Israel Bombing footage

[winnar111]

Keep up the bombing.

 

[maluckey]

I took a break and worked on my car, only to come back to the same thread and see some of the same bullheaded and willfull ignorance.

Again...nobody here is saying that a Palestinian death weighs less that an Israeli death. What is being asked is that before spouting off that you think of a solution to STOP the violence permanently.

If your neighbor is shooting at you, and you live on a small island with very limited resources, then you have to stop that neighbor by either preventing his bullets from EVER hitting you, or take away his ability to shoot. That applies to both sides of course.

Now when your violent neighbor declares that you will die if he can find you, you then have little choice but to accept that he will turn words to actions, given his past attacks. You also MUST consider that to prevent him from shooting at you, you may have to kill him. You decide on a large wall and daily patrols to stop him.

Time has passed...both of you have children. Your neighbor has taught the children that you are an animal, and not worthy to live, and that they (the children) should kill their neighbors or die trying. You have taght your own children to fear, distrust, not cooperate, help or even talk to your neighbor and his family, and finally(like your now sworn enemy), also taught them to meet force with force.

A family of shipwrecked tourists arrives on the island and are horrrified to find this situation, but nontheless have to choose a side of the island to live on. Hmmmmnnnnnn

Seems to me to be almost a lose-lose situation. Only if the scales can decisively tip can the cycle be ended. One must cooperate with the other...by force or fiat are the options. Fiat has failed, so force is the only option.

Mark

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: maluckey
I took a break and worked on my car, only to come back to the same thread and see some of the same bullheaded and willfull ignorance.

Again...nobody here is saying that a Palestinian death weighs less that an Israeli death. What is being asked is that before spouting off that you think of a solution to STOP the violence permanently.

If your neighbor is shooting at you, and you live on a small island with very limited resources, then you have to stop that neighbor by either preventing his bullets from EVER hitting you, or take away his ability to shoot. That applies to both sides of course.

Now when your violent neighbor declares that you will die if he can find you, you then have little choice but to accept that he will turn words to actions, given his past attacks. You also MUST consider that to prevent him from shooting at you, you may have to kill him. You decide on a large wall and daily patrols to stop him.

Time has passed...both of you have children. Your neighbor has taught the children that you are an animal, and not worthy to live, and that they (the children) should kill their neighbors or die trying. You have taght your own children to fear, distrust, not cooperate, help or even talk to your neighbor and his family, and finally(like your now sworn enemy), also taught them to meet force with force.

A family of shipwrecked tourists arrives on the island and are horrrified to find this situation, but nontheless have to choose a side of the island to live on. Hmmmmnnnnnn

Seems to me to be almost a lose-lose situation. Only if the scales can decisively tip can the cycle be ended. One must cooperate with the other...by force or fiat are the options. Fiat has failed, so force is the only option.

Mark

If bad analogies were a crime, you would need a lawyer. Your inclusion of the oppression of Palestenis was captured clearly, by the word "neighbor".

Why, there's no issue at all there to include as part of the representation of the situation. They're just two friendly neighbors as equals, kinda like the US and Canada.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: palehorse
How is it possible to battle Hamas -- ie. stop the incoming rockets immediately -- without inflicting some civilian casualties?

If someone ever comes up with a decent answer to that, I'll buy it.

The problem is, the best any of the Hamas-huggers can come up with is "well gee, the rockets aren't that dangerous... Israel should just tolerate them for as long as they choose to live in the ME"

That's not good enough. So, I'm promoting you to Prime Minister. What would you do to immediately deal with the threat?

Immediately? The rockets have been falling since mid-November, and have inflicted a grand total of 4 casualties since the "ceasefire" ended. Let's not pretend there's this sudden and immediate threat that needs to be dealt with via shock and awe. And I never claimed to be a military commander, just that I'm not sold on Israel's moral superiority in all of this.

I hope you realize that your answer essentially paraphrases what I said we've been hearing from every other hamas hugger... imagine that.

YES IMMEDIATELY!!

How long must innocent Israeli men, women, and children spend diving in and out of rocket-proof bunkers? How many times a day must they hear the rocket alarms and huddle in fear under their homes? All day... all night... every day... every night...!?

