I'm not putting them remotely on the same level. Is there a particular "level" that needs to be reached before a country is allowed to defend against threats by any means necessary? I wonder what that might be. Let's suppose that Israel is the smaller country, and it is being completely surrounded by another Arab country that, by force, routinely cuts off supplies, has total control over its airspace, and reserves the right to assassinate its elected officials. Moreover, Israel has absolutely no means to engage its neighbor's military. To what extent does Israel have a right to fight for its own freedom in that circumstance?
I am really conflicted about US financial and military support of Israel. I understand the relationship but think that its to the detriment of BOTH countries, especially the US. You make your bed and you lay in it I guess
umm...no! I can assure you there will be no "war" against Iran. Bush is handing his administration's failure to halt or discourage Iranian advances in mastering the nuclear cycle to the next administration. It will be up to Obama and I am fairly certain he won't be doing anything about it either. Israel might, but I am increasingly inclined to believe that Israel won't risk an endless barrage of Iranian missiles for less than a 50% probability of success in destroying the Iranian nuclear program. I vote aggressive containment, at this point we have to assume it is inevitable. We have a presence in the region, we can contain Iran even if it turns nuclear. A balance of terror will work.
Simple question: Is Israel paying for these weapons? With their own money? This little conflict wouldn't be enough, but manufacturing weapons could get the US out of recession, so long as we're not paying for themselves ourselves. It worked in 1940.
Israel is the casue of fanatic Islamism When did you hear about fanatic Islamism that is unlike any other fanatic religion group until the creation of Israel?
I'm not sure if this was mentioned yet, but the term holocaust (actually, the Hebrew version "shoah") was used by Israel's deputy defense minister last year as something the Gazans could bring upon themselves if they continue to fire rockets: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1 [rquoter] An Israeli minister today warned of increasingly bitter conflict in the Gaza Strip, saying the Palestinians could bring on themselves what he called a "holocaust". "The more Qassam [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defence minister, told army radio. Shoah is the Hebrew word normally reserved to refer to the Jewish Holocaust. It is rarely used in Israel outside discussions of the Nazi extermination of Jews during the second world war, and many Israelis are loath to countenance its use to describe other events. The minister's statement came after two days of tit-for-tat missile raids between Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip and the Israeli army. At least 32 Palestinians and one Israeli have been killed since the surge in violence on Wednesday.[/rquoter]
Basso! You're absolutely right, how did the Rockets get stuck on one of those small crappy screens...Unbelievable.
I think this speaks for itself. The endless massacre Israel is committing is comparable to the holocaust. Yet, in our modern world the civil rights upholding protector of freedom called the United States is helping them commit such atrocities.
It's just barely comprable to the First Battle of Mogadishu. [rquoter] Does "Black Hawk Down" Portray an American War Crime? At least nine hundred people, maybe half of them civilians, have been killed in Gaza so far, the overwhelming majority presumably killed by Israel (some people, more than we probably know right now, have been killed by Hamas, mainly Fatah activists in revenge killings). This number, nine hundred, is large, and it brought to mind another conflict between a Western army and a Muslim insurgency, the one portrayed in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down." Roughly one thousand Somalis were killed by American forces over the twenty hours or so of the First Battle of Mogadishu (eighteen American soldiers, of course, were also killed). I couldn't get an accurate read on how many of those Somalis were civilians, so I called my colleague, Mark Bowden, who wrote the book. He said that eighty percent of the Somali deaths were of civilian. Eighty percent! Roughly eight hundred people. I asked Bowden if he thought this meant that American forces in Somalia had committed war crimes. Andrew has been leading an interesting discussion about whether or not Israeli actions in Gaza constitute war crimes, and I've been trying to place Israeli actions in a broader context. Bowden agreed to help me by providing his own understanding of civilian deaths in asymmetric warfare. Here's some of what he had to say: [rquoter] "If you feel the need to go to war against an enemy that is not as powerful as you are, one of the tactics of the weaker party is to hide among civilians, and use the global media to advertise the horror of the onslaught. People on the receiving end of the bombs greatly exaggerate the casualties and get photographers to take the most gruesome of pictures, and at the same time, the people in charge of the stronger power try to minimize the number of casualties. If you live in a democracy, then public opinion really matters, and reports of dead children swells the criticism of the war. If you live in a dictatorship, then you don't care what the people think. Israel is a democracy and it cares about the way the rest of the world feels. It gets hurt by killing