Israel Bombing footage

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: Aimster
Don't worry in 20-30 years every Arab nation will have nuclear capabilities.

Then there won't be anymore Arab/Israel threads.

They'll be gone.

The funny part is that Israel has had nuclear capabilities for 30 years now and I don't think anyone feels threatened.

Gee, I do. How many of their neighbors have you asked? Think Israel's nukes have had any impact on other nations' policies about attacking Israel, whatever they do in Gaza?

Of course, with the fall of the USSR, the neocons are actively pushing for the use of ('tactical') nuclear weapons as part of our own military policy.

We're spending a fortune to develop new 'more usable' nukes now.

The nukes are reported to exist from mid-60's. While I'm not sure if anyone was aware to their existence in the war of '67, in '73, the worst war Israel ever had, the world knew they were in the hands of Israel, and yet not only did Israel never used it, it never even hinted at the possibility of doing so, despite facing a real danger.

So gee, I don't know. The Arabs probably know Israel will never attack unsolicited.

 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Yes, like the Allied bombings on Dresden spawned German extremists, like the bombs on Hiroshima made Japanese strap explosives to their bodies and blow up in malls.
]
If we had reduced them to such crude weaponry while colonizing their homelands under force of military occupation, how do you think the Germans and Japanese there would have reacted?

I'd expect them to try and negotiate their way out of that from a position of the losing side. I have some ideas what they could do else, but here the analogy ends as honest attempts by Palestinians to finish this conflict at terms Israel would accept have never been made.

Camp David summit - Barak offers unprecedented concessions, Arafat walks out

I wonder what you think about that.

I've already showed you what I know about that:

http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html

See the link for maps, here is the text:

Data in this document are based on the maps Barak showed Arafat in December 2000
and generally termed "Barak's Generous Offers".
The Israeli public, media and academics use this description unwittingly.
The "generous offer" is used as a fig leaf that conceals the intentions of those
who wish to justify this war against the Palestinians.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, captured in 1967,
comprise 22% of pre-1948 Palestine.
When the Palestinians signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993
they agreed to accept only these 22% and recognise
Israel within the Green Line borders.
Conceding 78% of the land was a historical Palestinian compromise.

But this compromise was not enough for Barak.
In his offer to the Palestinians, Barak wanted more:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
69 settlements are included in this area,
where 85% of the settlers live.
It is clearly visible that The blocs create impossible borders,
which severely disrupt Palestinian life in the West Bank.

But this too was not enough for Barak.
more demands were on their way-
An invention called: "temporary Israeli Control"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Temporary Control" concept is unique.
It refers to sovereign Palestinian land that will remain
under Israeli military and civil control for an indefinite time.
This area too contains settlements, some of them are the most
extreme zealots. It is very unlikely that Israel will evacuate them
in, say, 50 years time.

This left the Palestinians with what some people call:
"Barak's Generous Offers"...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Barak's Generous offer:

What appears to be territorial continuity is
actually split up by settlement blocs,
bypass roads and roadblocks.
The Palestinians have to relinquish land reserves essential
for their development and absorption of refugees.
They also have to accept Israeli supervision of borders
crossings together with many other restrictions.

This is no generous offer. It is a humiliating demand for surrender!
Barak's offer gives Israel control over all the border crossings of the Palestinian State.
No country in the world would accept that.
The words "territorial continuity" are deceptive -
No Israeli would agree to travel 50 miles from one town to another,
if the real distance between them is only 5 miles.

This impossible offer, Barak's imperious attitude,
the ongoing massive construction in the settlements,
Years of Israel's Delaying tactics and Sharon's provocation -
all these contributed to the inevitable explosion.
In December, no maps of the Gaza Strip were shown,
so we cannot illustrate Barak's intentions there.
At Taba, January 2001, Barak presented a much-improved map.
The Palestinians consider it a basis for negotiation.

http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
The nukes are reported to exist from mid-60's. While I'm not sure if anyone was aware to their existence in the war of '67, in '73, the worst war Israel ever had, the world knew they were in the hands of Israel, and yet not only did Israel never used it, it never even hinted at the possibility of doing so, despite facing a real danger.