It must end one way or another, and waiting for Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist seems like a bit much to ask... after all, Hamas has sworn, publicly and often, that they'd never do so.

So, we're left with the three options for dealing with Hamas that I listed earlier... death, total disarmament and surrender, or expulsion.

Spare me the rhetoric - I'm sure there are worse sob stories on the Palestinian side about innocents who had nothing to do with the rocket attacks having bombs dropped on their heads. The bottom line is that there have 4 Israeli deaths versus 400 on the Palestinian side. I just don't buy into the notion that this discrepancy is justified by "intent".

By the way, using ad-hominem bullshit like calling people who don't agree with you "Hamas Huggers" doesn't help your argument any - it just makes you sound like a tool.

No, you guys sound like tools for aligning yourself with terrorists. kudos for that.

I'd rather have those 4 israelis back than those 400 terrorists.

400 terrorists...right. Do you enjoy staying willfully ignorant?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: KK
I'd rather have those 4 israelis back than those 400 terrorists.

400 terrorists...right. Do you enjoy staying willfully ignorant?

OK, let me fix that for him...

"I'd rather have those 4 Israelis back than those 300 terrorists and 100 Palestinian civilians"

Now, if only we could figure out a way to separate the terrorists from their civilian human shields... hmmm... dilemma.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: palehorse
How is it possible to battle Hamas -- ie. stop the incoming rockets immediately -- without inflicting some civilian casualties?

If someone ever comes up with a decent answer to that, I'll buy it.

The problem is, the best any of the Hamas-huggers can come up with is "well gee, the rockets aren't that dangerous... Israel should just tolerate them for as long as they choose to live in the ME"

That's not good enough. So, I'm promoting you to Prime Minister. What would you do to immediately deal with the threat?

Immediately? The rockets have been falling since mid-November, and have inflicted a grand total of 4 casualties since the "ceasefire" ended. Let's not pretend there's this sudden and immediate threat that needs to be dealt with via shock and awe. And I never claimed to be a military commander, just that I'm not sold on Israel's moral superiority in all of this.

I hope you realize that your answer essentially paraphrases what I said we've been hearing from every other hamas hugger... imagine that.

YES IMMEDIATELY!!

How long must innocent Israeli men, women, and children spend diving in and out of rocket-proof bunkers? How many times a day must they hear the rocket alarms and huddle in fear under their homes? All day... all night... every day... every night...!?

It must end one way or another, and waiting for Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist seems like a bit much to ask... after all, Hamas has sworn, publicly and often, that they'd never do so.

So, we're left with the three options for dealing with Hamas that I listed earlier... death, total disarmament and surrender, or expulsion.

Spare me the rhetoric - I'm sure there are worse sob stories on the Palestinian side about innocents who had nothing to do with the rocket attacks having bombs dropped on their heads. The bottom line is that there have 4 Israeli deaths versus 400 on the Palestinian side. I just don't buy into the notion that this discrepancy is justified by "intent".

By the way, using ad-hominem bullshit like calling people who don't agree with you "Hamas Huggers" doesn't help your argument any - it just makes you sound like a tool.

another non-answer...

You'd make one lousy Prime Minster if you allowed your own citizens to live in constant fear for their lives because the enemy's weapons aren't really that accurate... "only four deaths? geez, that's not bad... what's with all the fear guys!?"

I'm not minimizing the Israeli deaths - I'm criticizing the response to them. Israel's own news sources have reported that reducing civilian collateral damage has not been a priority for Israel. So they have no leg to stand on when they claim the moral high ground.

There isn't a person in the world that knows what the right thing to do there is, including you. But two things Israel can do to get near-unanimous global support (including mine) is to stop the settlements and minimize civilian casualties....I'm not buying that racking up a body count of almost 500 is the only effective response to rocket attacks.

 

[Oceandevi]

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?

There are loads of rational solutions. I don't see anything happening though.

Its real easy. All they have to do............

is stop fighting.

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

There are loads of rational solutions. I don't see anything happening though.

Its real easy. All they have to do............

is stop fighting.

:laugh: I love how you made this post all dramatic with...the ellipsis.

 

[StinkyPinky]

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.

