12313
Post by: Ouze
US officials: Israelis launch airstrikes into Syria
By Jim Miklaszewski and Andrea Mitchell, NBC News
Israeli warplanes launched airstrikes against targets inside Syria on Friday, U.S. officials told NBC News.
It’s believed the primary target was a shipment of weapons headed for Hezbollah in Lebanon, they said. A senior U.S. official said the airstrikes were believed to be related to delivery systems for chemical weapons.
An Israeli spokesman in Washington said that Israel would not comment specifically on the reports but said that “Israel is determined to prevent the transfer of chemical weapons or other game-changing weaponry by the Syrian regime to terrorists, especially to Hezbollah in Lebanon.”
It wasn’t clear whether the Israelis alerted the U.S. before the attack. White House officials referred all questions to the Israelis.
This would be the second time this year Israel conducted airstrikes inside Syria. In January, Israeli fighter jets attacked a convoy of sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles believed on their way to Hezbollah.
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon publicly acknowledged the January airstrike inside Syria in a joint press conference with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in Tel Aviv on April 22. Ya’alon said any Syrian delivery of sophisticated weapons to rogue elements like Hezbollah would be a “red line” for Israel and “when they crossed this red line, we operated. We acted.”
Syria is in the middle of a civil war pitting rebels against the regime of President Bashir Assad. Tens of thousands have already died, and the possible use of the nation’s stockpile of chemical weapons has been of grave concern to the U.S. and other nations.
Last week, the White House said there was evidence that Syria’s government may have used chemical weapons against its own people. But President Barack Obama has cautioned against rushing to action against Assad’s government, saying that the U.S. required more evidence before getting involved in the civil war there.
The U.S. has long believed that Syria was stockpiling chemical weapons. Intelligence reports indicate that it has sarin and the nerve agent tabun along with traditional chemicals like mustard gas and hydrogen cyanide. A 2011 CIA report said Syria was also developing the potent nerve agent VX, which could render a city uninhabitable for days.
Syria has said that it hasn’t used and will not use chemical weapons.
On Tuesday, Hezbollah’s leader warned the rebels that his militia was ready to intervene on Assad’s side in Syria’s civil war. There have been concerns that Syrian SCUD missiles that might be capable of carrying chemical weapons could be transferred to Hezbollah.
NBC News Senior Investigative Producer Robert Windrem and White House Correspondent Kristen Welker contributed to this report.
5460
Post by: Doctadeth
Warranted. Chemical weaponry is hard to counter once it's been used within a civilian populace.
Even if Israel acted outside it's borders, What's all the fuss about? Its acting in a warzone to events which may influence assaults by Hezbollah. If SCUDs are deployed in Hezbollah, that could also affect numerous nations within the middle east.
23
Post by: djones520
Good for Israel.
15594
Post by: Albatross
I personally would have been rather amused if one or more of the Israeli jets had been shot down. Assad regime or rebels, I'm not fussed.
13740
Post by: Valkyrie
I'm still a bit confused about this whole Israel fiasco, even after looking it up online. What are they actually fighting over this time?
23
Post by: djones520
 Albatross wrote:I personally would have been rather amused if one or more of the Israeli jets had been shot down. Assad regime or rebels, I'm not fussed.
Seriously dude?
That's pretty effin sick.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Glad to see someone has the balls to actually DO something in Syria.
Our Savior's "Red Line" is getting pinker by the hour!
15594
Post by: Albatross
 djones520 wrote: Albatross wrote:I personally would have been rather amused if one or more of the Israeli jets had been shot down. Assad regime or rebels, I'm not fussed.
Seriously dude?
That's pretty effin sick.
Not everyone loves Israel. They are arrogant warmongers and deserve every thing they get, in my opinion. They may have set in motion a chain of events that could get huge numbers of people, some of them Americans and Brits, killed. What happens if Syria and it's ally Iran retaliate?
23
Post by: djones520
Albatross wrote: djones520 wrote: Albatross wrote:I personally would have been rather amused if one or more of the Israeli jets had been shot down. Assad regime or rebels, I'm not fussed.
Seriously dude?
That's pretty effin sick.
Not everyone loves Israel. They are arrogant warmongers and deserve every thing they get, in my opinion. They may have set in motion a chain of events that could get huge numbers of people, some of them Americans and Brits, killed. What happens if Syria and it's ally Iran retaliate?
I'm not going to bother with this, because it seems you've got the hate-israel-itus, and it will be a waste of my time.
But given your line of thinking, you must be glad we lost an aircraft and it's 3 crew members yesterday. I mean if the US hadn't been warmongering, Britain never would have been drawn into Afghanistan.
Welcome to my ignore list, you get the distinction of being the first person on it.
5460
Post by: Doctadeth
And Hezbollah aren't warmongers? They ARE a terrorist organization. Syria will not retaliate, not with a civil war already engaging the majority of it's military. I would love to see the Iron shield defense system engage a scud missile though.
Israel are getting things done and eliminating threats to their peace, the same as the USA are doing/have done in the past with forces like the Taliban and Al-Queda. Sadly they made the mistake of overextending to iraq.
514
Post by: Orlanth
So it comes down to the tired old argument that any who criticise Israeli aggression are anti-Semitic and have lost all credibility.
Fortunately this argument is itself losing credibility, the ideal that those who criticise Israel are bigots who need not have their bigotry addressed doesnt wash anymore.
There was a time when Israel could bomb whoever they pleased, it would always be painted as just retaliation, and for lasting 'peace'. The media is not so one sided anymore, and Israels own crimes raise such a stench that they lost any claim to moral high ground.
Now when Israel bombs a neighbouring country without warning, its seen like if anyone else does it. The day they end decades of oppression of the Palestinian people and half the stealing of land is the day they can talk about the excesses of others.
Notice that part of the armaments Hezbollah were allegedly receiving were anti aircraft missiles. I wonder why they would need those?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
As someone who's generally on the Palestinian's side of the conflict, I've got to say that I'm with Israel on this one. Having chemical weapons drifting around and potentially falling into terrorist hands isn't in anyone's interest except the terrorists.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Israel needs to be proactive in defending themselves. They can't wait for their enemies to directly attack them, otherwise they would be destroyed.
They would gladly live in peace, but none of their neighbors will let them. Thus have been given no choice but to be very aggressive in destroying potential threats to their security.
The terrorists that continuously Israel have no credibility. Not when they indiscriminately launch rockets at civilian targets while hiding behind women and children.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Albatross wrote: djones520 wrote: Albatross wrote:I personally would have been rather amused if one or more of the Israeli jets had been shot down. Assad regime or rebels, I'm not fussed.
Seriously dude?
That's pretty effin sick.
Not everyone loves Israel. They are arrogant warmongers and deserve every thing they get, in my opinion. They may have set in motion a chain of events that could get huge numbers of people, some of them Americans and Brits, killed. What happens if Syria and it's ally Iran retaliate?
Respect.
Israel seem to enjoy pushing the Palestinians more and more, and trying to see what they get.
In this case, I bet you there's an ulterior motive.
23
Post by: djones520
Anti-semite? Why don't you go back and find me a reference to Jews. There isn't any so cut that crap out.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Was that directed at me?
11029
Post by: Ketara
Albatross wrote:
Not everyone loves Israel. They are arrogant warmongers and deserve every thing they get, in my opinion.
Orlanth wrote:So it comes down to the tired old argument that any who criticise Israeli aggression are anti-Semitic and have lost all credibility.
Seriously guys?
Albatross, I expected better of you than actively wishing death upon people in a situation like that. I'm pretty certain if you saw someone wishing death on Mattyrm and his entire unit when they were on patrol in Afghanistan because 'Britain are warmongers!', you'd have something to say about it pretty sharpish.
Orlanth, nobody mentioned anti-semitism. The fact that you inserted the counter to an argument that nobody had made just shows you to be projecting strawmen that you wish to argue with. If anything, it shows you to be virulently anti-Israel regardless of the thread or topic at hand, because it shows that without even having read people's responses, you're busy imagining up reasons as to why you can ignore people who might disagree with you.
15594
Post by: Albatross
djones520 wrote: Albatross wrote: djones520 wrote: Albatross wrote:I personally would have been rather amused if one or more of the Israeli jets had been shot down. Assad regime or rebels, I'm not fussed.
Seriously dude?
That's pretty effin sick.