In '67 Israel tripled the territory under their control within six days, and '73 Arab forces never entered Israel's boarders but rather fought in fought in occupied territory. I am mournful for the losses Israel suffered in this conlifct, but they has never faced a danger anywhere near what could justify using their nukes.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: NoShangriLa
Originally posted by: Aimster
Don't worry in 20-30 years every Arab nation will have nuclear capabilities.

Then there won't be anymore Arab/Israel threads.

They'll be gone.
How so?

They aren't technologically as advance as the West, and IMHO they aren't any more trouble some than us in the last 100 year.

They don't focus on devices made for killing.. Who invented Algebra.. Calculus.. etc..

They have plenty of cash and now that we are forcing them to seek Nuclear Weaponry to protect themselves from our agression they will and should
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
The nukes are reported to exist from mid-60's. While I'm not sure if anyone was aware to their existence in the war of '67, in '73, the worst war Israel ever had, the world knew they were in the hands of Israel, and yet not only did Israel never used it, it never even hinted at the possibility of doing so, despite facing a real danger.

In '67 Israel tripled the territory under their control within six days, and '73 Arab forces never entered Israel's boarders but rather fought in fought in occupied territory. I am mournful for the losses Israel suffered in this conlifct, but they has never faced a danger anywhere near what could justify using their nukes.

So being caught off-guard, in midst your holiest day, and then forced into fighting three armies at once doesn't constitute a danger grand enough for you? Well ok, apparently for Israelis that was the case too, as they never even waved their nukes around.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: NoShangriLa
Originally posted by: Aimster
Don't worry in 20-30 years every Arab nation will have nuclear capabilities.

Then there won't be anymore Arab/Israel threads.

They'll be gone.
How so?

They aren't technologically as advance as the West, and IMHO they aren't any more trouble some than us in the last 100 year.

They don't focus on devices made for killing.. Who invented Algebra.. Calculus.. etc..

They have plenty of cash and now that we are forcing them to seek Nuclear Weaponry to protect themselves from our agression they will and should

Choose your side, boy. It seems like you enjoy the Western culture far too much to imply that Arab countries need to develop nukes to intimidate your country.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: TheSnowman

In '67 Israel tripled the territory under their control within six days, and '73 Arab forces never entered Israel's boarders but rather fought in fought in occupied territory. I am mournful for the losses Israel suffered in this conlifct, but they has never faced a danger anywhere near what could justify using their nukes.

So being caught off-guard, in midst your holiest day, and then forced into fighting three armies at once doesn't constitute a danger grand enough for you? Well ok, apparently for Israelis that was the case too, as they never even waved their nukes around.

No, it certainly doesn't in context of the facts I mentioned above.

And yes, I am glad Israel's leadership was more level-headed about the conflict than you.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

The nukes are reported to exist from mid-60's. While I'm not sure if anyone was aware to their existence in the war of '67, in '73, the worst war Israel ever had, the world knew they were in the hands of Israel, and yet not only did Israel never used it, it never even hinted at the possibility of doing so, despite facing a real danger.

So gee, I don't know. The Arabs probably know Israel will never attack unsolicited.

Your time line is a bit off. Here is some info on the history of how they got nuclear weapons - a process going on through the 60's - through lies and mercenrary companies and civil servants violating their nation's policies (as part of the story). But yes, Israel has not used its nukes, but when did it have to avoid being defeated? Never. They'd be worse off if they did.

Besides, if Israel did use its nukes, it's clear there would be plenty of people now who would defend them doing so in the US.

'Those arab nations got what they deserved', 'they left Israel no choice', 'Israel was always surrounded by enemies who wanted to wipe it off the map'.

Any sane person here in the shoes of Israel's neighbors, watching the neocons lay out their strategy for dominating the middle east by conequering Syria and Iran in coming decades, would want nukes to protect themselves and at least to want Israel not to have them.

