prognom like actions against muslims in India, carryed out by hindus. I will try to find a source if you dont believe.
You seem like a guy who knows history sexmachine, and you should therefor also know that the term terroist have been used against enemys in many occasions, the british called for example george washington a terrorist. And our arab friend on this site is partly right: muslim para-militarys are called terrorist when they fight soldiers( wich is not an act of terrorism ), while israely, american or norwegian military personel are called soldiers when they perform terrorist acts( the bombing of gaza a few years ago was most definitly an act of terrorism, because the goal was to inflict death and terror on the population of gaza to scare them ). I dont no wich definition of terrorism you use, but mine is: civillian targets with the goal of inflicting terror/fear in the enemys. with that definition USA is a terroist state becuase of the nuclear attack on hiroshima and nagazaki, but nobody in the west defines america as an terrorist state because of this terrorist act and other horrible acts. And that probably because USA and the other western countrys are allys and because what defines USA is much more than terrorism. The same is true for HAMAS, FATHA ect, theire friends probably dont call them terrorists. They are probably looked on as political movements. Also for them who know HAMAS and FATHA more closely than from the idiotbox. The point is that most military organisations( be it states or non-state organisations ) perform or have performed terrorist acts and if we should call one terrorist, we must call all terrorists if we want to stay consistent.
[/quote]
You are trying way too much to draw comparisons just so you can equivalize. America didn’t just come along one day and drop a nuke on Japan without provocation or reason. There was a war going on that had been started by Japan and civilians in cities had been targeted for years. The government of Japan people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima had a reasonable expectation that they could be next at any time.
What makes a terrorist is using the freedom of movement in a civil society to set up attacks on people who have no reasonable expectation of being attacked. We don’t make muslims wear signs so we can identify them on the street and have check points to regularly search them. They are free to come and go unmolested in our society.
What you are calling para-militarys and comparing to our army are people who are not wearing a uniform so they can use the protection that is given to civilians to make sneak attacks and escape. Again it is an abuse of our civility. And NO these are not groups that are comparatively equal.
You claim that you are merely trying to maintain consistency, which is bollocks. You are deliberately trying to muddy the waters to the point that no one can say anyone is in the right or wrong, when that isn’t the case. [/quote]
Remember I gave my definition or understanding of the term terrorist and terrorist act and with that definition the bombs over japan fitted right in. but I will say that your points about freedom to move and no uniform makes sence. However you just proved my point I made early on about switching from the term terrorist to arab/muslim wouldt make a difference of the using of the term today. You specifically used muslim as terrorist. My point still stands about the term being meaningless and muddy. Why not say militant muslim instead, much more specific and to the point without sucking out the humanity of the person wich the label terrorist does.
And my claimed goal of being consistent is not bollocks.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pretty comfy in Norway?[/quote]
I bet you and I have it pretty comfy compared to the guy growing up in Gaza.
[/quote]
Also more comfy than an Israeli living in a bomb shelter on the receiving end of the rockets that were being fired out of Gaza every day. While moralizing on the internet about how awful the Israelis are for finally doing something about it.
[/quote]
Yes I am more comfy than the israely guy you where talking about, but so are you and most of us here.
But I`ll give you a choice: would you live in palestina or Israel?
[/quote]
Would you rather live in a house with abusive parents but in a neighborhood filled with your best friends, or a good home life in a neighborhood filled with child molesters trying to rape you?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
special troops and snipe away those fuckers with rockets. Again I am not an military expert so if that suggestion seemed naive or just batshit idiotic, its because of that.[/quote]
Yeah, the super duper sniper answer. Now I understand.[/quote]
Oh, the super duper smartass comment
[/quote]
Sometimes, it just isn’t worth the trouble to make a serious response. A sure sign of that is the super duper anti-jihadi sniper team answer, or the arrest-warrant carrying deputy knocking on Hamas and pals’ front door. I understand where you’re coming from now, and will trouble you no further. Carry on.[/quote]
I thougt you liked the snipeteam idea, because you are so good at sniping in short comments here and there without offering anything of substance. Sexmachine, Shifu, tiribulus Cushin to some extent where able to do this, but not you this time. You just wanted to ask retorical questions. And you are the one that cant be troubled with responding in a serious manner. Hop along champ I think there is a abortion debate you can participate in somewhere on this forum, or you could come with your own opinions on the matter.
[quote]eggwhite wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pretty comfy in Norway?[/quote]
I bet you and I have it pretty comfy compared to the guy growing up in Gaza.
[/quote]
Also more comfy than an Israeli living in a bomb shelter on the receiving end of the rockets that were being fired out of Gaza every day. While moralizing on the internet about how awful the Israelis are for finally doing something about it.