Not everyone loves Israel. They are arrogant warmongers and deserve every thing they get, in my opinion. They may have set in motion a chain of events that could get huge numbers of people, some of them Americans and Brits, killed. What happens if Syria and it's ally Iran retaliate?
I'm not going to bother with this, because it seems you've got the hate-israel-itus, and it will be a waste of my time.
But given your line of thinking, you must be glad we lost an aircraft and it's 3 crew members yesterday. I mean if the US hadn't been warmongering, Britain never would have been drawn into Afghanistan.
Welcome to my ignore list, you get the distinction of being the first person on it.
Fine, put me on ignore, it doesn't bother me one iota, but do it for something I actually said, as opposed to something you think I said. Don't let your poor reading comprehension spoil our friendship! 
Israel just unilaterally attacked, without any prior warning, a Muslim country that is in the grip of a bloody civil war in which thousands of civilians are being murdered, and which is backed by some of Israel's sworn enemies. It's like they're trying to start a major war in the middle east.
So feth 'em. They deserve everything they get on the back of this. We owe Israel nothing. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Doctadeth wrote:And Hezbollah aren't warmongers? They ARE a terrorist organization.
It doesn't follow that just because I oppose Israel, I support Hezbollah and think they're groovy.
Hezbollah are not groovy. Doesn't make Israel any less of a rogue state. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Ketara wrote:
Albatross, I expected better of you than actively wishing death upon people in a situation like that.
OK, you can cut the condescending 'concerned dad' act out right the feth now. You are not my elder or my better. I would be perfectly entitled to view an unsuccessful (and illegal) Israeli airstrike with a certain amused detachment, given the IDF's behaviour in the past. It would serve them right for thinking they can bomb whoever they please with impunity.
I'm pretty certain if you saw someone wishing death on Mattyrm and his entire unit when they were on patrol in Afghanistan because 'Britain are warmongers!', you'd have something to say about it pretty sharpish.
Yep, I 'd sharply say that they were entitled to their opinion, but that I didn't share it. And I didn't wish death on anyone, I just said that I'd be amused, because, y'know, context.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Albatross wrote:
OK, you can cut the condescending 'concerned dad' act out right the feth now. You are not my elder or my better. I would be perfectly entitled to view an unsuccessful (and illegal) Israeli airstrike with a certain amused detachment, given the IDF's behaviour in the past. It would serve them right for thinking they can bomb whoever they please with impunity.
It's nothing to do with condescension I can assure you. More the disappointment from one respecting adult to another when the other suddenly comes out with something crass and distasteful. You're generally pretty level-headed about most things, and I respect you and what you write on here as a result of that.
But when you seem to revel in amusement at the thought of the deaths of servicemen of any nation, and then dismiss it with a handwave and 'context', well.... Whilst you are of course free to hold that opinion, I believe I likewise, am fully entitled to state that I thought better of you from what I've come to expect from your posts.
Handwave that away also if you like, I am just some random fellow on the internet. But if you've ever had any respect for my style of posting, you might want to consider why I might have said what I just did. 
Then again, if you haven't, carry on. 
27391
Post by: purplefood
Well at least they seem to be learning a bit of restraint...
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Does nobody notice that Isreal is the only country who isn't a huge coward and is actually doing something about the Syrian problem?
Albatross wrote: djones520 wrote: Albatross wrote:I personally would have been rather amused if one or more of the Israeli jets had been shot down. Assad regime or rebels, I'm not fussed.
Seriously dude?
That's pretty effin sick.
Not everyone loves Israel. They are arrogant warmongers and deserve every thing they get, in my opinion. They may have set in motion a chain of events that could get huge numbers of people, some of them Americans and Brits, killed. What happens if Syria and it's ally Iran retaliate?
And the alternative, letting chemical weapons be used against isreal is better?
Besides, the UK isn't a peaceful, innocent nation either.
So feth 'em. They deserve everything they get on the back of this. We owe Israel nothing.
'You' never did nothing. English soldiers never did a thing for Isreal as it stands anyway. The lot of cowards 'You' were.
US Soldiers are the only ones to have a legitimate claim to a comment like that.
31545
Post by: AlexHolker
Albatross wrote:Israel just unilaterally attacked, without any prior warning, a Muslim country that is in the grip of a bloody civil war in which thousands of civilians are being murdered, and which is backed by some of Israel's sworn enemies. It's like they're trying to start a major war in the middle east.
Uh huh. Syria bombs Turkey and Lebanon, uses chemical weapons against its own civilians and commits crimes against humanity, and Israel is the one trying to start a fight.
29408
Post by: Melissia
The Israeli military learning restraint? That's new. They have a reputation for a lack thereof...
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
 Melissia wrote:The Israeli military learning restraint? That's new. They have a reputation for a lack thereof...
Someone should teach that to Palestinians with rockets and those who strap bombs to children.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
 Mr Hyena wrote: Melissia wrote:The Israeli military learning restraint? That's new. They have a reputation for a lack thereof...
Someone should teach that to Palestinians with rockets and those who strap bombs to children.
Palestinian casualties during the war have been a lot higher than those of the Israelis.
Thought that may be useful to know.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
 ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Mr Hyena wrote: Melissia wrote:The Israeli military learning restraint? That's new. They have a reputation for a lack thereof...
Someone should teach that to Palestinians with rockets and those who strap bombs to children.
Palestinian casualties during the war have been a lot higher than those of the Israelis.
Thought that may be useful to know.
Doesn't really excuse the aforementioned actions now does it?
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
I seem to recall a state of war already existing between Israel and Syria prior to this point, the Israelis have just been content to hold their borders and wait till now.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Mr Hyena wrote: ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Mr Hyena wrote: Melissia wrote:The Israeli military learning restraint? That's new. They have a reputation for a lack thereof...
Someone should teach that to Palestinians with rockets and those who strap bombs to children.
Palestinian casualties during the war have been a lot higher than those of the Israelis.
Thought that may be useful to know.
Doesn't really excuse the aforementioned actions now does it?
The onus is generally on the stronger part to show restraint, because otherwise it's awfully close to bullying. The idiots who plan and perform suicide attacks aren't representative of the Palestinian people as a whole, whereas the IDF is effectively the state of Israel performing the actions. It obviously doesn't mean that Hizbollah or Hamas are the best guys ever, but as has been pointed out the casualty rate is staggeringly different.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: Mr Hyena wrote: ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Mr Hyena wrote: Melissia wrote:The Israeli military learning restraint? That's new. They have a reputation for a lack thereof...
Someone should teach that to Palestinians with rockets and those who strap bombs to children.
Palestinian casualties during the war have been a lot higher than those of the Israelis.
Thought that may be useful to know.
Doesn't really excuse the aforementioned actions now does it?
The onus is generally on the stronger part to show restraint, because otherwise it's awfully close to bullying. The idiots who plan and perform suicide attacks aren't representative of the Palestinian people as a whole, whereas the IDF is effectively the state of Israel performing the actions. It obviously doesn't mean that Hizbollah or Hamas are the best guys ever, but as has been pointed out the casualty rate is staggeringly different.
War tends to do that. No sane country would show restraint with the ridiculous number of rocket barrages and suicide bombers coming out of Palestine.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Melissia wrote:The Israeli military learning restraint? That's new. They have a reputation for a lack thereof...
Yes, I disagree with their general lack of restraint but in this case they don't seem to have vaporised several dozen civilians... or they did it more thoroughly this time...
As it is Israel has the right to defend themselves but proportional response doesn't seem to be in their dictionary.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Mr Hyena wrote: ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Mr Hyena wrote: Melissia wrote:The Israeli military learning restraint? That's new. They have a reputation for a lack thereof...
Someone should teach that to Palestinians with rockets and those who strap bombs to children.
Palestinian casualties during the war have been a lot higher than those of the Israelis.
Thought that may be useful to know.
Doesn't really excuse the aforementioned actions now does it?
Neither does it excuse the killings of innocent children by the Israelis, or the colonisation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
To give you some statistics:
Since 1987, nearly 8000 Palestinians have died, 1620 of them under 18.
Since 1987, 1503 Israelis have died, 142 of them under 18.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Mr Hyena wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Mr Hyena wrote: ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Mr Hyena wrote: Melissia wrote:The Israeli military learning restraint? That's new. They have a reputation for a lack thereof...
Someone should teach that to Palestinians with rockets and those who strap bombs to children.
Palestinian casualties during the war have been a lot higher than those of the Israelis.
Thought that may be useful to know.
Doesn't really excuse the aforementioned actions now does it?