And of course it makes sense why Israel *wants* them, for the same reasons.

But it does make for a lot of lies and hypocrisy in having double standards to let 'our side' have the advantage, our 'concerns' on proliferation proven secondary to our 'interests' in putting our desire for power in the region ahead of our 'poliferation concerns'.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
[
Choose your side, boy.

You can always tell the most worthless debwte coming when the poster ha to replace any actual substance with calling his opponent 'boy'.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,643
3,039
136
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: Aimster
Don't worry in 20-30 years every Arab nation will have nuclear capabilities.

Then there won't be anymore Arab/Israel threads.

They'll be gone.

The funny part is that Israel has had nuclear capabilities for 30 years now and I don't think anyone feels threatened.

Gee, I do. How many of their neighbors have you asked? Think Israel's nukes have had any impact on other nations' policies about attacking Israel, whatever they do in Gaza?

Of course, with the fall of the USSR, the neocons are actively pushing for the use of ('tactical') nuclear weapons as part of our own military policy.

We're spending a fortune to develop new 'more usable' nukes now.

The nukes are reported to exist from mid-60's. While I'm not sure if anyone was aware to their existence in the war of '67, in '73, the worst war Israel ever had, the world knew they were in the hands of Israel, and yet not only did Israel never used it, it never even hinted at the possibility of doing so, despite facing a real danger.

So gee, I don't know. The Arabs probably know Israel will never attack unsolicited.

nuclear weapons are a defensive weapon and have been ever since the nightmare in Japan. their very presence is the deterrent.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jpeyton
It's pointless to argue Israel's merits for bombing.

Unless they nuke Gaza into oblivion, they might as well be dropping candy from their warplanes. Conventional bombs are like seeds; you might kill a few Hamas militants, but a new one will always sprout up to replace them.

So how do you suggest they stop the terrorist from shooting rockets at them and blowing themselves up to kill civilians?

Dismantling Israel and giving the land back to the people who original lived there would be a good start.

Funny because the palestinians used to be Jews back in the day... isn't that a hoot.

Just think if some crazy faction was rocketing us from Canada do you think we'd not do the same thing?
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

The nukes are reported to exist from mid-60's. While I'm not sure if anyone was aware to their existence in the war of '67, in '73, the worst war Israel ever had, the world knew they were in the hands of Israel, and yet not only did Israel never used it, it never even hinted at the possibility of doing so, despite facing a real danger.

So gee, I don't know. The Arabs probably know Israel will never attack unsolicited.

Your time line is a bit off. Here is some info on the history of how they got nuclear weapons - a process going on through the 60's - through lies and mercenrary companies and civil servants violating their nation's policies (as part of the story). But yes, Israel has not used its nukes, but when did it have to avoid being defeated? Never. They'd be worse off if they did.

Besides, if Israel did use its nukes, it's clear there would be plenty of people now who would defend them doing so in the US.

'Those arab nations got what they deserved', 'they left Israel no choice', 'Israel was always surrounded by enemies who wanted to wipe it off the map'.

Any sane person here in the shoes of Israel's neighbors, watching the neocons lay out their strategy for dominating the middle east by conequering Syria and Iran in coming decades, would want nukes to protect themselves and at least to want Israel not to have them.

And of course it makes sense why Israel *wants* them, for the same reasons.

But it does make for a lot of lies and hypocrisy in having double standards to let 'our side' have the advantage, our 'concerns' on proliferation proven secondary to our 'interests' in putting our desire for power in the region ahead of our 'poliferation concerns'.

The concern comes from the difference in culture.

United States huge stockpile of nukes, when was the last time we used one WW2.

USSR huge stockpile of nukes never used them.

Why? Because despite the huge build up of arms the various wars we engaged in - we didn't want to wipe out ourselves or anyone else.

There is population in the middle east that believes sacrificing your self in an act violence to kill civilians is not just acceptable but an honor. An honor rewarded by Allah himself. What is to stop a population from using such weapons? It isn't self preservation. The protection of innocents? Look what Hamas is doing, they don't care about their own people if it further their goals. Its an honor to die.