civilians, so for moral and practical reasons, they're trying very hard to avoid it." "I believe that culpability for these casualties is very much with Hamas. Take this leader, Nizar Rayyan, who was killed with many of his children. He knew he was a target. If I knew that I was a target, I sure as hell wouldn't have my children near me. It's a horrible and cynical choice he made. But if your enemy is a sophisticated manipulator of public opinion, then this is one of the many downsides of choosing to go to war. Israel knows that." "The parallel with Mogadishu is that gunmen in that battle hid behind walls of civilians and were aware of the restraint of the (Army) Rangers. These gunmen literally shot over the heads of civilians, or between their legs. They used women and children for this. It's mind-boggling. Some of the Rangers shot civilians, some of them inadvertently and some of them advertently. They made the choice to shoot at crowds. When a ten-year-old is running at your vehicle with an AK-47, do you shoot the kid? Yes, you shoot the kid. You have to survive. When push comes to shove, faced with the horrible dilemma with a gunman facing you, yes, you shoot. It's not just a choice about your own life. If you don't shoot, you're saying that your mission isn't important, and the lives of your fellow soldiers aren't important." [/rquoter] [/rquoter]
In 1999, the US banned an Israel company named Elta, from selling advanced spying Airplane, "The Falcon", to China and, if I recall this correctly, Israel had to pay a fine to China. Actually, the money your goverment sends here, kinda goes back to you, because Israel has to buy American wepons and we sell you some advanced military technology . BTW, the Israeli national badget is around 120 billion dollar, so those 3 don't make such a diffrence as the political backup.
"It's not our fault that we're religion-inspired psychotic and genocidal maniacs - Israel made us do it!"
I don't want to let Nizar Rayyan off the hook regarding this and do believe he shares culpability for civilian deaths but I find it difficult to lay all culpability for civillian deaths on insurgents. The biggest problem I have with this is that given that an insurgency is often fought on the home territory of the insurgents and that the insurgents being weaker can't just evacuate themselves to another battlefield. There is really no option but for them to fight in an around their homes. THis is especially true of Gaza where there is no where else to go for civillian or insurgent. The other problem is that often the motivating factor for someone to fight is in direct defense of their homes. To borrow another historical example no one says the French resistance of WWII or the Jewish resistance in the Warsaw ghetto were responsible for the deaths of civilians even though they fought and hid among civilians. Another problem with this argument is that soldiers of practically every military don't spend their whole time at base and will go home and spend time with their families or mingle with civillians. Especially in a small country like Israel with mandatory service soldiers frequently travel home and mingle with civillians even while in uniform. If the argument is that fighters are fair game even when they mix with civillians and even off duty, as I had heard Rayan was asleep when he was killed, then the Palestinians could justify civillian deaths of Israelis by saying they were only targetting soldiers and it is the soldiers fault for mixing with civillians.
There's a difference between cause and fault, genius Which side has shown, through action, more genocidal tendencies? What is Zionism, if not religion-inspired psychotic drivel?
Oh do explain further. I'm sure the explanation will be convoluted enough to make my eyes roll into my hippocampus, and I need a laugh this morning. BBBZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT. FAIL. You've changed the direction of the argument. EGYPT's (r****ded) assertion was that Israel caused fanatical islam. I'm not interested in debating what side is "worse" or which side if more full of "religion-inspired psychotic drivel". Know why? Because BOTH sides (supporters included!) are full of brain-dead morons blinded by hatred and fueled by religious bull****. Both sides represent the most nauseating aspects of greed and religious child abuse. Both sides are a pathetic joke, a giant festering sore in each faction's stupid claim of supremacy or moral righteousness. Of course no one, objective or otherwise, wants to admit it this enormous hypocrisy because we are all raised to stupidly respect one another's irrational belief in some pre-determined validity ordained courtesy of a supernatural entity that has never once deigned to reveal any evidence of really giving a **** about whichever goofy conflict is currently en vogue. If anything, this centuries-old conflict over a useless chunk of ecologically blasted land is wonderful illustration of the enormous waste the human concept of religion is. While 30+ odd pages of rationalization for either side is noteworthy for the ability this conflict has to stimulate verbose passion, no one ever brings up the elephant in the room. And why should they? That elephant is all the justification they need to fullfill Orwell's vision of the nationalist - only now we've wrapped this nationalism in a cloak of religous elephant-hide! It's impervious to anything - even centuries of pain, misery, war, torture, genocide, and ill will. But hey, both sides are morally justified by there elephant - and god forbid (haha) you question that brain-dead assertion.
