Israel getting what it deserves

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
Israel uses tanks and the army and Palestine uses suicide bombers, IMO they are both as bad as each other and I feel sorry for the innocent civilians caught in the middle. It's about time the rest of the world acted against them both, maybe send in troops to restore order. How about a large force of German soldiers guarding the border? ok me bad! :(

Name a country apart from America who actually likes Israel? I can't think of any!

once tanks start targeting civilians with the sole intention of causing maximum civilian casualties then your comparison is valid. perhaps mixing in a little rat poison to make sure wounded women and children can't clot and bleed to death.


so far too bad, the palestinians are quite a few notches lower on the scum o meter.

deal with it.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Is anyone else tired of reading about Israel? I mean I am a Jew and I have relatives in Israel and even I don't care.
rolleye.gif

I just don't see what the big news story is. Some palestinians kill some israelis, israelis kill some palestinians. I am sorry, but that's pretty dry as far as the plot is concerned. Just let me know when they are done, and I will assume they are still killing each other until then. No need to go on TV every night and remind me
rolleye.gif
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Nefrodite
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
Israel uses tanks and the army and Palestine uses suicide bombers, IMO they are both as bad as each other and I feel sorry for the innocent civilians caught in the middle. It's about time the rest of the world acted against them both, maybe send in troops to restore order. How about a large force of German soldiers guarding the border? ok me bad! :(

Name a country apart from America who actually likes Israel? I can't think of any!

once tanks start targeting civilians with the soul intention of causing maximum civilian casualties then your comparison is valid. perhaps mixing in a little rat poison to make sure wounded women and children can't clot and bleed to death.


so far too bad, the palestinians are a few notches lower on the scum o meter.

deal with it.

you mean the palestinian terrorists are a few notches lower? well.... how about if they had missiles, then they could do it the way Israel is doing it... just blow them up...

Killing is killing, no matter how you do it...
 

Slovin8

Member
Sep 11, 2000
74
0
0
once tanks start targeting civilians with the soul intention of causing maximum civilian casualties then your comparison is valid.

Yes, and since when 1-ton bombs are used to insure 'minimal' civilian causality in a crowded apartment building?

Just one more of Sharon's great successes.. Like Sabra and Shatila, and like the Jordanian village that he totally annihilated and then he said "Oppps, sorry".
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,762
6,768
126
Nefrodite, I'm sure that if we gave the Palestinians nuclear weapons they would fight fair.

SuperTool, I'm so sorry world events are so trying for you. I know just how difficult life is when things distress us. How dare other people's insanity affect me. It's simply outrageous. Sometime, even, I suck my thumb.
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
Originally posted by: Slovin8
once tanks start targeting civilians with the soul intention of causing maximum civilian casualties then your comparison is valid.

Yes, and since when 1-ton bombs are used to insure 'minimal' civilian causality in a crowded apartment building?

Just one more of Sharon's great successes.. Like Sabra and Shatila, and like the Jordanian village that he totally annihilated and then he said "Oppps, sorry".

if you had the choice of dropping a 1 ton bomb on hitler in a civilian area would you do it? :p the man was a military commander hiding behind his women and children. he has chosen the battle field, not the israelis. he has forced their hand after organizing a wave suicide bombers. how many israeli women and children need to die at the hand of such scum before drastic measures are taken.


would americans drop a bomb on osama even if he were in a city if we had the chance?

you bet. 3000 american lives were lost because of that man. such is the equation of war.
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nefrodite, I'm sure that if we gave the Palestinians nuclear weapons they would fight fair.

SuperTool, I'm so sorry world events are so trying for you. I know just how difficult life is when things distress us. How dare other people's insanity affect me. It's simply outrageous. Sometime, even, I suck my thumb.


i'm sure if we gave any terrorists nuclear weapons they would fight fair.


i'm sure if police air dropped some squad cars and automatic weapons to trapped bank robbers they would also fight fair.
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Nefrodite
Originally posted by: Slovin8
once tanks start targeting civilians with the soul intention of causing maximum civilian casualties then your comparison is valid.

Yes, and since when 1-ton bombs are used to insure 'minimal' civilian causality in a crowded apartment building?

Just one more of Sharon's great successes.. Like Sabra and Shatila, and like the Jordanian village that he totally annihilated and then he said "Oppps, sorry".

if you had the choice of dropping a 1 ton bomb on hitler in a civilian area would you do it? :p the man was a military commander hiding behind his women and children. he has chosen the battle field, not the israelis. he has forced their hand after organizing a wave suicide bombers. how many israeli women and children need to die at the hand of such scum before drastic measures are taken.


would americans drop a bomb on osama even if he were in a city if we had the chance?

you bet. 3000 american lives were lost because of that man. such is the equation of war.