International pressure to prevent nukes? Doubt they'll listen to reason from the West, and their neighbors would encourage them. Get rid of Israel forever by dropping a few nukes? Its only .3% of the mid-east. Small price to pay, and if you believe all the Muslims who die because of the act will get to heaven, its even more incentive.

 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jpeyton
It's pointless to argue Israel's merits for bombing.

Unless they nuke Gaza into oblivion, they might as well be dropping candy from their warplanes. Conventional bombs are like seeds; you might kill a few Hamas militants, but a new one will always sprout up to replace them.

So how do you suggest they stop the terrorist from shooting rockets at them and blowing themselves up to kill civilians?

Dismantling Israel and giving the land back to the people who original lived there would be a good start.

:roll: Have any RATIONAL ideas?
More rational than trading high explosives for another half-century?

So you think it's rational for Isreal to just up and move so they don't get attacked by terrorists? Buying stock in white flags?

Lookup how Israelis/Zionists plotted and planned to murder and terrorize palestinians before they ever got the land.. Did some Jewish Terrorists murder UN peacekeepers as soon as they got there in the beginning of Israels creation.. look it up

With the aid of many european counties that just wanted to get rid of thier jews. This was sanction by the rest of the world folks.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: Aimster
Don't worry in 20-30 years every Arab nation will have nuclear capabilities.

Then there won't be anymore Arab/Israel threads.

They'll be gone.

The funny part is that Israel has had nuclear capabilities for 30 years now and I don't think anyone feels threatened.

Gee, I do. How many of their neighbors have you asked? Think Israel's nukes have had any impact on other nations' policies about attacking Israel, whatever they do in Gaza?

Of course, with the fall of the USSR, the neocons are actively pushing for the use of ('tactical') nuclear weapons as part of our own military policy.

We're spending a fortune to develop new 'more usable' nukes now.

The nukes are reported to exist from mid-60's. While I'm not sure if anyone was aware to their existence in the war of '67, in '73, the worst war Israel ever had, the world knew they were in the hands of Israel, and yet not only did Israel never used it, it never even hinted at the possibility of doing so, despite facing a real danger.

So gee, I don't know. The Arabs probably know Israel will never attack unsolicited.

nuclear weapons are a defensive weapon and have been ever since the nightmare in Japan. their very presence is the deterrent.

Nuclear weapons are also offensive in two ways. One the obvious, the other that for a bullying nation willing to pay nuclear chicken, they might do something that would normally be considered an 'act of war' to a non-nuclear country, and basically say, 'whatcha gonna do about it?' It lets them push the other nation far beyond what is right, and to the point of the other nation facing nuclear annihilation. Hence 'nuclear blackmail'. The only real restraint is the price paid in international diplomcacy for doing so.

So nuclear powers tend to find themselves most effective when the nuclear blackmail is implicitly there, not shouted about - 'speak softly and carry a big stick' as TR said.

One of the more bizarre uses of the threat was when Nixon and Kissinger tried to convince the North Vietnamese Nixons was unbalanced and likely to nuke if they didn't concede.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
Originally posted by: TheSnowman

In '67 Israel tripled the territory under their control within six days, and '73 Arab forces never entered Israel's boarders but rather fought in fought in occupied territory. I am mournful for the losses Israel suffered in this conlifct, but they has never faced a danger anywhere near what could justify using their nukes.

So being caught off-guard, in midst your holiest day, and then forced into fighting three armies at once doesn't constitute a danger grand enough for you? Well ok, apparently for Israelis that was the case too, as they never even waved their nukes around.

No, it certainly doesn't in context of the facts I mentioned above.

And yes, I am glad Israel's leadership was more level-headed about the conflict than you.

C'mon we all know that Ach ma din a jad in Iran is one level headed cool customer. I trust him with nukes...
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
You don't have to trust him, he doesn't hold anywhere near that kind of power in Iranian government anyway.
 