[/quote]
Yes I am more comfy than the israely guy you where talking about, but so are you and most of us here.
But I`ll give you a choice: would you live in palestina or Israel?
[/quote]
Would you rather live in a house with abusive parents but in a neighborhood filled with your best friends, or a good home life in a neighborhood filled with child molesters trying to rape you?[/quote]
I think you mistake this for GAL, but you can join in if you are up to debate this as an mature person
I thought it was an appropriate analogy…however,I’ll rephrase it: Would you rather live in a shitty situation surrounded by your friends or live in a mediocre situation surrounded by people who want to erase your existence?
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
special troops and snipe away those fuckers with rockets. Again I am not an military expert so if that suggestion seemed naive or just batshit idiotic, its because of that.[/quote]
Yeah, the super duper sniper answer. Now I understand.[/quote]
Oh, the super duper smartass comment
[/quote]
Sometimes, it just isn’t worth the trouble to make a serious response. A sure sign of that is the super duper anti-jihadi sniper team answer, or the arrest-warrant carrying deputy knocking on Hamas and pals’ front door. I understand where you’re coming from now, and will trouble you no further. Carry on.[/quote]
I thougt you liked the snipeteam idea, because you are so good at sniping in short comments here and there without offering anything of substance. Sexmachine, Shifu, tiribulus Cushin to some extent where able to do this, but not you this time. You just wanted to ask retorical questions. And you are the one that cant be troubled with responding in a serious manner. Hop along champ I think there is a abortion debate you can participate in somewhere on this forum, or you could come with your own opinions on the matter.[/quote]
No, seriously, please ignore my entry into this. I’ve no motivation to debate the safety and treatment of the Jews by an Arab muslim majority constrained by a piece of paper in the single nation solution state of Isr…er, Palestine. Maybe others, such as you’ve named, have the patience to discuss such a reality.
[quote]florelius wrote:
295 civilians dead, are 295 to many. especially those 89 kids.
[/quote]
Why is it too many? In light of the fact that Hamas leaders live with their families, hide weapons in civilian apartments, schools and hospitals and launch rockets from UN compounds how is less than 1/4 civilian casualties too many?
During WWII occupied France received over 67,000 casualties from US/UK bombing. Is this too many? Should the allies have attempted beach landings without bombing the coastal batteries, train lines, German military facilities etc? You need to understand that in warfare civilians die. What matters is whether the response is PROPORTIONATE and REASONABLE under the circumstances. In my opinion Israel’s response has ALWAYS been UNDER PROPORTIONATE.
'For starters not bomb Gaza, a tiny place with a huge underaged population.
Is it something we have learned from modern warfare, is that the civilians is always the victim, either by death, injury or worsening of theire humanitarian conditions. And the people who make decisions about going or not going to war are well aware of this’
In addition, Israel DID send in infantry when they could’ve used bombing in order to limit civilian casualties. They put their own soldiers in harm’s way to limit civilian casualties.
BTW - The French are socialist arseholes for the most part, yet we never hear/heard them or anyone else complain about the 67,000 French casualties caused by allied strategic bombing.
[quote]eggwhite wrote:
I thought it was an appropriate analogy…however,I’ll rephrase it: Would you rather live in a shitty situation surrounded by your friends or live in a mediocre situation surrounded by people who want to erase your existence?[/quote]
Instead of analogys to prove some point, cant you just state your opinion.
Sorry but I dont bother asnwering questions that are designed to trick me.
Just say what is on your heart. I will listen and respond.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
295 civilians dead, are 295 to many. especially those 89 kids.
[/quote]
Why is it too many? In light of the fact that Hamas leaders live with their families, hide weapons in civilian apartments, schools and hospitals and launch rockets from UN compounds how is less than 1/4 civilian casualties too many?
During WWII occupied France received over 67,000 casualties from US/UK bombing. Is this too many? Should the allies have attempted beach landings without bombing the coastal batteries, train lines, German military facilities etc? You need to understand that in warfare civilians die. What matters is whether the response is PROPORTIONATE and REASONABLE under the circumstances. In my opinion Israel’s response has ALWAYS been UNDER PROPORTIONATE.
'For starters not bomb Gaza, a tiny place with a huge underaged population.
Is it something we have learned from modern warfare, is that the civilians is always the victim, either by death, injury or worsening of theire humanitarian conditions. And the people who make decisions about going or not going to war are well aware of this’
In addition, Israel DID send in infantry when they could’ve used bombing in order to limit civilian casualties. They put their own soldiers in harm’s way to limit civilian casualties.
BTW - The French are socialist arseholes for the most part, yet we never hear/heard them or anyone else complain about the 67,000 French casualties caused by allied strategic bombing.[/quote]
I will respond tomorrow because its 02.27 at night over here.
