Israeli/Palestinian Conflict MEGATHREAD

[GarfieldJL]

alright what about these israeli soldiers

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

 

or the cbs (liberal anti-semite bias, i know) one that shows israeli soldiers in a civilian home

 

Because we don't know the context of what was going on if it is even genuine which I sincerely doubt.

 

Oh and there is the fact that you remember the cease fire Israel supposedly violated first, it turns out Hamas was firing rockets during the cease fire.

 

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni described the rocket fire as "intolerable" and called for action. Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit was even more direct. "We have to act in Gaza, and instead of defending, we have to attack," he said. "I want people to be building shelters in Gaza, not in Israel." (The Israeli government will reportedly spend $170 million on building bomb shelters for homes within a 4-km range of Gaza.) Comments from Livni and her allies reflect the tough election challenge they face against the more hawkish former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israeli security sources tell TIME that Israel remains unlikely to invade Gaza as long as none of the rockets fired from there inflicts mass casualties. "All it would take for the entire equation to change is for one of those rockets to hit a school or a bus," said one security official, who asked to remain anonymous. "That would force Israel to mount a massive response." Notwithstanding the escalation in rhetoric by its leaders, Israel's Cabinet last Wednesday decided against changing the army's standing orders to respect the truce.

 

Despite Israeli concerns that allowing more than 250 mortar shells and rockets to be fired at Israel without a massive response weakens the nation's deterrent capacity, a number of factors restrain it from invading Gaza. A full-blown ground operation would result in dozens of Israeli military casualties in what would be a house-to-house infantry operation. Such an operation would also jeopardize prospects for negotiating the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit. And it would almost certainly inflict scores of Palestinian civilian casualties, which would fuel support for Hamas and further undermine the already weak President Mahmoud Abbas, whom Israel has been trying to bolster.

-- TIME

 

That's a liberal source contradicting multiple liberal sources. It also confirms that Israel has no interest in killing civilians.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

yes why on earth would israeli foreign minister tzipi livni say hamas fired rockets and mortars into israel that is quite a question garfield.

 

hey what about israel firing into gaza during the ceasefire they declared then launching an air strike

[GarfieldJL]

yes why on earth would israeli foreign minister tzipi livni say hamas fired rockets and mortars into israel that is quite a question garfield.

 

hey what about israel firing into gaza during the ceasefire they declared then launching an air strike

 

Oh I don't know maybe because it was TRUE?

 

Seriously, the BBC has a pretty bad track record.

 

I didn't source the blog I found the link to the article on, but they were saying that the BBC deliberately cut the Israeli they were interviewing off to make it sound like no rockets had been fired by Hamas.

[Astor]

Oh I don't know maybe because it was TRUE?

 

Seriously, the BBC has a pretty bad track record.

 

So? It's made it's share of mistakes, but i'd trust the BBC over Israeli goverment reports (seeing as they were the only one who could report on the conflict, as every other news company was banned from reporting - strange if Israel has nothing to hide), or any Murdoch owned news source.

 

And you're seriously saying that NewsNight would stage a video? Please.

 

I didn't source the blog I found the link to the article on, but they were saying that the BBC deliberately cut the Israeli they were interviewing off to make it sound like no rockets had been fired by Hamas.

 

Must be true, then.

 

EDIT: I thought this was about the conflict between Israel/Palestine, not the bias of various media reporting it. Surely that discussion would be better served in the Media Bias thread?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

So? It's made it's share of mistakes, but i'd trust the BBC over Israeli goverment reports (seeing as they were the only one who could report on the conflict, as every other news company was banned from reporting - strange if Israel has nothing to hide), or any Murdoch owned news source.

 

And you're seriously saying that NewsNight would stage a video? Please.

 

 

 

Must be true, then.

 

EDIT: I thought this was about the conflict between Israel/Palestine, not the bias of various media reporting it. Surely that discussion would be better served in the Media Bias thread?

no

 

Seeing as the "liberal and conservative" offenders post often and can never get a topic going farther than "well, your source sucks!", I see no reason to try to debate with any of you anymore.

 

how can you ignore the bias garfield has brought to our attention and backed up with facts from reliable sources just because a few thousand people are being starved, abused, and murdered

[GarfieldJL]

So? It's made it's share of mistakes, but i'd trust the BBC over Israeli goverment reports (seeing as they were the only one who could report on the conflict, as every other news company was banned from reporting - strange if Israel has nothing to hide), or any Murdoch owned news source.