Actually, if you could pinpoint the location, you would not HAVE to drop the bomb... and i REALLY doubt that the US would bomb civilians to get Osama... or at least i hope so.... because if they knew exactly where he was, then they wouldn't have to....

Where is the limit? can you nuke an entire city to get to the leader you want?
 

Slovin8

Member
Sep 11, 2000
74
0
0
if you had the choice of dropping a 1 ton bomb on hitler in a civilian area would you do it?

Certainly NOT. Thank you for making that statement, for it exposes the bigotry, hate, and ignorance you've expressed in the forum for so long.

the man was a military commander hiding behind his women and children.

Who said he was hiding?

And this, of course, is a legitimate reason to kill him, and his all neighborhood.

Look Nefrodite, many Israelis acknowledged that this was a horrific accident and must be investigated. And most of the world condemned it as a violation of international law and a war crime, and now you come to blatantly try to justify this clear atrocity.

would americans drop a bomb on osama even if he were in a city if we had the chance?

me prays that Osama will be hiding somewhere in your backyard.
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
Originally posted by: Slovin8
It doesn't matter what you think... The US will never stop supporting Israel. Why? Because Israel has around 200 nukes in its arsenal, and if we stop supporting them, they will either have to use them or lose them. We don't want either.

If the US is willing, Europe can join the US in imposing economic sanctions against Israel until ALL settlements are dismantled, and a real political process begins.

and perhaps they can make one more donation to fund a one-way ticket for Sharon to Belgium ;)

and I wouldn't at all mind if his flight partner was Arafat.

And why would you send them to Belgium? For a Swede you seem to know very little about the rest of the EU countries if you meant that they should be send to the international court in The Hague, The Netherlands :D
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Nefrodite
Originally posted by: Slovin8
once tanks start targeting civilians with the soul intention of causing maximum civilian casualties then your comparison is valid.

Yes, and since when 1-ton bombs are used to insure 'minimal' civilian causality in a crowded apartment building?

Just one more of Sharon's great successes.. Like Sabra and Shatila, and like the Jordanian village that he totally annihilated and then he said "Oppps, sorry".

if you had the choice of dropping a 1 ton bomb on hitler in a civilian area would you do it? :p the man was a military commander hiding behind his women and children. he has chosen the battle field, not the israelis. he has forced their hand after organizing a wave suicide bombers. how many israeli women and children need to die at the hand of such scum before drastic measures are taken.


would americans drop a bomb on osama even if he were in a city if we had the chance?

you bet. 3000 american lives were lost because of that man. such is the equation of war.

Actually, if you could pinpoint the location, you would not HAVE to drop the bomb... and i REALLY doubt that the US would bomb civilians to get Osama... or at least i hope so.... because if they knew exactly where he was, then they wouldn't have to....

Where is the limit? can you nuke an entire city to get to the leader you want?


you make it sound like we can drop 32oz super big gulp bombs that will home in and kill just the specified target. sorry, we aren't that advanced, to make sure an attack works, something like a 1ton bomb is used.

as for nukes, of course that is overkill, you want to make sure the commander is dead, not the entire city. of course according to palestinian rules of engagement, would would most certainly use the nuke.


the problem being he was a commander deep in a hostile city surrounded by many of his fighters. any attempt to go in and capture him on land would be quite an operation .. probably resulting in huge loss of lives. the palestinians aren't above blowing up their own buildings to kill a few israeli soldiers, even if they kill a few of their own. after all, they can always blame the deaths on the soldiers. the snipers and rpgs and mines/booby trap explosives would be everywhere.

perhaps the israelis decided it was the lesser of two evils. you may not like it, and it may not look good. but the israelis have shown that in the past they have been willing to put their soldiers at risk to save palestinian lives. as in earlier incursions where israelis suffered heavy losses.


me prays that Osama will be hiding somewhere in your backyard.


you would.. wouldn't you.


the difference being extracting him from a friendly neighborhood would be a rather simple and relatively bloodless task


simply, it is not the job of the powerful to arm the weak so they won't choose to barbarism.

me thinks we should have given ghandi guns. oh wait, he was against violence.

me thinks ghandi would weep at the choices palestinians have made over and over...
 