Um...didn't the Jews live there until a Roman Emperor (Vespasian?) kicked them out about 1900 years ago? So you could argue the Jews have the rightful claim. Although, that was a very long time ago.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Originally posted by: magreen
1) purposely targeting non-combatants to terrorize them, which is what Hamas routinely does ad infinitum, and
2) targeting people while they are actively acting to kill your civilians, and accidentally hitting non-combatants in the process.

The latter category is what Israel does, almost completely without exception. In addition, Hamas often purposely and cynically places their rockets and weapons in close proximity to civilian populations to use civilians as human shields, an explicit war crime according to international law, knowing that Israel will do its utmost to follow international law and morals which Hamas has no qualms flaunting.

QFT

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Seems to me to be almost a lose-lose situation. Only if the scales can decisively tip can the cycle be ended. One must cooperate with the other...by force or fiat are the options. Fiat has failed, so force is the only option.

Mark

Force has failed miserably time and time again, so diplomacy is the only option.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mani
I'm not minimizing the Israeli deaths - I'm criticizing the response to them. Israel's own news sources have reported that reducing civilian collateral damage has not been a priority for Israel. So they have no leg to stand on when they claim the moral high ground.

There isn't a person in the world that knows what the right thing to do there is, including you. But two things Israel can do to get near-unanimous global support (including mine) is to stop the settlements and minimize civilian casualties....I'm not buying that racking up a body count of almost 500 is the only effective response to rocket attacks.

What percentage of the total casualties is acceptable to you? Right now, the number stands at roughly 25% of the casualties being civilians. Would you accept 15... 10... 5... 1%?

Of course we (warfighters) all hope or pray for that number to be as close to zero as possible. But, that's simply unrealistic. So, exactly what percentage would make their actions acceptable to you?

Remember, whatever action is taken, the rockets must be stopped in a reasonably short amount of time... that fact is non-negotiable... isn't it?

So?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Mani
I'm not minimizing the Israeli deaths - I'm criticizing the response to them. Israel's own news sources have reported that reducing civilian collateral damage has not been a priority for Israel. So they have no leg to stand on when they claim the moral high ground.

There isn't a person in the world that knows what the right thing to do there is, including you. But two things Israel can do to get near-unanimous global support (including mine) is to stop the settlements and minimize civilian casualties....I'm not buying that racking up a body count of almost 500 is the only effective response to rocket attacks.

What percentage of the total casualties is acceptable to you? Right now, the number stands at roughly 25% of the casualties being civilians. Would you accept 15... 10... 5... 1%?

Of course we (warfighters) all hope or pray for that number to be as close to zero as possible. But, that's simply unrealistic. So, exactly what percentage would make their actions acceptable to you?

Remember, whatever action is taken, the rockets must be stopped in a reasonably short amount of time... that fact is non-negotiable... isn't it?

So?

17 percent of the casualties are children alone. Which would mean that the UN estimate of 25% being the civilian casualty rate is pretty optimistic.

Regardless, to answer your question - being a civilian observer like you, I have absolutely no idea what an acceptable casualty rate should be. What I do know is that reducing civilian casualties has not been a top priority for Israel in dealing with these attacks. This coming directly from the mouths of 3rd party and even Israeli media sources. If they want to show that they are better than the people attacking them, it should be. If I hear a convincing report showing otherwise - that Israel is indeed taking every precaution to avoid civilian casualties - I'd welcome it, and probably even sleep better at night. Feel free to the first crack at it.

 

[Deptacon]

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?

He already gave that answer...Nuke Gaza into Oblivion...

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

It's a little like blaming the Native Americans for slaughtering Custer, for bringing down upon themselves the retribution that followed.

So when are you going to give your land and all your ill begotten possessions back to the Native Americans? I doubt you'd give willingly.......so then would it be justifiable for them to blow up your family in a shopping mall, until you do give them back what is rightfully theirs? Don't be a hypocrite Craig, your moral fortitude should require you to take all that you have gained as the result of our immoral genocide and return it to the Native American people. The passage of time does absolve your guilt--just ask a Palastinian.

Lead by example Craig. Show the Israeli people you actually believe in what you preach to them.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Corn
So when are you going to give your land and all your ill begotten possessions back to the Native Americans?