 

Well here's the thing, they either did it deliberately or they were utterly incompetitent. The BBC has a pretty poor record concerning credibility when it comes to Israel.

 

And you're seriously saying that NewsNight would stage a video? Please.

 

I'm not saying they staged it by themselves, but they certainly participated in the staging.

 

 

EDIT: I thought this was about the conflict between Israel/Palestine, not the bias of various media reporting it. Surely that discussion would be better served in the Media Bias thread?

 

In this case, the media is relevant because it calls into question the credibility of the reports as to what is going on.

 

The BBC: Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais, from Saudi Arabia, who opened London's biggest mosque last Friday, is a respected leader who works for "community cohesion" and "building communities."

 

Not mentioned on the BBC: Some of the views of Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais. In his own words: In the name of Allah, the Jews must be "annihilated." They are "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world... the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."

 

The BBC's Charter and its Producers Guidelines state: "Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth... [bBC reports should] contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world...."

-- National Review

 

This is from one conservative source, but the implications are pretty profound. The BBC even had the gall to bash President Reagan in his obituary, and you're telling me they are a credible source?

 

Last week, for example, almost every other news organization in the world (including those in the former Communist states) began their obituaries of Ronald Reagan by saying that many (including Mikhail Gorbachev) credit Reagan with helping to bring about the end of the Cold War. But the BBC online obituary ("World Edition," Sunday, June 6, 2004, titled "Reagan's mixed White House legacy," and running to almost 1,000 words — that's a full four pages if you print it out from the BBC website) didn't even mention the Cold War, let alone Reagan's calls to "tear down" the Berlin Wall.

 

Instead the BBC reminded us that Reagan was "a B movie actor," and stated that as president his "foreign policy was criticised for being in disarray." Accompanying photos were not of Reagan meeting Gorbachev, but of Oliver North, and of the invasion of Grenada ("a clumsy sham," according to the BBC text).

 

Even during his funeral last Friday, BBC World Service Radio began its bulletin by first referring to Reagan as a film actor before mentioning that he was president.

-- National Review

 

Then we have:

 

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/2006_Dishonest_Reporter_of_the_Year_Award.asp

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/05/29/media-ran-story-israel-troops-shooting-boy-ignore-evidence-israel-inn

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/10/01/media-aired-dubious-anti-israel-video-not-even-handed-expose-palest-0

 

Btw, the two Newsbusters articles have a few other sources that they reference, one of which has to do with the journalist that a person here said wasn't credible, however if he isn't credible why did he win a challenge in court?

[Jae Onasi]

Those darn anti-semitic jews

 

_EW_

 

Note to everyone: Please be exceedingly careful about jokes like this--I know this is a joke, but it can come across as a very racist comment if you're not careful about how you word and present it. We will err on the safe side and delete comments like this if we're not 100% sure it's supposed to be a joke.

[EnderWiggin]

the journalist that a person here said wasn't credible, however if he isn't credible why did he win a challenge in court?

Logical fallacy. Just because he won one challenge in court (allegedly, since no one else knows what the hell you're talking about) doesn't mean that he's credible. He's got a long record of incredibility, and one court appearance doesn't negate that.

 

Also, if you could respond to J7 instead of completely ignoring him that'd be nice.

It's quite rude of you to insult him and then not respond to his post afterward, especially because he's a staff member.

 

The fact you've left out the fact

 

Saying the word "fact" over and over doesn't make your points true.

 

_EW_

 

EDIT:: Apologies, Jae. I was trying to use humor to lighten the mood a bit - didn't work out too well it seems. I do have Jewish friends (and one from Israel) - I'm really not an anti-semite.

[GarfieldJL]

Also, if you could respond to J7 instead of completely ignoring him that'd be nice.

It's quite rude of you to insult him and then not respond to his post afterward, especially because he's a staff member.

 

Well to be honest I didn't see jonathan's post.

 

Firsrly I have friends who are Israeli and Palestinian that live in Israel/Palestine, and they are Jewish, Muslim and Christian. I've studied the topic, thanks, and at least I know this; “One definition of insanity is to believe that you can keep doing what you’ve been doing and get different results” – Einstein. The Israelis and Palestinians have been trying the same crap for the past 70 years, and got no-where, you'll have to forgive me for thinking anyone that thinks continuing on the same path is foolish to say the least.

