Israel MAY be ready to endorse a two State solution

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
According to the New York Times report I cited above, at least a quarter of the Palestinian casualties were unarmed civilians. Can you unambiguously condemn Israel's recent military actions, or is that asking too much? I also blame the Palestinian militants, I have yet to see you blame Israel in any shape or form. The picture you are presenting is too simplistic: the good guys and the bad guys, the cowboys and the indians. Your problem is that you feel that you need to provide some form of justification for Israel's recent actions: there is NO justification.

That means, however, that three-quarters of the casualties were NOT unarmed civilians. Collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of war.

Not taking one side or the other (I don't know enough about the situation), just presenting some logic.

Oh, and it would be greatly beneficial if yall would cut down on the quote trains to make this thread more readable.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

That means, however, that three-quarters of the casualties were NOT unarmed civilians. Collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of war.

Not taking one side or the other (I don't know enough about the situation), just presenting some logic.

Oh, and it would be greatly beneficial if yall would cut down on the quote trains to make this thread more readable.

I wouldn't classify military actions wherein 25% of the casualities were civilians as a war: carnage and slaughter seem more appropriate terms. According to other sources 25% is a conservative estimate.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

That means, however, that three-quarters of the casualties were NOT unarmed civilians. Collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of war.

Not taking one side or the other (I don't know enough about the situation), just presenting some logic.

Oh, and it would be greatly beneficial if yall would cut down on the quote trains to make this thread more readable.

I wouldn't classify military actions wherein 25% of the casualities were civilians as a war: carnage and slaughter seem more appropriate terms. According to other sources 25% is a conservative estimate.

The majority of the casualties were NOT unarmed civilians. Like I said, collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of war (or whatever you want to call it...fighting, combat, etc.) You're just splitting hairs now.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

That means, however, that three-quarters of the casualties were NOT unarmed civilians. Collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of war.

Not taking one side or the other (I don't know enough about the situation), just presenting some logic.

Oh, and it would be greatly beneficial if yall would cut down on the quote trains to make this thread more readable.

I wouldn't classify military actions wherein 25% of the casualities were civilians as a war: carnage and slaughter seem more appropriate terms. According to other sources 25% is a conservative estimate.

The majority of the casualties were NOT unarmed civilians. Like I said, collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of war (or whatever you want to call it...fighting, combat, etc.) You're just splitting hairs now.

No I am not, I am categorically stating that it is wrong to bombard civilian areas, including UN schools and hospitals. Do you think that the children who watched their families die and their homes burn will be less likely to enlist in terrorist organisations?

I prefer "carnage" and "slaughter" to your more euphemistic terms, let's call a spade a spade. We are dealing with over a thousand deaths, 25% of which, according to conservative estimates, were civilians, do you feel the remaining 75% justifies Israel's actions? I do not.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

That means, however, that three-quarters of the casualties were NOT unarmed civilians. Collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of war.

Not taking one side or the other (I don't know enough about the situation), just presenting some logic.

Oh, and it would be greatly beneficial if yall would cut down on the quote trains to make this thread more readable.

I wouldn't classify military actions wherein 25% of the casualities were civilians as a war: carnage and slaughter seem more appropriate terms. According to other sources 25% is a conservative estimate.

The majority of the casualties were NOT unarmed civilians. Like I said, collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of war (or whatever you want to call it...fighting, combat, etc.) You're just splitting hairs now.

No I am not, I am categorically stating that it is wrong to bombard civilian areas, including UN schools and hospitals. Do you think that the children who watched their families die and their homes burn will be less likely to enlist in terrorist organisations?

I prefer "carnage" and "slaughter" to your more euphemistic terms, let's call a spade a spade.

So by your definition, most wars are not actually wars and just "carnage" and "slaughter", since a lot of combat/bombing/whatever happens in civilized areas.

Especially more so nowadays, since the "enemy combatants" don't set up big old bases that are easy to spot. They mingle with the general population, and that makes them more dangerous.

War has changed. It's no longer one massive army marching up to another with clear borders defined.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

So by your definition, most wars are not actually wars and just "carnage" and "slaughter", since a lot of combat/bombing/whatever happens in civilized areas.

You are starting to grasp the concept. Call it what you will, I call it at least 300-400 dead civilians.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red IrishI wouldn't classify military actions wherein 25% of the casualities were civilians as a war: carnage and slaughter seem more appropriate terms. According to other sources 25% is a conservative estimate.

The majority of the casualties were NOT unarmed civilians. Like I said, collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of war (or whatever you want to call it...fighting, combat, etc.) You're just splitting hairs now.