The onus is generally on the stronger part to show restraint, because otherwise it's awfully close to bullying. The idiots who plan and perform suicide attacks aren't representative of the Palestinian people as a whole, whereas the IDF is effectively the state of Israel performing the actions. It obviously doesn't mean that Hizbollah or Hamas are the best guys ever, but as has been pointed out the casualty rate is staggeringly different.
War tends to do that. No sane country would show restraint with the ridiculous number of rocket barrages and suicide bombers coming out of Palestine.
Well, it's obviously not working very well, as the only way they manage to stop said attacks is to place the entire population behind a blockade that doesn't even let chocolate through, and even then it's not working very well.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Grey Templar wrote:Israel needs to be proactive in defending themselves. They can't wait for their enemies to directly attack them, otherwise they would be destroyed.
They would gladly live in peace, but none of their neighbors will let them. Thus have been given no choice but to be very aggressive in destroying potential threats to their security.
Wow. Just... wow. I'm generally not in Israel's side when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict, simply because Israel is ardently opposed to a two-state solution and I think that's the only possible ending that doesn't involve genocide; but I do recogize that it's a long, murky and grey area that the situation operates in. But I've rarely seen naivete such as yours.
Exactly what sources are you basing your statement on?
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Anyway, when was the last time an Arab country invaded Israel instead of the other way around?
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
The last time was when arabs tried to initiate a fullscale genocide....and failed due to their own ineptitude.
simply because Israel is ardently opposed to a two-state solution
I doubt anyone will be able to settle on a two-state solution that isn't biased to one side.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Yeah I think Israel kinda had a good reason for that time...
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Mr Hyena wrote:The last time was when arabs tried to initiate a fullscale genocide....and failed due to their own ineptitude.
simply because Israel is ardently opposed to a two-state solution
I doubt anyone will be able to settle on a two-state solution that isn't biased to one side.
Launch a genocide?
Are you high or something?
The Arabs invaded because they saw the Israelis as usurpers to their lands. And it makes sense. It's not like the Levant had that significant populations of Jews for about 1,500 years. Imagine it if the - I don't know - Olmecs decided that they wanted their bits of Mexico back!
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Mr Hyena wrote:The last time was when arabs tried to initiate a fullscale genocide....and failed due to their own ineptitude.
simply because Israel is ardently opposed to a two-state solution
I doubt anyone will be able to settle on a two-state solution that isn't biased to one side.
I didn't say a non-biased two-state solution. It'd be nice, but I'd also like a giant mech suit, and while not absolutely impossible, is highly unlikely. But even an imbalanced two-state solution would be better than what Israel currently has set up.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Mr Hyena wrote:I doubt anyone will be able to settle on a two-state solution that isn't biased to one side.
A one-state solution is going to be even worse for Israel in the long run. Either they're forced to commit genocide, or eventually Israel stops being a Jewish country and becomes an Muslim-majority country.
A fate which I'm fairly certain they fear far more than they do the two-state solution.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
 azazel the cat wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:The last time was when arabs tried to initiate a fullscale genocide....and failed due to their own ineptitude.
simply because Israel is ardently opposed to a two-state solution
I doubt anyone will be able to settle on a two-state solution that isn't biased to one side.
I didn't say a non-biased two-state solution. It'd be nice, but I'd also like a giant mech suit, and while not absolutely impossible, is highly unlikely. But even an imbalanced two-state solution would be better than what Israel currently has set up.
imbalanced one would end up leading towards genocide again, unless the US steps up their support to Israel.
Launch a genocide?
Are you high or something?
The Arabs invaded because they saw the Israelis as usurpers to their lands. And it makes sense. It's not like the Levant had that significant populations of Jews for about 1,500 years. Imagine it if the - I don't know - Olmecs decided that they wanted their bits of Mexico back!
So what do you think would have happened exactly to all those israeli citizens if israel lost the war? Jihadis aren't exactly above civilian slaughter.
29408
Post by: Melissia
... or if they step up their support for Palestine to force Israel to stop committing genocide, but that's unlikely to happen as a two-state solution to begin with.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
I could see that happening though, the support that is, if they could keep the rocket attacks from happening.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Hey guys what is going on in here?
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Mr Hyena wrote: Launch a genocide?
Are you high or something?
The Arabs invaded because they saw the Israelis as usurpers to their lands. And it makes sense. It's not like the Levant had that significant populations of Jews for about 1,500 years. Imagine it if the - I don't know - Olmecs decided that they wanted their bits of Mexico back!
So what do you think would have happened exactly to all those israeli citizens if israel lost the war? Jihadis aren't exactly above civilian slaughter.
Thrown them out. Displace them. Just as the Israelis have done with the Palestinians, with fewer killings.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Mr Hyena wrote:I could see that happening though, the support that is, if they could keep the rocket attacks from happening.
Attempting to put all of the responsibility on Palestine is a pretty bad idea, when they're already at a huge disadvantage. It really needs a mutual step-down of hostilities. The populations are probably in favor of it, but the politicians aren't because of the way their two political systems are set up (both Israel's and Palestine's politics give advantages to extremists).
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
The majority of the people of Israel are in favour of a two state solution. They just need to get some people into office who do support a solution like that.
29408
Post by: Melissia
And they need to figure out a way to decrease the power of the religious extremists, who are given disproportionate power and representation under Israeli law.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:
Launch a genocide?
Are you high or something?
The Arabs invaded because they saw the Israelis as usurpers to their lands. And it makes sense. It's not like the Levant had that significant populations of Jews for about 1,500 years. Imagine it if the - I don't know - Olmecs decided that they wanted their bits of Mexico back!
So what do you think would have happened exactly to all those israeli citizens if israel lost the war? Jihadis aren't exactly above civilian slaughter.
Thrown them out. Displace them. Just as the Israelis have done with the Palestinians, with fewer killings.
Jihadi's don't know mercy though. Only violence, slaughter and wickedness.
Attempting to put all of the responsibility on Palestine is a pretty bad idea, when they're already at a huge disadvantage.
Then it wouldn't be mutual then.
And they need to figure out a way to decrease the power of the religious extremists, who are given disproportionate power and representation under Israeli law.
It'll be difficult to do it when its democratically empowered.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Israel doesn't have a very good track record in this area either. Being slightly better then terrorists isn't exactly the standard anyone should be proud of.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Agreed.
One thing I don't really understand is how the Israeli government can get away with being racist. They allow all Jews to become citizens, unless you're black. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mr Hyena wrote: ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:
Launch a genocide?
Are you high or something?
The Arabs invaded because they saw the Israelis as usurpers to their lands. And it makes sense. It's not like the Levant had that significant populations of Jews for about 1,500 years. Imagine it if the - I don't know - Olmecs decided that they wanted their bits of Mexico back!
So what do you think would have happened exactly to all those israeli citizens if israel lost the war? Jihadis aren't exactly above civilian slaughter.
Thrown them out. Displace them. Just as the Israelis have done with the Palestinians, with fewer killings.
Jihadi's don't know mercy though. Only violence, slaughter and wickedness.
Attempting to put all of the responsibility on Palestine is a pretty bad idea, when they're already at a huge disadvantage.
Then it wouldn't be mutual then.
Oh for feth's sake.
You know, the wars between Israel and the Arabs were fought with conventional arms, by conventional armies. It's not like proto-al-Qaeda groups were like "hey xxx, want a helping hand?"
And what do you mean, it wouldn't be mutual then?
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
 Ahtman wrote:
Israel doesn't have a very good track record in this area either. Being slightly better then terrorists isn't exactly the standard anyone should be proud of.
'slightly better' is pretty much how things go. The UK is only slightly better collateral wise than the US, and so on.
Until Drone tech continues to get used and evolved, collateral damage will still be a part of war that is unavoidable.
And what do you mean, it wouldn't be mutual then?
'mutual stand-down' would involve both nations taking equal part in it.
You know, the wars between Israel and the Arabs were fought with conventional arms, by conventional armies.
One was an aggressor and one was a defender. Conventional arms doesn't change people's mindsets. Trying to invade, kill and throw out a group of people who were displaced already by a terrible event during WW2, and who needed their own country to ensure their own survival does nothing to show that an aggressor is in the right.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Mr Hyena wrote: Ahtman wrote:
Israel doesn't have a very good track record in this area either. Being slightly better then terrorists isn't exactly the standard anyone should be proud of.
'slightly better' is pretty much how things go. The UK is only slightly better collateral wise than the US, and so on.