 

And I'm going to point out that it takes two to make peace, only one to start a war.

 

Frankly your so biased your attributing things to me I NEVER said, and miracles of miracles, you've actually managed to piss me off. Please link me to any post when I claimed it was Israeli policy to deliberately targeted civilians? Infact you may find I generally posted that both sides are in the wrong, but your so biased, you actually think Israel walks on water.

 

Who said I was talking about you specifically, but the fact is that I was led to believe you didn't have friends there because I didn't see you point out the fact the reason why there were so many civilian deaths was because Hamas likes to use children as human shields, I believe Jae was the one that pointed that tidbit out.

 

 

That's nice I'm sure that's a real comfort to the parents who have dead Children, and I'm sure they won't allow there other children to turn into terrorists, why is it people like you don't understand that smacking things with a hammer doesn't fix things?

 

Sometimes it actually does, remember it takes two to make peace. You saying the Israelis should just let Hamas fire rockets into Israel and do nothing? Seriously, Hamas isn't interested in peace, all they want is time to rearm and start this all over again.

 

 

When did I ever say Israel was out to wipe out the civilian populace, don't tell me what I think, especially when I don't think that.

 

You've made it sound like they are deliberately targeting civilians, when if it were your own country in a similar situation the civilian deaths would be 20 to 30x higher.

 

 

Israel, you know could like, shock horror, not shoot?

 

When you're fighting with fanatics that think they get 50 beautiful virgins to do with as they like for killing infidels when they die, shock and horror isn't going to do much.

 

 

Fact is that's an a fact you can't possibly substantiate.

 

So you know my Isreali Jewish friends, correctly think that the current 'war' or whatever you want to call it, will only make things worse, and they are very critical of Israli foreign policy, but I suppose that means they are anti-Semitic? I suppose you would like to tell my Palestinian friends who had that big concrete wall go straight through their farming land, that the Isreali government is really nice? Have a nice day sir, because you were just pawned.

 

I don't think the Israeli Government is made up of saints, but overall the Palestinians, or at least those with power are probably more to blame than the Israelis. The simple reason as to why the wall went up was to keep people from sneaking in with bombs strapped to their chests. Is it a perfect solution, not really, but it cuts down on civilian deaths from lunatics. I'm really sorry your friends have a wall going through their farmland, but that's the nature of the situation.

 

I don't know the thought processes of your friends, so I'm not going to comment on that.

[EnderWiggin]

And I'm going to point out that it takes two to make peace, only one to start a war.

 

Good point. Israel's the one that broke the ceasefire.

 

 

Seriously, Hamas isn't interested in peace, all they want is time to rearm and start this all over again.

 

Again, who is the one who keeps attacking Gaza?

When you're fighting with fanatics that think they get 50 beautiful virgins to do with as they like for killing infidels when they die, shock and horror isn't going to do much.

Believe it's 72 virgins, first of all.

 

Please read what Jon writes! He said they could NOT SHOOT.

I'm really sorry your friends have a wall going through their farmland, but that's the nature of the situation.

Only because Israel makes it that way.

 

_EW_

[Adavardes]

Believe it's 72 virgins, first of all.

 

Actually, they think there may have been a mis-translation on that, and it's actually referring to 72 beans.

 

And I'm going to point out that it takes two to make peace, only one to start a war.

 

Maybe we should inform Israel of that, because it seems they have no intention to stop bombing Hamas citizens, and anyone who gets in their way of the total and complete genocide, even the UN. And yeah, I'm not going to stop seeing that as truth just because you say that every source in opposition to your own has no credibility. I just don't believe that, period, and nobody else here does either, so stop saying it, because you can't prove it, and really haven't even tried.

[jonathan7]

Well to be honest I didn't see jonathan's post.

 

And I'm going to point out that it takes two to make peace, only one to start a war.

 

The fact you say this clearly shows you have never been to Israel otherwise you would know that Israel has its fair share of Jewish religious fundamentalists. Your whole post also conveniently ignores the fact that Palestinians were forcefully ejected from their lands at the foundation of the modern Israeli state.

 

Who said I was talking about you specifically, but the fact is that I was led to believe you didn't have friends there because I didn't see you point out the fact the reason why there were so many civilian deaths was because Hamas likes to use children as human shields, I believe Jae was the one that pointed that tidbit out.