Being part Cherokee myself, I'd like to say that at least many of us belive that what happened along time ago isn't of any relevance now.

However, Israel continues to colonize the West Bank, when will you ask them to stop?

The Arab peace initiative doesn't ask for all the land back, only for Israel to withdraw their ongoing colonization of the West Bank, which has been conducted without treaty and hence is a violation of international law. However, as long as our vote as US citizens is used to veto any attempts to enforce that law though the UN, this conflict will continue bringing death and destruction to both sides.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Mani
I'm not minimizing the Israeli deaths - I'm criticizing the response to them. Israel's own news sources have reported that reducing civilian collateral damage has not been a priority for Israel. So they have no leg to stand on when they claim the moral high ground.

There isn't a person in the world that knows what the right thing to do there is, including you. But two things Israel can do to get near-unanimous global support (including mine) is to stop the settlements and minimize civilian casualties....I'm not buying that racking up a body count of almost 500 is the only effective response to rocket attacks.

What percentage of the total casualties is acceptable to you? Right now, the number stands at roughly 25% of the casualties being civilians. Would you accept 15... 10... 5... 1%?

Of course we (warfighters) all hope or pray for that number to be as close to zero as possible. But, that's simply unrealistic. So, exactly what percentage would make their actions acceptable to you?

Remember, whatever action is taken, the rockets must be stopped in a reasonably short amount of time... that fact is non-negotiable... isn't it?

So?

17 percent of the casualties are children alone. Which would mean that the UN estimate of 25% being the civilian casualty rate is pretty optimistic.

Regardless, to answer your question - being a civilian observer like you, I have absolutely no idea what an acceptable casualty rate should be. What I do know is that reducing civilian casualties has not been a top priority for Israel in dealing with these attacks. This coming directly from the mouths of 3rd party and even Israeli media sources. If they want to show that they are better than the people attacking them, it should be. If I hear a convincing report showing otherwise - that Israel is indeed taking every precaution to avoid civilian casualties - I'd welcome it, and probably even sleep better at night. Feel free to the first crack at it.

Civilian casualties are a tragedy and I hope that Israel stops its dehumanizing nature, but let's not forget that a high civilian casualty rate is also blamed upon Hamas for their blatant violation of the laws of war that were intended to minimize civilian casualties.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

All this will accomplish is more Islamic extremists against Israel.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
All this will accomplish is more Islamic extremists against Israel.

yes.

"Even doctors seasoned in Gaza's many emergencies, however, are reeling from the scale and intensity of the latest Israeli assault, which has killed more than 550 Palestinians and injured 2,500 others in 10 days of fighting."

http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/965616.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel

'As I ran I saw three of my children. All dead'

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
All this will accomplish is more Islamic extremists against Israel.

If these extremists don't consider the well being of their families before senselessly attacking Israel, don't expect Israel to consider that for them.

Israel has accumulated shit from Hamas over the last 8 years. Now it explodes, and very rightly so.

If Israel had any regard to what extreme Muslims think of it, it would have dismantled itself log ago.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: maluckey

Seems to me to be almost a lose-lose situation. Only if the scales can decisively tip can the cycle be ended. One must cooperate with the other...by force or fiat are the options. Fiat has failed, so force is the only option.

Mark

Force has failed miserably time and time again, so diplomacy is the only option.

Like it has failed in WWII, right? At least be grateful that people of 50 years ago thought differently than you, or else you'd be speaking German right now.

 

[Liet]

Originally posted by: flavio
Force has failed miserably time and time again, so diplomacy is the only option.

I agree with you; the Palestinians should have given up on force long ago.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
All this will accomplish is more Islamic extremists against Israel.

yes.

"Even doctors seasoned in Gaza's many emergencies, however, are reeling from the scale and intensity of the latest Israeli assault, which has killed more than 550 Palestinians and injured 2,500 others in 10 days of fighting."

http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/965616.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel

'As I ran I saw three of my children. All dead'

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. Like you hear about Vietnamese launching rockets at Washington DC. Bullshit, extremists will be there anyway. Now may Israel give them what they ordered upon themselves.

 

[kylebisme]

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?

 

[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.