No I am not, I am categorically stating that it is wrong to bombard civilian areas, including UN schools and hospitals. Do you think that the children who watched their families die and their homes burn will be less likely to enlist in terrorist organisations?

I prefer "carnage" and "slaughter" to your more euphemistic terms, let's call a spade a spade. We are dealing with over a thousand deaths, 25% of which, according to conservative estimates, were civilians, do you feel the remaining 75% justifies Israel's actions? I do not.

It is wrong to attack such locations unless, the opponents is using those locations as a shield.
How many of the 25% were being used in an attempt to protect/deter/prevent the Israelis from going after the militants.

Israel warned the population and the Hamas/militants that trouble was coming; the militants felt that Israel was bluffing.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

So by your definition, most wars are not actually wars and just "carnage" and "slaughter", since a lot of combat/bombing/whatever happens in civilized areas.

You are starting to grasp the concept. Call it what you will, I call it at least 300-400 civilians.

And at least 3x that many hostile "enemy combatants". That's the concept you are failing to grasp, and I think you just refuse to, so I'm done here. I've made my point.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

It is wrong to attack such locations unless...

You were doing fine right up until "unless".

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

So by your definition, most wars are not actually wars and just "carnage" and "slaughter", since a lot of combat/bombing/whatever happens in civilized areas.

You are starting to grasp the concept. Call it what you will, I call it at least 300-400 civilians.

And at least 3x that many hostile "enemy combatants". That's the concept you are failing to grasp, and I think you just refuse to, so I'm done here. I've made my point.

I'm glad you think so Ryan.

 

[Red Irish]

There are a lot of armed gangs in Los Angeles. They openly state that they are against law and order. They commit criminal activities, including murder. Would those of you supporting Israel's recent atrocities also advocate blanket bombardment of certain areas of Los Angeles?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red IrishI wouldn't classify military actions wherein 25% of the casualities were civilians as a war: carnage and slaughter seem more appropriate terms. According to other sources 25% is a conservative estimate.

The majority of the casualties were NOT unarmed civilians. Like I said, collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of war (or whatever you want to call it...fighting, combat, etc.) You're just splitting hairs now.

No I am not, I am categorically stating that it is wrong to bombard civilian areas, including UN schools and hospitals. Do you think that the children who watched their families die and their homes burn will be less likely to enlist in terrorist organisations?

I prefer "carnage" and "slaughter" to your more euphemistic terms, let's call a spade a spade. We are dealing with over a thousand deaths, 25% of which, according to conservative estimates, were civilians, do you feel the remaining 75% justifies Israel's actions? I do not.

It is wrong to attack such locations unless, the opponents is using those locations as a shield.
How many of the 25% were being used in an attempt to protect/deter/prevent the Israelis from going after the militants.

Israel warned the population and the Hamas/militants that trouble was coming; the militants felt that Israel was bluffing.

Exactly. That's the point that he doesn't want to get...I think he understands it, but refuses to acknowledge it. Urban Warfare is the new face of war in the late 20th and early 21st century. The "enemy combatants" blend in with the general population because they know they can be protected and free to do as they please because of the huge outcry about civilian casualties.

The irony is that the "enemy combatants" use such sentiments as a weapon and protection. They are ruthless.

War has changed, and as always, it is nasty business.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
There are a lot of armed gangs in Los Angeles. They openly state that they are against law and order. They commit criminal activities, including murder. Would those of you supporting Israel's recent atrocities also advocate blanket bombardment of certain areas of Los Angeles?

Straw Man.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red IrishI wouldn't classify military actions wherein 25% of the casualities were civilians as a war: carnage and slaughter seem more appropriate terms. According to other sources 25% is a conservative estimate.

The majority of the casualties were NOT unarmed civilians. Like I said, collateral damage is an unfortunate reality of war (or whatever you want to call it...fighting, combat, etc.) You're just splitting hairs now.

No I am not, I am categorically stating that it is wrong to bombard civilian areas, including UN schools and hospitals. Do you think that the children who watched their families die and their homes burn will be less likely to enlist in terrorist organisations?

I prefer "carnage" and "slaughter" to your more euphemistic terms, let's call a spade a spade. We are dealing with over a thousand deaths, 25% of which, according to conservative estimates, were civilians, do you feel the remaining 75% justifies Israel's actions? I do not.

It is wrong to attack such locations unless, the opponents is using those locations as a shield.
How many of the 25% were being used in an attempt to protect/deter/prevent the Israelis from going after the militants.

Israel warned the population and the Hamas/militants that trouble was coming; the militants felt that Israel was bluffing.