 

Your entire post is one bad supposition after another about exactly what I know about the Middle East, which is for the record probably the largest knowledge base on the subject in the whole forums. Fact is neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's want peace, they hate each other after years of fighting, it's an ugly situation; and requires a higher degree of thought than what caused the problem in the first place; i.e. Shooting people and forcing them off their land (clarification, this swings both ways, and the news always conveniently ignores the Jews and Palestinians who happily live side by side in quite a few places in Israel). Or perhaps I'm still biased?

 

Sometimes it actually does, remember it takes two to make peace. You saying the Israelis should just let Hamas fire rockets into Israel and do nothing? Seriously, Hamas isn't interested in peace, all they want is time to rearm and start this all over again.

 

Jesus was right two-thousand years ago when he said turn the other cheek, responding violence for violence just escalates a situation, but its clear you think someone how smacking someone back will actually achieve something other than starting a fight. If a small aggressive child smacked you, what would you do? Smack him back?

 

If I was in charge of Israel, I would a'la Robin Hood give to the poor, building up a people instead of blowing them up is likely to stop a new generation of terrorists, after all its a lot harder to hate people who are building you hospitals, giving you jobs etc - this of course takes time, patience, and sacrifice, but in the long term that would solve the problem a lot more effectively than blowing up lots of buildings in Gaza.

 

You've made it sound like they are deliberately targeting civilians, when if it were your own country in a similar situation the civilian deaths would be 20 to 30x higher.

 

Your talking to a Brit, ever heard of Northern Ireland?? See we managed to bring peace there after centuries of conflict, and guess what the responses and casualties were never anything like Israel's.

 

When you're fighting with fanatics that think they get 50 beautiful virgins to do with as they like for killing infidels when they die, shock and horror isn't going to do much.

 

This statement means I know you clearly don't know nearly as much about the subject as you think you do, as you don't even know the number of virgins they are promised. Tell me, have you actually ever met a Palestinian?

 

I don't think the Israeli Government is made up of saints

 

Really? All your other posts in this thread, say otherwise.

 

but overall the Palestinians, or at least those with power are probably more to blame than the Israelis.

 

Who started the fight 70 years ago? Are you telling me if the Aborigines invaded the United States, push you out of your home, that you would be happy about it? Or that you wouldn't want "your" land back?

 

The simple reason as to why the wall went up was to keep people from sneaking in with bombs strapped to their chests. Is it a perfect solution, not really, but it cuts down on civilian deaths from lunatics. I'm really sorry your friends have a wall going through their farmland, but that's the nature of the situation.

 

So why didn't Israel build the wall on their border instead of annexing a whole load of land? You don't win hearts and minds with such behaviour, you just create more terrorists.

 

I don't know the thought processes of your friends, so I'm not going to comment on that.

 

I know they thought processes, they know that it's going to take a change of direction of both Israel and Palestine for peace. They know that Israeli foreign policy is clandestine and creates more problems than it solves.

 

An article many of you may find interesting; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article5415342.ece

[EnderWiggin]

*for brevity*

 

Brilliant post, Jonathan.

 

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

The fact you say this clearly shows you have never been to Israel otherwise you would know that Israel has its fair share of Jewish religious fundamentalists. Your whole post also conveniently ignores the fact that Palestinians were forcefully ejected from their lands at the foundation of the modern Israeli state.

 

Study your history, you'll find that it was Great Britain's land, the UN and UK were effectively shamed into the creation of Israel, I quite frankly don't even blame the Israelis for wanting to get out of Europe.

 

Are there fundamentalists that are Jewish, yes, but we're not currently talking about them are we. Furthermore, if we keep going on and on about whose dad did what to your dad or grandfather, all that is going to happen is more hate.

 

 

Your entire post is one bad supposition after another about exactly what I know about the Middle East, which is for the record probably the largest knowledge base on the subject in the whole forums. Fact is neither the Palestinians nor the Israeli's want peace, they hate each other after years of fighting, it's an ugly situation; and requires a higher degree of thought than what caused the problem in the first place; i.e. Shooting people and forcing them off their land (clarification, this swings both ways, and the news always conveniently ignores the Jews and Palestinians who happily live side by side in quite a few places in Israel). Or perhaps I'm still biased?

 

Oh you mean like that kid that was supposedly shot by Israelis in 2000, that was the incident that ended up in a courtroom. Furthermore, if there can't be peace between Palestinians and Israelis, why is the West Bank being left alone, and why is Fatah not making any attacks on Israel.