[quote]florelius wrote:
When it comes to what Israel should have done, I dont know because I am not a general or similar remember, but they could have come up with another solution than collectively punish the palestinian people. Maybe sending in some special troops and snipe away those fuckers with rockets. Again I am not an military expert so if that suggestion seemed naive or just batshit idiotic, its because of that.[/quote]
As I said before, Israel DIDN’T collectively punish the Palestinian population. They actually continued to deliver aid to Hamas during the entire operation.
Your suggestion is naive. When an aircraft spots a rocket team it can fire immediately. The time it would take to get infantry there would render the process unworkable. The rocket team would also have spotters who would warn them of infantry approach. In addition, the destruction of tunnels/weapons caches solely via infantry would’ve caused immense casualties on the Israeli side. Israel already does more than one could reasonably expect to limit civilian casualties.
Until both sides fall into the arms of Jesus (which I’m not suggesting they’ll do anytime soon) there will be no solution to this situation while they live in proximity to each other. There are very few hyoojer wastes of time than pretending anything whatsoever other than what I just said will happen. Israel is an ally and a semi faithful one at that as we seem to nab her spying on us from time to time, but still a strategic ally that should be treated as such. Her extermination is the life’s mission of a large number of people which really sucks and which we should prevent, in my view having absolutely NOTHING directly to do with theology or history. That will disappoint Jewbacca, but I can only be honest.
I do not support Israel because she is a victim because she is not. She has one of the best equipped, highly trained armed forces on earth, not to mention the very best intelligence outfit there is who does what’s in the best interest of Israel without the slightest thought of who they have to step on to do it. I respect that. I truly do. I wish we would do the same. They have however mastered the art of victimhood on a level rivaled by nobody and play it to their favor incessantly.
I also do not support Israel because she is God’s chosen nation because she is no longer that either. Her indispensable role of honor as the keeper of the covenants and promises of almighty God has looooong since expired. She rejects the very promises and eternal covenant she herself was guardian over from Abraham, Moses and the prophets to their epiphany and fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth. The Israel of God are those circumcised of heart in the resurrection of Christ, both Jews and gentiles.
I allow neither of these common American themes to influence my view of Israel in any way. She is a competent ally and friend of my country in an area of the world where that is very scarce. I am glad for that.
EDITED for clarity in the first sentence.
[quote]florelius wrote:
I will respond tomorrow because its 02.27 at night over here.
[/quote]
No problem. I will explain why a one or two state solution is tantamount to suicide for Israeli Jews, as well.
One state:
Palestinians will comprise the majority of the population. Palestinians have a history of doing things like democratically electing Hamas.
Two state:
Palestinians by their own admission will never concede Israel’s right to exist, will demand ‘right of return’(to a place they’ve never been to) for the Palestinian descendants of everyone in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. A two state solution will require Israel to be cut in two(land corridor linking WB and Gaza) and have no defensible borders.
NOTE: The League of Nations(UN predecessor) already created a ‘Palestinian state’ called Jordan. All Palestinians in WB/East Jerusalem were given Jordanian citizenship.
Jordan is THE Palestinian state. The overwhelming majority of the population are Palestinians. The resettlement of Palestinians to Jordan would end the whole problem. No population ‘exchanges’ would not be necessary as Jews have already been forcibly expelled from every Muslim country in the Middle East. A similar resettlement of Greeks from Turkey occured without violence or fifth generation refugees demanding right of return(to a place they’ve lived in continuously for over 4000 years).
On refugees after WWII: At the close of WWII there were over 400 million refugees in Europe alone. They were all resettled within three years without the need for their great grandchildren to demand ‘right of return’ and use suicide bombers etc.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Until both sides fall into the arms of Jesus there will be no solution to this situation while they live in proximity to each other. There are very few hyoojer wastes of time than pretending anything whatsoever other than what I just said will happen.
[/quote]
Tirib, Jews and Muslims are not going to ‘fall into the arms of Jesus’. Grow up. Be thankful you’ve got Jews guarding the Church of Bethlehem instead of the Palestinians who stormed it, held the priests hostage, stole all the iconography, desecrated it and shitted in the holy water fonts. Why don’t you do something useful like rant and rave about liberating Hagia Sophia and demanding right of return to Constantinople?
EDIT: No offence Tirib. All the best.
I never said they would and I said I support Israel.
This seems like a good and balanced overwiew of the conflict. It might help to establish a better context
for further discussion.
talks tomorow.
florelius.
It will be nice when personal fairy tales no longer effect the lives of so many people. Although I don’t think humanity will ever overcome this :-/
[quote]Chushin wrote:
So, you condemn their actions, but offer no solutions, or solutions which you yourself admit may be “naive or just batshit idiotic.”[/quote]
Why do you stay silent when others do this?