Until Drone tech continues to get used and evolved, collateral damage will still be a part of war that is unavoidable.
They really aren't.
I mean, the Palestinian organisations haven't been that active for a while. Meanwhile, Israel sends tanks into the Gaza strip and they kill innocent civilians, while displacing their families by forcing them out of their homes. You should see how badly the Pals have it in their territories.
How is that slightly better?
241
Post by: Ahtman
Mr Hyena wrote: Ahtman wrote:
Israel doesn't have a very good track record in this area either. Being slightly better then terrorists isn't exactly the standard anyone should be proud of.
'slightly better' is pretty much how things go. The UK is only slightly better collateral wise than the US, and so on.
Until Drone tech continues to get used and evolved, collateral damage will still be a part of war that is unavoidable.
That isn't good enough, and the US and the UK, for all their issues, are still leagues ahead of Israel on this front.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Mr Hyena wrote:
And what do you mean, it wouldn't be mutual then?
'mutual stand-down' would involve both nations taking equal part in it.
Right, let's get the Palestinians to hand over their non-existent tanks, non-existent fighter jets, non-existent nuclear weapons . . . How do you expect them to take equal part, when one side is so vastly superior to the other?
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
That isn't good enough, and the US and the UK, for all their issues, are still leagues ahead of Israel on this front.
I'm sure Iraq and Afghanistan would disagree.
Right, let's get the Palestinians to hand over their non-existent tanks, non-existent fighter jets, non-existent nuclear weapons . . . How do you expect them to take equal part, when one side is so vastly superior to the other?
So then its not a mutual stand down is it? Its a one-sided stand down.
Besides, there is the rockets and other weaponry which they have. I really don't see any sort of peace happening until a full-scale stand-down by both sides happens.
23
Post by: djones520
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:Agreed.
One thing I don't really understand is how the Israeli government can get away with being racist. They allow all Jews to become citizens, unless you're black.
What?
I'd love to see some supporting evidence for this...
They allow all Jews to permanently reside, but they do not grant automatic citizenship. And I found zero mention about this being blocked if you are "black".
29408
Post by: Melissia
Mr Hyena wrote:Besides, there is the rockets and other weaponry which they have. I really don't see any sort of peace happening until a full-scale stand-down by both sides happens.
A full-scale stan-down would require a MUCH more massive effort by Israel than Palestine.
5534
Post by: dogma
This threads reminds me of exactly why I stopped attending conferences that related directly to Israel.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Melissia wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:Besides, there is the rockets and other weaponry which they have. I really don't see any sort of peace happening until a full-scale stand-down by both sides happens.
A full-scale stan-down would require a MUCH more massive effort by Israel than Palestine.
But its more the gesture behind the standing down than the overall arms which are given up. Even if it was just a couple, it would be effectively Palestine saying that they are finally going to deal with the rocket launchers who are causing the continuation of this war, which would help ease the israeli people into peace with palestine.
Which leaves the problem: whos going to keep the rogue arab states from interfering? Like Syria, Iran and the other jihadis?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Mr Hyena wrote: Melissia wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:Besides, there is the rockets and other weaponry which they have. I really don't see any sort of peace happening until a full-scale stand-down by both sides happens.
A full-scale stan-down would require a MUCH more massive effort by Israel than Palestine.
But its more the gesture behind the standing down than the overall arms which are given up. Even if it was just a couple, it would be effectively Palestine saying that they are finally going to deal with the rocket launchers who are causing the continuation of this war, which would help ease the israeli people into peace with palestine.
And once again, you put all the pressure on Palestine to disarm, but don't require Israel do anything.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Mr Hyena wrote:
Right, let's get the Palestinians to hand over their non-existent tanks, non-existent fighter jets, non-existent nuclear weapons . . . How do you expect them to take equal part, when one side is so vastly superior to the other?
So then its not a mutual stand down is it? Its a one-sided stand down.
Besides, there is the rockets and other weaponry which they have. I really don't see any sort of peace happening until a full-scale stand-down by both sides happens.
What
Are
You
On
About
I don't think that a fertiliser bomb has quite the same power as a US-supplied shell from a tank.
How do you expect both sides to stand down equally in any war then? One side is going to be superior in some way, aren't they?
You make little sense.
djones520 wrote: ExNoctemNacimur wrote:Agreed.
One thing I don't really understand is how the Israeli government can get away with being racist. They allow all Jews to become citizens, unless you're black.
What?
I'd love to see some supporting evidence for this...
They allow all Jews to permanently reside, but they do not grant automatic citizenship. And I found zero mention about this being blocked if you are "black".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Hebrew_Israelites_of_Jerusalem#Status_in_Israel
My friend is a citizen of both Israel and America, from mixed American-Jewish and Indonesian descent. He said that any Jew can theoretically become a citizen of Israel without too much hassle. I took his word for it.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
How do you expect both sides to stand down equally in any war then? One side is going to be superior in some way, aren't they?
So why would any nation logically agree to a stand-down if its going to lose in that instance?
Only with an outright benefit would anyone do that. If Israel's safety can't be assured then they won't stand down. Its all common sense why this conflict won't stop.
23
Post by: djones520
Israel is a nation that is surrounded by several belligerant states, who provide plenty of support to terrorist organizations who routinely strike out at Israel and you think they should disarm? Finding peace with the Palestinians won't end their troubles, and it's foolish to think it will.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Mr Hyena wrote: Melissia wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:Besides, there is the rockets and other weaponry which they have. I really don't see any sort of peace happening until a full-scale stand-down by both sides happens.
A full-scale stan-down would require a MUCH more massive effort by Israel than Palestine.
But its more the gesture behind the standing down than the overall arms which are given up. Even if it was just a couple, it would be effectively Palestine saying that they are finally going to deal with the rocket launchers who are causing the continuation of this war, which would help ease the israeli people into peace with palestine.
Which leaves the problem: whos going to keep the rogue arab states from interfering? Like Syria, Iran and the other jihadis?
So... you want Palestine to act as though they are a nation-state, but refuse to recognize them as a nation-state?
5534
Post by: dogma
djones520 wrote:
They allow all Jews to permanently reside, but they do not grant automatic citizenship.
Yes, if said Jews qualify under the Law of Return, they do.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
azazel the cat wrote:Mr Hyena wrote: Melissia wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:Besides, there is the rockets and other weaponry which they have. I really don't see any sort of peace happening until a full-scale stand-down by both sides happens.
A full-scale stan-down would require a MUCH more massive effort by Israel than Palestine.
But its more the gesture behind the standing down than the overall arms which are given up. Even if it was just a couple, it would be effectively Palestine saying that they are finally going to deal with the rocket launchers who are causing the continuation of this war, which would help ease the israeli people into peace with palestine.
Which leaves the problem: whos going to keep the rogue arab states from interfering? Like Syria, Iran and the other jihadis?
So... you want Palestine to act as though they are a nation-state, but refuse to recognize them as a nation-state?
I'm all for a two-state solution. But only if done fairly and equally, with some sort of unbiased, independent body observing, with the ability to get boots on the ground if required should the rogue arab states try to invade again in israel's weakened state (not the UN though, since its full of idiots and pretty much fail at any negotiation/defense process)
19650
Post by: shingouki
WHY have none of the surrounding arab nations not taken in the palestinians?Because it suits them to have the area in a state of almost war.Israel is beset on all sides and at the moment seems to be getting little support really.I am english and christian yet even i can see this.
5534
Post by: dogma
Mr Hyena wrote:
I'm all for a two-state solution. But only if done fairly and equally, with some sort of unbiased, independent body observing, with the ability to get boots on the ground if required should the rogue arab states try to invade again in israel's weakened state.
What sort of two state solution do you imagine that would involve a weakened Israel?
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Mr Hyena wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Mr Hyena wrote: Melissia wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:Besides, there is the rockets and other weaponry which they have. I really don't see any sort of peace happening until a full-scale stand-down by both sides happens.
A full-scale stan-down would require a MUCH more massive effort by Israel than Palestine.
But its more the gesture behind the standing down than the overall arms which are given up. Even if it was just a couple, it would be effectively Palestine saying that they are finally going to deal with the rocket launchers who are causing the continuation of this war, which would help ease the israeli people into peace with palestine.
Which leaves the problem: whos going to keep the rogue arab states from interfering? Like Syria, Iran and the other jihadis?
So... you want Palestine to act as though they are a nation-state, but refuse to recognize them as a nation-state?