 

Your supposition is in error bigtime because:

1. Israel has made peace with Jordan.
   
2. Israel has made peace with Egypt.
   
3. Israel is on good terms with Turkey.
   

 

Israel was enemies with Jordan and Egypt yet they have made peace. Israel has a record of being willing to sit down and try to work things out peacefully, Hamas' wants the total destruction of Israel.

 

Jesus was right two-thousand years ago when he said turn the other cheek, responding violence for violence just escalates a situation, but its clear you think someone how smacking someone back will actually achieve something other than starting a fight. If a small aggressive child smacked you, what would you do? Smack him back?

 

Jesus did not mean for you to sit back and let people try their best to annihilate you. If a child hit me, would I hit them back would really depend on a number of factors, a small child I certainly wouldn't. A teenager, whom could actually potentially cause me physical harm, I would fight back.

 

Your comparison though is like comparing apples to oranges, they are two different things, and Hamas is not a group of children it is a group made up of homicidal maniacs.

 

If I was in charge of Israel, I would a'la Robin Hood give to the poor, building up a people instead of blowing them up is likely to stop a new generation of terrorists, after all its a lot harder to hate people who are building you hospitals, giving you jobs etc - this of course takes time, patience, and sacrifice, but in the long term that would solve the problem a lot more effectively than blowing up lots of buildings in Gaza.

 

jonathan, you need to have the situation relatively stable first, not having people doing their best to kill you. Personally, if I could and could get the parents of kids permission and ensure the kids don't have bombs strapped to them, I would have the Palestinian kids have classes in Israel until their new schools are built.

 

 

Your talking to a Brit, ever heard of Northern Ireland?? See we managed to bring peace there after centuries of conflict, and guess what the responses and casualties were never anything like Israel's.

 

Again you're comparing apples and oranges. Hamas is not Northern Ireland, they don't believe they get 50 beautiful virgins to serve them if they die killing infidels. You had a group of people with a religious dispute and wanting independence, but they weren't as fanatical as what Hamas is.

 

 

This statement means I know you clearly don't know nearly as much about the subject as you think you do, as you don't even know the number of virgins they are promised. Tell me, have you actually ever met a Palestinian?

 

So you do admit the virgins thing is there, I've actually had to read an English translation of the Quran (sp?) for a Medieval History course, I just can't remember the number (I thought it was 50 but the point is that it is there). Furthermore having met a single individual from a group of people doesn't make you an expert.

 

 

 

Who started the fight 70 years ago? Are you telling me if the Aborigines invaded the United States, push you out of your home, that you would be happy about it? Or that you wouldn't want "your" land back?

 

Wouldn't happen and no I wouldn't be happy, yes I'd want it back, but there are lines I will not cross.

 

 

So why didn't Israel build the wall on their border instead of annexing a whole load of land? You don't win hearts and minds with such behaviour, you just create more terrorists.

 

And what of the suicide bombers which is the reason for the construction of the wall in the first place.

 

 

An article many of you may find interesting; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article5415342.ece

 

I see your article and I'm going raise you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_Pioneers

 

Furthermore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

 

Using children in such a manner is inexcusable, you complain about the Israelis being concerned about Palestinian kids, well wouldn't you if Hamas for instance has a habit of strapping bombs to kids and have them blow themselves up or the bomb is triggered remotely. Now as far as I know Fatah has stopped this practice, but Hamas continues to use children in such a manner.

[jrrtoken]

]Your supposition is in error bigtime because:

1. Israel has made peace with Jordan.
   
2. Israel has made peace with Egypt.
   
3. Israel is on good terms with Turkey.
   

Ha. It's more or less a shotgun peace, really.

Jesus did not mean for you to sit back and let people try their best to annihilate you. If a child hit me, would I hit them back would really depend on a number of factors, a small child I certainly wouldn't. A teenager, whom could actually potentially cause me physical harm, I would fight back.

Jesus also said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”, which essentially means if someone tries to hurt you, don't bomb their land into a crater.

Your comparison though is like comparing apples to oranges, they are two different things, and Hamas is not a group of children it is a group made up of homicidal maniacs.

Who have been made homicidal by years of oppression from Israel.