Exactly. That's the point that he doesn't want to get...I think he understands it, but refuses to acknowledge it. Urban Warfare is the new face of war in the late 20th and early 21st century. The "enemy combatants" blend in with the general population because they know they can be protected and free to do as they please because of the huge outcry about civilian casualties.

The irony is that the "enemy combatants" use such sentiments as a weapon and protection. They are ruthless.

War has changed, and as always, it is nasty business.

I get it. I am from Belfast and I have seen it close up: I need no explanations on what urban conflict is or what it entails. You are both wrong. I hope some day that you will be able to criticise the actions of Israel and not attempt to justify what amounts to a war crime.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I get it. I am from Belfast and I have seen it close up: I need no explanations on what urban conflict is or what it entails. You are both wrong. I hope some day that you will be able to criticise the actions of Israel and not attempt to justify what amounts to a war crime.

Are you so quick to cry "war crime!" when Israeli civilians are killed by attacks?

Edit: Argh, broke my own rule about the quote train.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I get it. I am from Belfast and I have seen it close up: I need no explanations on what urban conflict is or what it entails. You are both wrong. I hope some day that you will be able to criticise the actions of Israel and not attempt to justify what amounts to a war crime.

Are you so quick to cry "war crime!" when Israeli civilians are killed by attacks?

Edit: Argh, broke my own rule about the quote train.

Ryan, I am equally as quick to condemn the death of any living being. Can you now state that Israel's actions constitute a war crime?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I get it. I am from Belfast and I have seen it close up: I need no explanations on what urban conflict is or what it entails. You are both wrong. I hope some day that you will be able to criticise the actions of Israel and not attempt to justify what amounts to a war crime.

Are you so quick to cry "war crime!" when Israeli civilians are killed by attacks?

Edit: Argh, broke my own rule about the quote train.

Ryan, I am equally as quick to condemn the death of anybody. Can you now state that Israel's actions constitute a war crime?

Absolutely not.

You seem awfully hard on only one side here. You don't seem to be a very unbiased voice. I was just stepping in because of your condemnation and claims of "war crimes", when the vast majority of the casualties were armed "enemy combatants".

You're just throwing up red herrings and straw men now. I'm taking my own advice from earlier...I'm bowing out of the topic.

 

[Red Irish]

Ryan, depite what you might think, or what you have been taught, the term "military solution" is an oxymoron.

I see more bias on your part and on the part of Common Courtesy, you both attempt to justify military action that caused the deaths of 300-400 civilians, including many women and children.

I unequivocally condemn terrorists who launch rockets into Israeli territory: they are evil bastards.

I unequivocally condemn Israel when it shells civilian areas: they are evil bastards.

You both attempt to justify the unjustifiable: shame on you.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Ryan, depite what you might think, or what you have been taught, the term "military solution" is an oxymoron.

I see more bias on your part and on the part of Common Courtesy, you both attempt to justify military action that caused the deaths of 300-400 civilians, including many women and children.

I unequivocally condemn terrorists who launch rockets into Israeli territory: they are evil bastards.

I unequivocally condemn Israel when it shells civilian areas: they are evil bastards.

You both attempt to justify the unjustifiable: shame on you.

The militants made a deliberate attempt to ensure that there were no civilian areas.
When an attack is launched from a geographical area, it becomes a military target, no longer a civilian enclave.

It is a decision of the fighters where they choose to fight. The opponents need to use the best way to protect themselves from the casualities that will ensure when they commit to the battle.

Condemming does nothing except play lip service

As was stated in WWII - make the other bastard die for his country, not you.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Red Irish


According to the New York Times report I cited above, at least a quarter of the Palestinian casualties were unarmed civilians. Can you unambiguously condemn Israel's recent military actions, or is that asking too much? I also blame the Palestinian militants, I have yet to see you blame Israel in any shape or form. The picture you are presenting is too simplistic: the good guys and the bad guys, the cowboys and the indians. Your problem is that you feel that you need to provide some form of justification for Israel's recent actions: there is NO justification.

Sure there is. The Palestinians attacked first, and Israel responded in defense. This has always been the case. The reason why are aren't blaming Israel is because that would be akin to blaming a rape victim for being raped because of the way she was dressed.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Red Irish
There are a lot of armed gangs in Los Angeles. They openly state that they are against law and order. They commit criminal activities, including murder. Would those of you supporting Israel's recent atrocities also advocate blanket bombardment of certain areas of Los Angeles?

Straw Man.

When those gangs start to fire rockets on a daily basis into downtown LA and conduct suicide bombings in LA bars and clubs, and repeated efforts all fail to end the attacks, then maybe we'll talk about whether or not bombing known gang hideouts is an appropriate course of action. Till such time, we'll stick to reality.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Your problem is that you feel that you need to provide some form of justification for Israel's recent actions: there is NO justification.