nemesismk2

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
4,810
5
76
www.ultimatehardware.net
I wouldn't bomb civilians, it doesn't matter who was hiding with them I wouldn't do it because that would make me a terrorist and I'm better than that. If people justify the killing of innocent civilians then where do you draw the line? Is 30 dead civilians ok? How about 3000?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
here is another one
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=524&e=12&u=/ap/20020725/ap_wo_en_po/israel_muslim_convert_1

Jewish American moves to Israel, and converts to Islam, backs Hamas
Thu Jul 25, 2:36 PM ET

JERUSALEM - Joseph Cohen moved from the United States to Israel as a devout Jew in 1998, but within three years he had converted to Islam and become Yosef Mohammed Khatib, a supporter of the militant Hamas, according to a report broadcast Thursday on Israel TV.

Now he refuses to say the word Israel, choosing instead to call the area "Palestine." His four children study the Quran, the Muslim holy book, instead of the Torah, its Jewish counterpart.

It was while living in the desert town of Netivot that Khatib met a sheik from the United Arab Emirates through an Internet chat about Israel. Khatib said he spent hours corresponding with the sheik, discussing theology. Gradually he began to see Judaism as racist and turned toward Islam after reading the Quran, he told Channel 10 TV. The report did not say where he lived in the United States or give his age.
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I wouldn't bomb civilians, it doesn't matter who was hiding with them I wouldn't do it because that would make me a terrorist and I'm better than that. If people justify the killing of innocent civilians then where do you draw the line? Is 30 dead civilians ok? How about 3000?


so you wouldn't bomb a man planning the next WTC if you had confirmation. sometimes its a dark choice to make, but guess who forced you to make it?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Nefrodite
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I wouldn't bomb civilians, it doesn't matter who was hiding with them I wouldn't do it because that would make me a terrorist and I'm better than that. If people justify the killing of innocent civilians then where do you draw the line? Is 30 dead civilians ok? How about 3000?


so you wouldn't bomb a man planning the next WTC if you had confirmation. sometimes its a dark choice to make, but guess who forced you to make it?
so collateral casualties is ok as long as it serves "your" purpose?
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
the problem being he was a commander deep in a hostile city surrounded by many of his fighters. any attempt to go in and capture him on land would be quite an operation .. probably resulting in huge loss of lives. the palestinians aren't above blowing up their own buildings to kill a few israeli soldiers, even if they kill a few of their own. after all, they can always blame the deaths on the soldiers. the snipers and rpgs and mines/booby trap explosives would be everywhere.

Then you WAIT! If the mission is too risky, you simply don't do it... Your excuses for their actions are pretty lame...

perhaps the israelis decided it was the lesser of two evils. you may not like it, and it may not look good. but the israelis have shown that in the past they have been willing to put their soldiers at risk to save palestinian lives. as in earlier incursions where israelis suffered heavy losses.

And maybe the Hamas terrorist are thinking the exact same thing, that doesn't make either of the sides right...

What will be next, what do you think? Now Hamas will retaliate and more civilians will suffer, then Israel will retaliate and more civilians will suffer.... Both sides are so concentrated on retaliation that they cannot see what they are actually doing...

as for nukes, of course that is overkill, you want to make sure the commander is dead, not the entire city. of course according to palestinian rules of engagement, would would most certainly use the nuke.

Then where do you draw the line? How many innocent is it okey to kill to get a terrorist leader?
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
if Czar had to make the choice of dropping a 1 ton bomb on hitler and killing 15 civilians, or let him continue to thousands of people a day in concentration camps, ending up in millions of people dead in the long run. he would choose to save the civilians and just be morally indignant about the millions slaughtered. not my responsibility he would say.


welcome to the real world Czar.



And maybe the Hamas terrorist are thinking the exact same thing, that doesn't make either of the sides right...

What will be next, what do you think? Now Hamas will retaliate and more civilians will suffer, then Israel will retaliate and more civilians will suffer.... Both sides are so concentrated on retaliation that they cannot see what they are actually doing...

you do nothing and hamas bombs you anyways, so thats a moot point.

better to kill terrorists then try to absorb the injuries.
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Nefrodite
Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I wouldn't bomb civilians, it doesn't matter who was hiding with them I wouldn't do it because that would make me a terrorist and I'm better than that. If people justify the killing of innocent civilians then where do you draw the line? Is 30 dead civilians ok? How about 3000?


so you wouldn't bomb a man planning the next WTC if you had confirmation. sometimes its a dark choice to make, but guess who forced you to make it?