I'm all for a two-state solution. But only if done fairly and equally, with some sort of unbiased, independent body observing, with the ability to get boots on the ground if required should the rogue arab states try to invade again in israel's weakened state.
Right. But you want an equal disarmament, which is something that the Pals can't actually do.
I don't think that the Arab states would exactly want to invade again, seeing how gung-ho the USA is about defending Israel and their civil rights violations. I mean, if they didn't, Ahmedinejad would have been in there the second he was in office.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
 dogma wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:
I'm all for a two-state solution. But only if done fairly and equally, with some sort of unbiased, independent body observing, with the ability to get boots on the ground if required should the rogue arab states try to invade again in israel's weakened state.
What sort of two state solution do you imagine that would involve a weakened Israel?
Less US funding, reduction in arms due to the peace process with palestine. They are surrounded by enemies who could take advantage of that delicate time.
I mean, if they didn't, Ahmedinejad would have been in there the second he was in office.
So they can't ensure that there won't be any more rockets fired into israel? How will they function as a nation then?
I'm sure Ahmedinejad would love to, since he doesn't believe the Holocaust happened anyway.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
 shingouki wrote:WHY have none of the surrounding arab nations not taken in the palestinians?Because it suits them to have the area in a state of almost war.Israel is beset on all sides and at the moment seems to be getting little support really.I am english and christian yet even i can see this.
Because THEY don't want the Palestinians either. Jordan in particular does have a decent sized chunk of a Palestinian refugee population and they'd rather they go somewhere else.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
shingouki wrote:WHY have none of the surrounding arab nations not taken in the palestinians?Because it suits them to have the area in a state of almost war.Israel is beset on all sides and at the moment seems to be getting little support really.I am english and christian yet even i can see this.
Or they're struggling already with their own peoples. Egypt and Jordan are already overpopulated as feth, they can't take them. Saudi was poor at the time, and now they're struggling with immigrant populations. In Syria, well we know how well that country is doing, and before that it would also have been too difficult. The UAE could, but where would they live?
It's also a logistical nightmare, something that hasn't really been done for 500 years (and the methods used then aren't really applicable to modern times).
Finally, the Pals would see that as losing. They believe it's their lands that they're defending. Why would they leave?
5534
Post by: dogma
Mr Hyena wrote:
Less US funding, reduction in arms due to the peace process with palestine. They are surrounded by enemies who could take advantage of that delicate time.
Why would the US stop giving aid to Israel due to the inception of a two state solution? And why would Israel eliminate their arms?
The only two state solutions I've ever seen have been predicated on territorial matters.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
Mr Hyena wrote: dogma wrote: Mr Hyena wrote: I'm all for a two-state solution. But only if done fairly and equally, with some sort of unbiased, independent body observing, with the ability to get boots on the ground if required should the rogue arab states try to invade again in israel's weakened state.
What sort of two state solution do you imagine that would involve a weakened Israel?
Less US funding, reduction in arms due to the peace process with palestine. They are surrounded by enemies who could take advantage of that delicate time. I mean, if they didn't, Ahmedinejad would have been in there the second he was in office.
So they can't ensure that there won't be any more rockets fired into israel? How will they function as a nation then? I'm sure Ahmedinejad would love to, since he doesn't believe the Holocaust happened anyway.
The Israelis already have probably one of the best equipped and advanced militaries in the Middle East. Even a small arms reduction would not really change the situation. You think that the only method of Palestine to stay afloat is to send missiles into Israel? Not enough food? Not enough money? Well, the solution is right in front of them! Send a missile!
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Mr Hyena wrote: dogma wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:
I'm all for a two-state solution. But only if done fairly and equally, with some sort of unbiased, independent body observing, with the ability to get boots on the ground if required should the rogue arab states try to invade again in israel's weakened state.
What sort of two state solution do you imagine that would involve a weakened Israel?
Less US funding, reduction in arms due to the peace process with palestine. They are surrounded by enemies who could take advantage of that delicate time.
I mean, if they didn't, Ahmedinejad would have been in there the second he was in office.
So they can't ensure that there won't be any more rockets fired into israel? How will they function as a nation then?
I'm sure Ahmedinejad would love to, since he doesn't believe the Holocaust happened anyway.
The Israelis already have probably one of the best equipped and advanced militaries in the Middle East. Even a small arms reduction would not really change the situation.
You think that the only method of Palestine to stay afloat is to send missiles into Israel? Not enough food? Not enough money? Well, the solution is right in front of them! Send a missile!
No, but every nation should have be able to have some level of control over its inhabitants.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Israel's defense budget (~13.6 billion USD) is four or so times higher than the PLO's budget for its entire government (~3 billion USD). More palestinians have died in the past few years than Israelis in the entire length and breadth of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More and more Palestinians are being forced out of their homes by Israeli settlers (aka murderous thieves) every year. Palestinians aren't even allowed concrete and wood to rebuild the structures that Israel repeatedly destroys with its bombing strikes and tank assaults. How the hell can the stand down be "equal" in your eyes? Even if Palestine was to completely and utterly disarm and destroy every single weapon in the Palestinian territory, that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the effort that Israel would have to put forth to even remotely be considered standing down.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
Oh Israel...what are we going to do with you?
Disarming them and revoking their statehood might be a good idea.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
 Squigsquasher wrote:Oh Israel...what are we going to do with you?
Disarming them and revoking their statehood might be a good idea.
...good luck with that!
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yeaaah, I don't think they'd take too kindly to that.
And they'd decide to not take kindly to that with bullets probably. And tanks.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Melissia wrote:Yeaaah, I don't think they'd take too kindly to that.
And they'd decide to not take kindly to that with bullets probably. And tanks.
And a nuclear bomb (thanks France!).
15594
Post by: Albatross
Mr Hyena wrote:
So feth 'em. They deserve everything they get on the back of this. We owe Israel nothing.
'You' never did nothing. English soldiers never did a thing for Isreal as it stands anyway. The lot of cowards 'You' were.
What on earth are you babbling about? I mean that we (the UK) as a nation owe Israel nothing.
And incidentally, my grandad served in Palestine post-WWII. Y'know, when Irgun were blowing up hotels full of civilians?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ketara wrote: Albatross wrote:
OK, you can cut the condescending 'concerned dad' act out right the feth now. You are not my elder or my better. I would be perfectly entitled to view an unsuccessful (and illegal) Israeli airstrike with a certain amused detachment, given the IDF's behaviour in the past. It would serve them right for thinking they can bomb whoever they please with impunity.
It's nothing to do with condescension I can assure you. More the disappointment from one respecting adult to another when the other suddenly comes out with something crass and distasteful. You're generally pretty level-headed about most things, and I respect you and what you write on here as a result of that.
But when you seem to revel in amusement at the thought of the deaths of servicemen of any nation, and then dismiss it with a handwave and 'context', well.... Whilst you are of course free to hold that opinion, I believe I likewise, am fully entitled to state that I thought better of you from what I've come to expect from your posts.
Who said anything about servicemen dying? I said I'd have been amused if Israeli jets were shot down attempting to airstrike Syria.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Melissia wrote:Yeaaah, I don't think they'd take too kindly to that.
And they'd decide to not take kindly to that with bullets probably. And tanks.
Bullets and tanks used by one of the finest and most experienced armed forces in the world.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Wait, they use North Korean weapons and tanks?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
There are North Korean weapons and tanks?
North Korea has a manufacturing sector?
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
*snicker* har har Melissa, but the Merkava tank and it's attendant family of armored vehicles are some of the finest in the world, and the Israeli small arms industry is an absolute elite. The TAR-21 Tavor alone is proof of that. Their home grown upgrades and variants of various U.S. equipment, fighter jets in particular are also highly impressive.
29408
Post by: Melissia
As we all know, nothing can ever beat the glorious Korean Peoples' Army in terms of being a fine and experienced military force, and they need no expensive hi-tech tanks or efficient assault rifles to defeat their enemies, only the will of their most glorious and praised leader under the heavens, Kim Jung Un is necessary. Of course, Kim Jong Un would intervene himself, but if he has any flaws it is mercy, and he would not wish to inflict the utmost destructive force that his himself upon us except in the most dire of situations.
At any rate, to get more on topic again...