Sure there is. Under the conditions of "surrender or die" the Palestinians repeatedly choose the latter.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Had the Arabs not attacked in '48 and '56; the geographical borders for the State of Israel would be a lot smaller.

We have been though these arguments of yours before, including just a few days ago in this very thread, to which I responded:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
'48, the ethnic cleansing mentioned above was taking place on both sides of the UN partition plan for months before the Arab states sent their armies in.

'56 Israel with British and French backing parachuted into the Sinai to take the Suez Canal.
...

Now, where are you getting "Arabs clearly attacked first and rolled into Israeli territory" in any of this?

You couldn't answer that question, but simply retorted by asking misconceived ones based on your delusions before ducking out of the discussion, and now your are back presenting the lies you cling to again. Again I ask you, have you no concept of shame?

 

[Lemon law]

The problem with reading just one side of the conflict is that you then suck into their propaganda. And then can give you years of material to wade through proving the other side is nothing but a bunch of human scum, and as you read through you somehow miss that fact the proving the other side is a smuck
does not elevate the presenters in any way.

And once one can get past that bogus reasoning, then one can embrace the concept that both sides are wrong and right at the same time. And then one can go beyond that and ask what a fair settlement for both sides would entail.

In many ways the original 1948 UN vision for Israel was a state that could grant equal rights for the Jews and Palestinians who inhabited the land that became the state of Israel. That same concept could become a new model for Israel, and since when does the USA support a monotheistic state based only on religious birthright. Precisely what our founding fathers fled from as they established a government that separated church and State.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
According to the New York Times report I cited above, at least a quarter of the Palestinian casualties were unarmed civilians. Can you unambiguously condemn Israel's recent military actions, or is that asking too much? I also blame the Palestinian militants, I have yet to see you blame Israel in any shape or form. The picture you are presenting is too simplistic: the good guys and the bad guys, the cowboys and the indians. Your problem is that you feel that you need to provide some form of justification for Israel's recent actions: there is NO justification.

From the aforementioned article:

United Nations officials initially put the Jabaliya death toll at 30 and said 55 were wounded, with several in critical condition. Palestinian hospital officials said 40 people had been killed, among them 10 children and 5 women.

The death toll in Gaza reached around 640 on Tuesday, according to Palestinian health officials. The United Nations has estimated that about one-fourth of those killed were civilians, though there have been no reliable and current figures in recent days.

That was just early estamties while the assault still in full swing, here is a report on the totals:

Palestinian human rights group says 313 children were killed in 'Cast Lead'
Three days ago, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights released a report (here's the pdf) on the Gaza onslaught, called "War Crimes Against Children," focusing on "the unprecedented number of children killed by Israeli forces in its latest operation; a total of 313 children under the age of eighteen." The group says that number excludes seven child combatants killed.
The executive summary states:

?Operation Cast Lead? was the biggest Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip in nearly 42 years of occupation. 1,414 Palestinians were killed, and PCHR investigations have found the overwhelming majority, 83 per cent, were civilians.

And the UN investagators came up with similar numbers, see U.N. reports say Israel targeted civilians in Gaza.

Also, I'm curious to know why you accept the apologists claims of Hamas using human shields? I've yet to see any real evidence to prove as much. Furthermore, the same claim was made against Hezbollah as justification for the massive civilian casualties of Israel's assault on Lebanon in 2006, but our US Army War College investigation showed Israel's claims to be baseless:

Hezbollah is often described as having used
civilians as shields in 2006, and, in fact, they made
extensive use of civilian homes as direct fire combat
positions and to conceal launchers for rocket fire into
Israel.90 Yet the villages Hezbollah used to anchor its
defensive system in southern Lebanon were largely
evacuated by the time Israeli ground forces crossed the
border on July 18. As a result, the key battlefields in the
land campaign south of the Litani River were mostly
devoid of civilians, and IDF participants consistently
report little or no meaningful intermingling of
Hezbollah fighters and noncombatants. Nor is there
any systematic reporting of Hezbollah using civilians
in the combat zone as shields. The fighting in southern
Lebanon was chiefly urban, in the built-up areas of
the small to medium-size villages and towns typical
of the region. But it was not significantly intermingled
with a civilian population that had fled by the time the
ground fighting began. Hezbollah made very effective
use of local cover and concealment (see below), but this
was obtained almost entirely from the terrain?both
natural and man-made.

Besides, I don't see how Hamas, Hezbollah, or anyone could maintain popular support while employing such a tactic, the whole charge just seems absurd on it's face.