Yes, of course... blame the innocents... it was their choice, now they have to live with it...

No, if you know who is planning the next WTC, you go after HIM, that is the rules the civilised world plays by...
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Nefrodite
if Czar had to make the choice of dropping a 1 ton bomb on hitler and killing 15 civilians, or let him continue to thousands of people a day in concentration camps, ending up in millions of people dead in the long run. he would choose to save the civilians and just be morally indignant about the millions slaughtered. not my responsibility he would say.


welcome to the real world Czar.

So what you are basicly saying that all the Palestinian suicide bombings are ok because in "their" view the end justifies the means because after all the people they kill could end up being IDF soldiers and kill hundreds of Palestinians. Way to go
rolleye.gif
 

Slovin8

Member
Sep 11, 2000
74
0
0
And why would you send them to Belgium? For a Swede you seem to know very little about the rest of the EU countries if you meant that they should be send to the international court in The Hague, The Netherlands

ohh, but it was in Belgian courts that some survivors of the Sabra and Chatila massacre filed a suit against Sharon. And Belgian law allows courts to pursue such cases.

I know the internatioanl court is in The Hague, I swear!! ;)
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
And maybe the Hamas terrorist are thinking the exact same thing, that doesn't make either of the sides right...

What will be next, what do you think? Now Hamas will retaliate and more civilians will suffer, then Israel will retaliate and more civilians will suffer.... Both sides are so concentrated on retaliation that they cannot see what they are actually doing...



you do nothing and hamas bombs you anyways, so thats a moot point.

better to kill terrorists then try to absorb the injuries.




first of all, hamas doesn't think the same way. they think any civilian is a legitimate target, they have said it many times. if israel had done that you would have genocide.. and perhaps an end to the palestinian problem


No, if you know who is planning the next WTC, you go after HIM, that is the rules the civilised world plays by...


in a perfect world....


you know the palestnians hide hundred pound bombs of explosives in houses right? it would be a bloodbath. urban warfare...

civilized world eh? how many civilians did the US kill in afganistan? and we tried our hardest to minimize collateral damage. our bombs are smart, they aren't that smart.

go ahead, invent the perfect weapons that only kill bad people, make the world a better place.





So what you are basicly saying that all the Palestinian suicide bombings are ok because in "their" view the end justifies the means because after all the people they kill could end up being IDF soldiers and kill hundreds of Palestinians. Way to go
rolleye.gif


theres a difference between going after a CURRENT military target and going after an entire people because they are the enemy. after all, in all wars all civilians are potential military conscripts if the war lasts long enough. all civilians support the military structure. so that justifies genocide from the start according to palestinian thought. women and children, even though they don't fight on the front lines, they must die. these are people that would shoot the fetus inside a israeli womans belly if they could.



 

Slovin8

Member
Sep 11, 2000
74
0
0
so collateral casualties is ok as long as it serves "your" purpose?

I dissagree on the using of the term "collateral casualitiles", since in this case, we know for sure we're going to kill civilians. Collateral damage happens because of accident, not because on prior planning of bombing everyone.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Nefrodite
theres a difference between going after a CURRENT military target and going after an entire people because they are the enemy. after all, in all wars all civilians are potential military conscripts if the war lasts long enough. all civilians support the military structure. so that justifies genocide from the start according to palestinian thought. women and children, even though they don't fight on the front lines, they must die. these are people that would shoot the fetus inside a israeli womans belly if they could.
so full of hate :(
Hatred is the most poisonous human emotion. It blocks the capacity to empathise that lies at the heart of human association. It turns the object of the hatred into just that - an object. It robs the hater of his or her fundamental human quality - humanity. In so doing, it opens the door to the most callous and depraved acts that one human being can commit against another.
 

Slovin8

Member
Sep 11, 2000
74
0
0
first of all, hamas doesn't think the same way. they think any civilian is a legitimate target, they have said it many times.

Can you provide a reliable source that confirms Hamas is considering that civilians are a legitimate target?

This is what I read from MSNBC few days ago:

Most Israelis Are Combatants?
A key Hamas official discusses his organization?s policy on killing civilians and how it will respond to Israel?s latest Gaza strike


July 24 ? In the aftermath of Israel?s airstrike on Gaza that killed top Hamas militant Salah Shehada and 14 other Palestinians?including nine children?leaders of the fundamentalist Islamic group say it is channeling all its efforts into mounting fresh suicide attacks. A leaflet issued by Hamas a day after Tuesday?s Israeli raid said its fighters would not rest until ?Jews see their own body parts in every restaurant, every park, every bus and every street.?