While completely disarming either side is basically a political impossibility, certainly there's improvements to be made. Such as allowing more relief and building materials to flow in to Palestinian territories, for example, and to force the Israeli to stop attempting more land grabs. On the Palestinian side, there honestly isn't that much that they can do save for stop the rocket barrages, but even then, they're pretty much ineffective and useless as it is anyway so no matter hwat happens, the Israeli government will feel as if it's doing most of the work.
Which is probably because the Israeli government is the one with the real power in this situation, the PLO barely has any even within its own territory-- often specifically because of the actions of the Israeli government to begin with.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
I get the Israeli blockade though, when supplies do go in, nine times out of ten then only things they're helping is to aid the PLO build more bunkers and fortifications to attack the Israeli civilian population from, when they aren't setting up their rockets on top of elementary schools any way. If the PLO and Hamas actually bothered to control their own goon squads, without constant threats and attacks to the Israeli civilian population, the leadership in Jerusalem would be surprisingly more amicable. It's kinda similar to North Korea on an extremely tiny scale. The one side uses threats and violence to attempt to get concessions from the other side, which only strengthens the resolve of the other side and pisses them off. It's not a perfect metaphor but the similarity is there.
29408
Post by: Melissia
You're assuming that they even CAN control them at this point.
Given the utter chaos that is Palestine right now, that's not a safe assumption.
Israel really is the one with all the power here, and they can barely control THEIR goon squads a ttimes. Certainly their military is hamstrung, considering they've let settlers literally get away with murdering soldiers for trying to do their jobs.
The settlers are no better than the terrorists. Worse in many regards.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Squigsquasher wrote:Oh Israel...what are we going to do with you?
Disarming them and revoking their statehood might be a good idea.
So your wanting another Holocaust by the Jihadists around them?
11194
Post by: Krellnus
Mr Hyena wrote: Squigsquasher wrote:Oh Israel...what are we going to do with you?
Disarming them and revoking their statehood might be a good idea.
So your wanting another Holocaust by the Jihadists around them?
They're already doing that to themselves, so what is your point exactly?
5742
Post by: generalgrog
What about the ethiopian Jews?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Jews_in_Israel
The other link you referenced was regarding a small group relating to "Black Judaism". It's not the same thing as what you get from Ethiopoan Judaism, in that "Black Judiasm" isn't considered authentic Judaism by many Rabbis in Israel. I.E. they may consider it more of a cult of Judiasm.
This isn't the same thing as an African converting to Judaism, such as Sammy Davis Junior, who was involved in mainstream Judaism.
Having said all that, it seems that Ethiopian Jews are dealing with some of the same issues that African Americans have had to deal with in our own history. Although, no where the extremes of prejudice and racism that our unfortunate history is full of.
GG
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
 Krellnus wrote: Mr Hyena wrote: Squigsquasher wrote:Oh Israel...what are we going to do with you?
Disarming them and revoking their statehood might be a good idea.
So your wanting another Holocaust by the Jihadists around them?
They're already doing that to themselves, so what is your point exactly?
Point is removing Israel's army would remove any defense they'd have from the arab jihadis all around them, which would lead to the slaughter of the entire nation.
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
No one is asking them to remove their army.
When the UK let go of the States, did they lose their army? Of course not!
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
This is what happens when noone does anything about the Syrian conflict...
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:No one is asking them to remove their army.
When the UK let go of the States, did they lose their army? Of course not!
The post I quoted said to disarm Israel though.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
I'm already in favor of Israel based on time in the middle east and friends and family who live or have lived in Israel. That said I find, to me, that they are using an extremely light touch most of the time in dealing with their security. But I judge it by likely American responses. If Mexico (as an example) were regularly lobbing missiles into the US (even if they mostly missed and were doing almost no damage) Mexico would cease to exist as a nation in it's current set-up. (And that would just be Texas's response ) I think a big part of the issue is that Israel operates aggressively and people now think that is wrong. Etiher way good on them for possibly preventing chemical warfare weapons from reaching palestine or jordan.
27391
Post by: purplefood
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:No one is asking them to remove their army.
When the UK let go of the States, did they lose their army? Of course not!
That has nothing to do with the current situation...
62863
Post by: ExNoctemNacimur
 purplefood wrote: ExNoctemNacimur wrote:No one is asking them to remove their army.
When the UK let go of the States, did they lose their army? Of course not!
That has nothing to do with the current situation...
I know.
Someone above was talking about it.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Hulksmash wrote:I'm already in favor of Israel based on time in the middle east and friends and family who live or have lived in Israel.
So you don't know any Palestinians or Palestinian emigrants?
At least you admit that you don't treat the situation fairly or without bias I suppose.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Well, Syria seems to be stating the air strikes constitute a declaration of war, so this can get even more fethed.
On the Israel/Palestine issue, it's gakked up and anyone wholeheartedly supporting one side over the other is probably wrong.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Syria is in no place to fight a war and I imagine Israel could just not fight it.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I think Assad is going to go out there barechested and punch Shimon Peres in the face.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
They are only attacking targets they have identified as a threat to their own security(weapons being shipped south to potentially be used against Israel)
You can hardly blame them for that.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 Grey Templar wrote:They are only attacking targets they have identified as a threat to their own security(weapons being shipped south to potentially be used against Israel)
You can hardly blame them for that.
From what I've seen in this thread, sure you can!
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Here's a better video of it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote:They are only attacking targets they have identified as a threat to their own security(weapons being shipped south to potentially be used against Israel)
You can hardly blame them for that.
From what I've seen in this thread, sure you can!
It's actually quite easy, considering there is no oversight as to what "identified as a threat to their own security" means.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Melissia wrote: Hulksmash wrote:I'm already in favor of Israel based on time in the middle east and friends and family who live or have lived in Israel.
So you don't know any Palestinians or Palestinian emigrants?
At least you admit that you don't treat the situation fairly or without bias I suppose.
Actually I've met a few Palestinians and I said the Middle East, not just Israel. I'm certainly biased, as is anyone with an opinion, but it's a bias based off education and experience. Kudos to you trying to score a point though.
11194
Post by: Krellnus
Mr Hyena wrote: Krellnus wrote: Mr Hyena wrote: Squigsquasher wrote:Oh Israel...what are we going to do with you?
Disarming them and revoking their statehood might be a good idea.
So your wanting another Holocaust by the Jihadists around them?
They're already doing that to themselves, so what is your point exactly?
Point is removing Israel's army would remove any defense they'd have from the arab jihadis all around them, which would lead to the slaughter of the entire nation.
And the problem with a nation of hypocrites being removed from the Earth is what exactly?
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
And here we have someone going to complete opposite of "GO ISRAEL KILL EM ALL".
Middle ground is clearly for chumps. *
*Any position that isn't an extreme is bad.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
azazel the cat wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote:They are only attacking targets they have identified as a threat to their own security(weapons being shipped south to potentially be used against Israel)
You can hardly blame them for that.
From what I've seen in this thread, sure you can!
It's actually quite easy, considering there is no oversight as to what "identified as a threat to their own security" means.
Who is in any position to determine what is and isn't a threat to their security if not the country in question?
That's like saying the US should consult with Zimbabwe about the drug cartel violence that's spilling over the Mexican border and what, if anything, should be done about it.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
It's actually quite easy, considering there is no oversight as to what "identified as a threat to their own security" means.
Theres no oversight cause noone is bothering to get involved in the Syrian problem...
171
Post by: Lorek
Krellnus wrote:
Point is removing Israel's army would remove any defense they'd have from the arab jihadis all around them, which would lead to the slaughter of the entire nation.
And the problem with a nation of hypocrites being removed from the Earth is what exactly?
And enjoy a five day vacation for the hate-mongering.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Grey Templar wrote: azazel the cat wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Grey Templar wrote:They are only attacking targets they have identified as a threat to their own security(weapons being shipped south to potentially be used against Israel) You can hardly blame them for that.
From what I've seen in this thread, sure you can!
It's actually quite easy, considering there is no oversight as to what "identified as a threat to their own security" means.
Who is in any position to determine what is and isn't a threat to their security if not the country in question? That's like saying the US should consult with Zimbabwe about the drug cartel violence that's spilling over the Mexican border and what, if anything, should be done about it.
Do you ever think about the things that you say? It's more like saying "The US is allowed to use drone strikes against any American citizen who is deemed 'a threat to national security', and who is in any position to determine what is and isn't a threat if not the US" EDIT: Seriously. If you're okay with your own reasoning for Israel's actions, then you must also be okay with Obama being allowed to drone strike you for reasons he keeps to himself, as it's the exact same justification.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
There is a difference. Israel is a different country. Obama is the president of mine.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Krellnus wrote:
And the problem with a nation of hypocrites being removed from the Earth is what exactly?