Again you're comparing apples and oranges. Hamas is not Northern Ireland, they don't believe they get 50 beautiful virgins to serve them if they die killing infidels. You had a group of people with a religious dispute and wanting independence, but they weren't as fanatical as what Hamas is.

It's 47, dammit. Get it right.

So you do admit the virgins thing is there, I've actually had to read an English translation of the Quran (sp?) for a Medieval History course, I just can't remember the number (I thought it was 50 but the point is that it is there). Furthermore having met a single individual from a group of people doesn't make you an expert.

Personally, I like the allotment of virgins in paradise, and who wouldn't?

[GarfieldJL]

Ha. It's more or less a shotgun peace, really.

 

No, Egypt actually got back control of the Suez Canal when they signed the treaty with them.

 

Jesus also said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”, which essentially means if someone tries to hurt you, don't bomb their land into a crater.

 

If Israel had been out to do that, they would be using dumb munitions like unguided bombs.

 

Who have been made homicidal by years of oppression from Israel.

 

It wasn't just Israel, you have to blame the neighbors of Israel, it wasn't until 1967 that Israel took the West Bank from Jordan. Furthermore, the "oppression" as you call it is because they don't want some guy walking into a crowded market and blowing themselves up.

 

 

It's 47, dammit. Get it right.

 

I don't really care, the number isn't important.

 

Personally, I like the allotment of virgins in paradise, and who wouldn't?

 

And that is why this isn't a similar situation to Northern Ireland, this is fanaticism where they are out to totally annihilate the other side. Fatah isn't this way anymore, and that's one of the reasons why there is largely peace between Israel and the West Bank, but Hamas is and you can't reason with someone that wants you, your family, and all of your people dead.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

If Israel had been out to do that, they would be using dumb munitions like unguided bombs.

do artillery shells and flechettes count

 

http://livewire.amnesty.org/2009/01/27/a-bloodstained-wall-full-of-flechettes/?lang=en

[mur'phon]

Furthermore, the "oppression" as you call it is because they don't want some guy walking into a crowded market and blowing themselves up.

 

Interesting fact: it's far easier to get poor, uneducated, jobless people to blow themselves up than employed people.

Now, please tell me how making a checkpoint hell which mean that getting to work a few kilometers away can take 5 hours each way, Strangling trade by banning the import of even mundane things like cement and steel, and setting up a wall through many peoples homes/farmland is going to protect Israel against suicide bombers. You want palestinians to stop blaming Israel for, well, pretty much everything? Then don't create a nation of poor, jobless, people living off aid. Instead, try to veawe it into the Israeli economy, it should be proffitable enough for both sides, and heck, it might one day see the country united one day.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

yes but you are european and therefore anti-american and an anti-semite so your opinion cannot be trusted >:|

[GarfieldJL]

Interesting fact: it's far easier to get poor, uneducated, jobless people to blow themselves up than employed people.

Now, please tell me how making a checkpoint hell which mean that getting to work a few kilometers away can take 5 hours each way, Strangling trade by banning the import of even mundane things like cement and steel, and setting up a wall through many peoples homes/farmland is going to protect Israel against suicide bombers. You want palestinians to stop blaming Israel for, well, pretty much everything? Then don't create a nation of poor, jobless, people living off aid. Instead, try to veawe it into the Israeli economy, it should be proffitable enough for both sides, and heck, it might one day see the country united one day.

 

The problem is largely in Gaza Strip, which is being ran by fanatical lunatics, West Bank is largely quiet, least there haven't been any incidents in the news.

 

The problem here is Hamas is trying to smuggle more rockets and missiles in. Even in with "aid" packages.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

The problem is largely in Gaza Strip, which is being ran by fanatical lunatics, West Bank is largely quiet, least there haven't been any incidents in the news.

 

The problem here is Hamas is trying to smuggle more rockets and missiles in. Even in with "aid" packages.

 

do artillery shells and flechettes count

 

http://livewire.amnesty.org/2009/01/27/a-bloodstained-wall-full-of-flechettes/?lang=en

 

garfield i'm no munitions expert like yourself so i'd really appreciate an answer to whether or not artillery shells that explode and send 4 cm flechettes flying in random directions are considered smart munitions or not

[GarfieldJL]

garfield i'm no munitions expert like yourself so i'd really appreciate an answer to whether or not artillery shells that explode and send 4 cm flechettes flying in random directions are considered smart munitions or not

 

Artillery shells in and of themselves are not accurate, but they are a lot easier to predict where they land because they tend to be fired from something that is not moving or at most moving extremely slowly compared to an aircraft. It isn't 100% accurate by a longshot, but again projectile weapons have been around for a lot longer than bombs being dropped from planes.