GoingUp

Lifer
Jul 31, 2002
16,720
1
71
Awesome! Thanks for the link! :thumbsup: Them hitting the rockets in transit was sweet.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
How nice, attrocities documented.

Actually, the videos of Palestinians purposely blowing up women and children are on a different site.
How is that an atrocity?

They call it 'collateral damage' when we bomb women and children in Iraq andAfghanistan.

For once, I have to agree with jpayton. IDF bombs and planes killing innocents is no different than terrorists killing innocents. It's all the same, they just use better equipment and technology.
That's complete bullshit.

Those who wish to remain intellectually honest know that it's all about intent.

Our enemies intentionally target civilians.

We (US and Israel) do not. In fact, Western military forces go out of our way -- to the point of endangering ourselves and our missions -- to avoid civilian casualties in every engagement.

We do everything within our power to limit civilian casualties while our enemies do everything in their power to cause civilian casualties.

Ultimately, this basic truth is what makes us The Good Guys...

Palehorse, your pathetic little math leaves out all kinds of relevant factors such as the relative strength of the two sides.

I would bet a lot of money that if you were in their shoes, you would be explaining why you are right to target civlians in the face of absurdly overwhelming power.

You have never been in that situation, being a citzen of a society under the thumb of a vastly overwhelming force. You have not mentally adjusted to the differences.

You instead offer the pathetic little match as a rationalization, which in its selectivity lets you come out justified for your position, by ignoring so much of the picture.

That's easy to do when you don't give a crap about the other side. People have always been able to do that. The Jews did it with their slaves, the Egyptians with theirs, the Romans with theirs. The Japanese did it with every country they occupied. We did it with the Native Americans, as did Columbus, who enslaved them to search for gold and killed off 90% of the millions of them within 30 years of arriving. There was one guy there who wrote about the atrocities, but nearly everyone saw it as just fine.

What a joke!

You want to reverse the situation Ok let's do that!

Say there were 22 Jewish states, and only one tiny Arab state.

And in all those 22 Jewish states every Arab group was denied anything like equality but instead relgated to second class Dhimmi status or outright expelled for centuries.

And in all those 22 Jewish states they also possessed fantastic oil reserves and thus wealth and the one tiny Arab state possessed nothing but the intelligence of its people. Not even an ounce of water which is housed in Gaza a hostile Jewish territory. Funded and supported by the rich Jews.

And those 22 Jewish states have over 14,000,000 square miles of territory, and the one tiny Arab state has less than 1/1,000th of that, or about 10,0000 square miles.

Those 22 Jewish states were possessed by an ideology requiring them to move heaven and earth in order to eradicate that one tiny Arab state.

And those those 22 Jewish states were intent on rewriting, or destroying, the history of those Arabs in their one tiny "Arab" state who lived there for 3000+ years prior, because the 1350 years of Judism takes presidence.

Those same Jews had long ago conquered that little area, running out the Arabs, and the desperate Arabs 'escaped' to Europe where they were virtually wiped out for being 'not quite white'

After realizing their evil deeds, those Europeans, said the Arabs had right to establish the Arab National Home, a tiny fraction of what they had before, but the 22 Jewish states were having no part of that.

The wars raged to eradicate those Arabs once and for all - at first all the 22 nations of Jews, with their fabulous wealth and land- ganged up on the recently eradicated Arabs, but later defined it as a David and Goliath scenario, with Jewish shock troops - all for western consumption.

and on and on...

You need to think clearly about how I have taken your invited hypothetical and ask yourself if you wish to remain a moral idiot, or care to embrace what is just, what is right.

win!
the reality of the arab/muslim/palestinian apologists is that they have supported intentional attacks on civilians at every conflict with israel. israels enemies never miss a chance to bombard jewish civilians. you saw this with lebanon, and now with hamas, this is the value they place on civilian lives and the rules of warfare they believe are valid. they place no value on civilian life. so if you support them, you also place zero value on civilian life and believe that they are valid targets for indiscriminate attacks. so any position of outrage when israels targeted strikes create some unfortunate collateral damage is really based on a ridiculous level of hypocrisy.