Wow. Even I think that's a bit strong, mate.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Grey Templar wrote:There is a difference. Israel is a different country. Obama is the president of mine.
So then you admit your abject hypocrisy?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
What the hell are you talking about? That makes zero sense.
37231
Post by: d-usa
I'm not exactly fond of Israel and think that they are often responsible for a lot of the grief they are getting in the region. They are sharing at least equal blame for the Palestinian aggression against them, and the handling of the Turkish flotilla a few years back was a clusterfethery that they should have received a lot more trouble for (or any trouble really). I am not very far away from considering Israel (the nation and not necessarily the people) warmongers.
That said, I don't really see a problem with these strikes, and compared to their actions over the last few years it seems very restrained and reasonable actually.
15594
Post by: Albatross
 d-usa wrote:I'm not exactly fond of Israel and think that they are often responsible for a lot of the grief they are getting in the region. They are sharing at least equal blame for the Palestinian aggression against them, and the handling of the Turkish flotilla a few years back was a clusterfethery that they should have received a lot more trouble for (or any trouble really). I am not very far away from considering Israel (the nation and not necessarily the people) warmongers.
That said, I don't really see a problem with these strikes, and compared to their actions over the last few years it seems very restrained and reasonable actually.
Well, I guess it would to you. You are German after all!
Just kidding.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
d-usa wrote:I'm not exactly fond of Israel and think that they are often responsible for a lot of the grief they are getting in the region. They are sharing at least equal blame for the Palestinian aggression against them, and the handling of the Turkish flotilla a few years back was a clusterfethery that they should have received a lot more trouble for (or any trouble really). I am not very far away from considering Israel (the nation and not necessarily the people) warmongers.
That said, I don't really see a problem with these strikes, and compared to their actions over the last few years it seems very restrained and reasonable actually.
This is reasonable, I've reported you for it.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
azazel the cat wrote:Grey Templar wrote:There is a difference. Israel is a different country. Obama is the president of mine.
So then you admit your abject hypocrisy?
There is a difference between the Rights of a Sovereign Nation and the President of the United Sates. Obama can't (legally) drone strike his own nation because of the legal limits on what actions he can take against US citizens and on US soil, he is not however, limited in what actions he can take on foreign soil against foreigners, hence the Drone Strikes.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Ratbarf wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Grey Templar wrote:There is a difference. Israel is a different country. Obama is the president of mine.
So then you admit your abject hypocrisy?
There is a difference between the Rights of a Sovereign Nation and the President of the United Sates. Obama can't (legally) drone strike his own nation because of the legal limits on what actions he can take against US citizens and on US soil, he is not however, limited in what actions he can take on foreign soil against foreigners, hence the Drone Strikes.
So then you're saying GT's explanation is not merely a "yeah, but it's happening to them, not to me", but rather a "any country has the right to pre-emptively strike out when they feel threated without oversight because they're attacking something other than their own citizens"? Is that it? Is it really a goddamned flag that is the difference between indiscriminate killing and justifiable killing?
My entire point is that it's asinine to claim Israel is perfectly in their rights to attack based on their no-oversight-needed claim that it was necessary, and that seems perfectly apt a comparison to Obama's drone strike ability. The state can kill you (death penalty) with oversight and it's okay, but now they can also kill you (drone strike) wihtout oversight, and it's not okay. The same applies to GT's thoughts on Israel's no-justification-needed-because-they-know-best-or-something reasoning.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
What would be oversight in this case?
53059
Post by: dæl
The UN is probably the closest thing we have. You could enact retrospective punishment for crimes against peace or crimes against humanity at the Hague, but that comes after the fact.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
azazel the cat wrote:Ratbarf wrote: azazel the cat wrote:Grey Templar wrote:There is a difference. Israel is a different country. Obama is the president of mine.
So then you admit your abject hypocrisy?
There is a difference between the Rights of a Sovereign Nation and the President of the United Sates. Obama can't (legally) drone strike his own nation because of the legal limits on what actions he can take against US citizens and on US soil, he is not however, limited in what actions he can take on foreign soil against foreigners, hence the Drone Strikes.
So then you're saying GT's explanation is not merely a "yeah, but it's happening to them, not to me", but rather a "any country has the right to pre-emptively strike out when they feel threated without oversight because they're attacking something other than their own citizens"? Is that it? Is it really a goddamned flag that is the difference between indiscriminate killing and justifiable killing?
My entire point is that it's asinine to claim Israel is perfectly in their rights to attack based on their no-oversight-needed claim that it was necessary, and that seems perfectly apt a comparison to Obama's drone strike ability. The state can kill you (death penalty) with oversight and it's okay, but now they can also kill you (drone strike) wihtout oversight, and it's not okay. The same applies to GT's thoughts on Israel's no-justification-needed-because-they-know-best-or-something reasoning.
Yip, a flag and the monopoly of violence over a given region coupled with the ability to enforce and defend that monopoly of violence is the only thing that makes a Sovereign State a Sovereign State. By it's very definition a Sovereign State does not have oversight from a greater power because that rank is the highest level of power. Obviously there are differences between the power levels of Sovereign States, but there is no one "up the line" so to speak.
Israel can do whatever it wants to Syria, and likewise Syria can do whatever it wants to Israel, as long as both nations can continue to enforce their monopoly of force they aren't answerable to anyone.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Please, the UN couldn't oversee a soccer game. Much less enforce anything.
The UN is like a Soccer League where the Coaches are also the Refs and all rule disputes require a unanimous vote. And there is no real way of making sure people follow the rules.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
So then you think that Israel should be allowed to do whatever it wants. Might makes right? Because that would be pretty ironic, considering.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
 dæl wrote:
The UN is probably the closest thing we have. You could enact retrospective punishment for crimes against peace or crimes against humanity at the Hague, but that comes after the fact.
The same group that is toothless when it comes to actually solving disputes?
I don't think Israel petitioning the UN, which'll take months, will be effective in stopping chemical weapons and missiles moving into Palestine from Syria...
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I hardly see how this action constitutes "doing whatever they want"
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Grey Templar wrote:I hardly see how this action constitutes "doing whatever they want"
They attacked based off of a broad claim that there was a threat to their security, although what that threat is or how it was established remains nebulous and ill-defined.
41596
Post by: Zakiriel
I look at this and can't help but be reminded of the comment in Dune, "The forms of Kanly have been obeyed." http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Kanly
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
They attacked based off of a broad claim that there was a threat to their security, although what that threat is or how it was established remains nebulous and ill-defined.
Whats ill-defined about weapons smuggling?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Their intell guru's and informants in Syria are much better then our intell guru's and.......crap....do we have informants in Syraiarnia....
11029
Post by: Ketara
Mr Hyena wrote:They attacked based off of a broad claim that there was a threat to their security, although what that threat is or how it was established remains nebulous and ill-defined.
Whats ill-defined about weapons smuggling?
By 'ill-defined', he means that he hasn't seen in the evidence that there was weapons smuggling going on.
Although, let's be fair here. I don't think that terrorist groups ever regularly advertise their weapons smuggling plans to the mainstream press or third party observer groups, so there's no way in which Israel can ever be justified under that logic.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
azazel the cat wrote:So then you think that Israel should be allowed to do whatever it wants. Might makes right? Because that would be pretty ironic, considering.
Might does not make an action morally right, it does however make its wielder unassailable.
Although when it comes to the Struggles of Nations might and the willingness to use it is the ultimate determinant.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Ketara wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:They attacked based off of a broad claim that there was a threat to their security, although what that threat is or how it was established remains nebulous and ill-defined.
Whats ill-defined about weapons smuggling?
By 'ill-defined', he means that he hasn't seen in the evidence that there was weapons smuggling going on.
Although, let's be fair here. I don't think that terrorist groups ever regularly advertise their weapons smuggling plans to the mainstream press or third party observer groups, so there's no way in which Israel can ever be justified under that logic.
Thanks you, I'm glad someone has been able to recognize that "let's just take Israel's word for it" isn't necessarily enough for those who don't blindly support their every action.
That now being said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a just action. I know that I'd definitely want to do everything in my power to keep chemical weapons out of the hands of Hezbollah, too. I just think I'd rather see something along the lines of "we exploded a convoy carrying chemical weapons that we believe were going to be given to Hezbollah" rather than "we exploded those cars because national security."