 

 

I'm not exactly a munitions expert, but I'm familiar with a lot of the variables. Assuming someone didn't get their math wrong (which has happened), or another variable (like a gust of wind) you can predict with relative certainty where a shell will land.

 

If you're referring to the 2006 incident where Israel is accused of a shell killing members of a Palestinian Family, what happened in that incident is still in dispute. As to whether it was an Israeli shell, or if the Israeli shell hit hidden munitions and it was the munitions that caused the death and injuries.

 

Anyways, CBS over the past week has proven that it has absolutely no credibility when it comes to Israel. Human Rights Watch has a similar problem, as does Amnesty International.

 

 

As a detailed NGO Monitor study has shown, between 2001 and 2004, during the height of the terror attacks against Israel, HRW focused one-third of its entire Middle East effort on condemnations directed at Israel. This went far beyond legitimate criticism, and suggested an obsession. Far more pages, reports, press conferences, letters, films, and photography-exhibits sponsored by HRW were devoted to allegations against Israel than to the slaughter taking place in Sudan, or the Palestinian terror campaign. Roth and other HRW officials adopted the false characterization of an “all powerful and aggressive Israel” in contrast to “Palestinian victimization.” In the process, human-rights norms were reduced to instruments used to promote personal ideologies and entirely subjective perceptions of power.

 

The most infuriating instance of HRW’s bias came in 2004, when Roth went to the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to promote “Razing Rafah,” a one sided denunciation of Israeli policy. Its contents were based primarily on unsubstantiated reports of Palestinians, selected journalists, and so-called experts on tunneling. (The IDF actions were in response to the smuggling of weapons and explosives through tunnels under the border with Egypt.)

 

Apart from the tendentious reporting, the extensive use of loaded terms, such as “war crimes,” “violation of international law,” etc.—used far more often in HRW reports on Israel than in reports on all other Middle East states—fed anti-Israel divestment and boycott campaigns. HRW officials participated actively and directly in demonstrations to promote the Caterpillar boycott, and in pressing the U.N. resolutions referring Israel’s security barrier to the misnamed International Court of Justice.

-- National Review

 

The problem with the idea that Isreal is out to kill civilians, is that they have no motive to do so.

[jrrtoken]

Artillery shells in and of themselves are not accurate, but they are a lot easier to predict where they land because they tend to be fired from something that is not moving or at most moving extremely slowly compared to an aircraft. It isn't 100% accurate by a longshot, but again projectile weapons have been around for a lot longer than bombs being dropped from planes.

Yes, but flechettes are dropped in clusters by artillery shells, therefore, it creates a spread-fire effect, thus, accuracy isn't too important.

I'm not exactly a munitions expert, but I'm familiar with a lot of the variables. Assuming someone didn't get their math wrong (which has happened), or another variable (like a gust of wind) you can predict with relative certainty where a shell will land.

Do you know the purpose of flechettes? They're designed to rip people apart, by air-bursting thousands of daggers packed into a shell, raining down upon people, instantly going through their body, ripping them to shreds. Blood splatters on the walls, giving off a more menacing psychological effect. The use of flechettes in warfare is absolutely despicable, much like the use of cluster bombs or napalm.

Anyways, CBS over the past week has proven that it has absolutely no credibility when it comes to Israel. Human Rights Watch has a similar problem, as does Amnesty International.

Cause they're liberal, right?

[Astor]

Do you know the purpose of flechettes? They're designed to rip people apart, by air-bursting thousands of daggers packed into a shell, raining down upon people, instantly going through their body, ripping them to shreds. Blood splatters on the walls, giving off a more menacing psychological effect. The use of flechettes in warfare is absolutely despicable, much like the use of cluster bombs or napalm.

 

It's ok, though, 'cause they're killing the godless enemies of God's Chosen, whose sworn mission is the destruction of Israel.

 

It may be deplorable, but Israel already feels it can flout common sense and International Law, so I don't think they care at this point.

[EnderWiggin]

Assuming someone didn't get their math wrong (which has happened), or another variable (like a gust of wind) you can predict with relative certainty where a shell will land.

 

Good point, especially because variables like wind are so rare.

 

_EW_