BUT STRIKING at the Jewish state will be harder now. Many of Hamas? key operatives are either dead or in jail, and Israeli troops still occupy most West Bank cities. Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, one of Hamas? dominant political figures in the Gaza Strip, says the group was conditionally ready to stop suicide attacks against Israel before the latest escalation?though analysts think Hamas? conditions were probably too hard-line for Israel to meet. Rantissi spoke with NEWSWEEK?s Dan Ephron.

NEWSWEEK: What kind of understanding was Hamas hoping to achieve with the Israelis?

Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi: We suggested an initiative that if the Israeli Zionists stop their attacks on civilians, we were prepared to stop our martyrdom [suicide] attacks. Among our conditions was the demand that Israel release all Palestinian prisoners and pull troops out of the West Bank and Gaza.

Where does the initiative stand now?
We saw what Sharon?s response was.

But you were ready to call off attacks so the two sides could talk?
We don?t believe that if we stop attacks an agreement will ensue. But we were ready to do it to show the Arab countries that we?re not the problem.

You shared a prison cell with Salah Shehada. What was he like?
We were in prison together in the same cell in 1995 and 1996 ... He was very strong physically, very tough in difficult situations.

What was he convicted of?
He was convicted of belonging to the military wing of Hamas, but he never confessed to it.

Was he the leader of the military wing of Hamas?
Yes, but only in Gaza.

That means Shehada oversaw all the attacks in Gaza?

I would think so, based on his title.

Your group was outraged by Israel?s killing of women and children in the bombing this week, but Shehada himself engineered attacks against civilians.

We are targeting soldiers but sometimes civilians get killed. We always try to limit ourselves to attacking soldiers. Look at the percentage of Israeli soldiers killed in the fighting?it?s more than 50 percent. I?m speaking about statistics, not imaginary things. Combatants are not just people who wear uniforms.

What do you mean? How does Hamas define civilians?
An Israeli civilian is someone who never took part in the fighting. If he participated in the fighting in the past, years ago, he is not a civilian. That?s why Israelis are still pursuing the Germans who took part in the Holocaust, though some of these people are in their 80s. They are still considered soldiers.

So you consider all Israeli men combatants because they at one time or another served in the army and do reserve duty?
Yes.

What about Israeli women?
Most Israeli women served in the army.

According to these criteria, what percentage of the Israeli population do you consider combatants?
The majority. We choose military targets. If civilians are liable to die, that isn?t a reason to stop the attack. But we don?t set out to kill civilians.

That reasoning sounds like what Israelis are saying about the bomb that killed Shehada as well as women and children.

Our formula is different. According to their logic, it?s enough for there to be one fighter in a neighborhood to justifying dropping the bomb.

 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Nefrodite
if Czar had to make the choice of dropping a 1 ton bomb on hitler and killing 15 civilians, or let him continue to thousands of people a day in concentration camps, ending up in millions of people dead in the long run. he would choose to save the civilians and just be morally indignant about the millions slaughtered. not my responsibility he would say.


welcome to the real world Czar.

So what you are basicly saying that all the Palestinian suicide bombings are ok because in "their" view the end justifies the means because after all the people they kill could end up being IDF soldiers and kill hundreds of Palestinians. Way to go
rolleye.gif

So basically you think it's a good idea not to attack anyone anymore, and not let soldiers fire at someone unless they are sure there aren't innocent people in sight. If you were a cop, and you saw someone in a crowded warehouse pull out a heavy duty machinegun, and your only chance to prevent him from using it would be to shoot him, you wouldn't do so if there was a chance of hitting a bystander? You'd instead wait till he had killed everyone around him?

That would make you responsible for those deaths, after all you could have stopped it.

They had been after that guy for years already and never could capture him. They could have send in marines, try and talk the Palestinian authorities into letting them in (can't use force against innocents, now can we?), and 2 days later when arriving at the appartment discover he moved and arranged the deaths of 50 more people?
Any innocent death is despicable, but in this case I understand why they chose for certainty.

A lot of bombs were dropped on Afghanistan to get Osama (which didn't even happen), and eliminate Al Qaida (didn't happen either, one of Osama's son is in charge of Al Qaida in Afghanistan at the moment), and destroy the Taliban (enough of those left too). A lot of innocent people died there, and for no reason. At least the Israelis got the person they were aiming at.