Ratbarf wrote: azazel the cat wrote:So then you think that Israel should be allowed to do whatever it wants. Might makes right? Because that would be pretty ironic, considering.
Might does not make an action morally right, it does however make its wielder unassailable.
So long as you understand the distinction. This conversation has given me the impression many here do not.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Az honestly this is what you're saying sounds like to my ears: "I personally disagree with the actions of Israel, and won't be happy till the Mossad or their Air Force General Staff in brief me on the intelligence that lead to these two strikes"
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote: Hulksmash wrote:I'm already in favor of Israel based on time in the middle east and friends and family who live or have lived in Israel.
So you don't know any Palestinians or Palestinian emigrants?
At least you admit that you don't treat the situation fairly or without bias I suppose.
I do. We hammered out a two state solution with a google map and ten minutes. Both of us agreed Hamas had to go for it to work though.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
In this thread: A bunch of ignorant children who know absolutely nothing about the use of force policies within the IDF, yet seem to have strong opinions on the matter.
Tell me more about how Israel is aggressively interfering in the affairs of other nations, oh peaceful isolationists of the UK.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Was wondering when you'd show up Nuggz.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
I try to steer clear of these threads...spitballing is about as productive as actually engaging in intellectual conversation on these issues, and a lot less time consuming. 
I haven't followed the thread, so I'm not sure where it stands, but I'm pretty sure the discussion followed the same trend that these always do. I think the only thing that we can say, at the end of the day, is that Israel's haters are largely irrelevant to the country's existence. No amount of hypocritical moaning by the UN, or least of all clueless space cadets crying on the internet, about how the "evil Zionist occupier" treats the "peaceful Palestinians" is going to change the truth- that Israel has always done, and will always do, what is necessary to ensure its survival, judged in comparison to its neighbors and critics in Europe.
In the IDF we were often given use of force briefings, insanely restrictive ROEs, and restricted operational requirements to minimize the danger to civilians, and every time I thought, "What's the point?". No matter the precautions we take to ensure that the threat to civilians is minimized, they are going to find a way to put civilians in the line of fire, or even intentionally injure them for the cameras. The Palestinian propaganda machine is absolutely insane - you have people willing to put their own kids in harm's way for a 5 second propaganda piece against Israel. So why am I conducting operations in a way that increases risk to my soldiers?
ETA: The good news is that a lot of the things are changing for the best. For example, things that went wrong in 2006 with the war with Hezbollah will not be repeated again. We had a Chief of Staff from the Air Force, so we ended up with a strategic-level response to tactical problems. This caused problems for Lebanon's civilian population and our own soldiers. In Gaza, we had the opposite situation - our Chief of Staff was an infantry officer from Golani. We kicked ass so hard, we actually ended up killing more of each other by accident than soldiers we lost to enemy action.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Aggresive Debaer?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Az honestly this is what you're saying sounds like to my ears: "I personally disagree with the actions of Israel, and won't be happy till the Mossad or their Air Force General Staff in brief me on the intelligence that lead to these two strikes"
I think that's pretty hyperbolic. It should sound more like: "I don't have much faith in the motivations of Israel, and don't think 'trust us' is a sufficient explanation, nor do I think 'because we can' is a sufficient justification".
I don't necessarily disagree with the actions of Israel in this case; I just disagree with so many of their actions in the past that I'm unwilling to take it on faith that they've acted in a just manner.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
BBC news reports that Iran is increasing its level of support to Syria - more troops, logistics etc etc
This could easily escalate into a god awful mess.
I for one hope the UK does not get bogged down in the middle east (again) It is amazing how much of the middle east's problems can be traced back to guys in London drawing lines on a map in the 1920s. Automatically Appended Next Post:  NuggzTheNinja wrote:In this thread: A bunch of ignorant children who know absolutely nothing about the use of force policies within the IDF, yet seem to have strong opinions on the matter.
Tell me more about how Israel is aggressively interfering in the affairs of other nations, oh peaceful isolationists of the UK.
Are you suggesting that Israel should be above any criticism?
15594
Post by: Albatross
In a nutshell, yes.
11029
Post by: Ketara
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Tell me more about how Israel is aggressively interfering in the affairs of other nations, oh peaceful isolationists of the UK.
Yes. Because dwelling in a geographical locale ruled by an aggressive government means that one is somehow directly responsible for aforementioned government's actions. And therefore is unable to have a moral stance on any other aggressive government's actions.
I mean seriously? 
'You live in America therefore you're not allowed to have an opinion on China interfering in Africa, because the American Government is aggressive!'
27391
Post by: purplefood
I know I've never invaded a country...
Well not while sober...
15594
Post by: Albatross
One of my friends accidentally invaded Bosnia (iirc). True story.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Good hustle from him.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: NuggzTheNinja wrote:In this thread: A bunch of ignorant children who know absolutely nothing about the use of force policies within the IDF, yet seem to have strong opinions on the matter.
Tell me more about how Israel is aggressively interfering in the affairs of other nations, oh peaceful isolationists of the UK.
Are you suggesting that Israel should be above any criticism?
Quite a few people are.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:BBC news reports that Iran is increasing its level of support to Syria - more troops, logistics etc etc
Oh, super. So Syria gets to be Israel & Iran's own personal Afghanistan, then? Because that worked out so well for the US, USSR & Afghanistan.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Well, there's been a lot of reports today about the Rebel's being the ones using the gas.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Israel launching a couple airstrikes = our involvement in Afghanistan
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Grey Templar wrote:Israel launching a couple airstrikes = our involvement in Afghanistan
I don't follow.
If you are trying to reference my post, I strongly recommend you learn about the US-USSR conflict by proxy in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Because that's what my point alluded to, in the sense that I wouldn't be surprised to see Syria used as a proxy between Israel and Iran in a similar manner.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Soladrin wrote:Well, there's been a lot of reports today about the Rebel's being the ones using the gas.
I posted a link earlier. but for the sake of completeness I'll post it again here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
Syria crisis: UN's Del Ponte says evidence rebels 'used sarin'
Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve gas agent, sarin, according to a leading United Nations investigator.
Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".
Ms Del Ponte did not rule out the possibility that government forces might also have used chemical weapons, but said she had not seen evidence.
The US and UK have said their inquiries suggest the government has used them.
British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the evidence was quite compelling last week, but that it would need to be incontrovertible before the case for an international response could be made at the UN.
On Monday, Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said it was "deeply concerned by signs that world public opinion is being prepared for possible military intervention" in Syria.
On the question of whether chemical weapons had been used, he called for an "end to the politicisation of this issue" and to the "whipping up of an anti-Syrian atmosphere".
'Stupefied'
On Monday, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria issued a statement saying it wished to clarify that it had "not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict".
"As a result, the commission is not in a position to further comment on the allegations at this time," it added.
The statement came a day after Ms Del Ponte, one of its commissioners, told Swiss-Italian TV: "Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals.
"According to their report of last week, which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated."
Sarin, a colourless, odourless gas which can cause respiratory arrest and death, is classed as a weapon of mass destruction and is banned under international law.
Ms Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney-general and prosecutor with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), did not rule out the possibility that troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad might also have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was needed.
"I was a little bit stupefied by the first indications we got... they were about the use of nerve gas by the opposition," she said.
Ms Del Ponte gave no details of when or where sarin may have been used.
The UN Commission of Inquiry was established in August 2011 to examine alleged violations of human rights in the Syrian conflict since March 2011. It is due to issue its latest report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva next month.
Ms Del Ponte's comments might also complicate matters for the US Secretary of State John Kerry ahead of his visit to Moscow this week, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall.
If Mr Kerry was hoping to cite fears that the Assad regime was now using chemical warfare as a reason why the Russians should shift their position, that argument will not be so easy to make, our correspondent adds.
Mutual accusations
A separate United Nations team was established to look specifically into the issue of chemical weapons.
It is ready to go to Syria but wants unconditional access with the right to inquire into all credible allegations.
Both the Syrian government and the rebels have in the past accused each other using chemical weapons.
The US and the UK have said there is emerging evidence of Syrian government forces having used sarin, with Washington saying it had "varying degrees of confidence" that chemical weapons had been deployed.
President Barack Obama called in April for a "vigorous investigation", saying the use of such weapons would be a "game changer" if verified.
President Assad's government says the claims do not have any credibility, denouncing them as "lies".
Israeli raids
Ms Del Ponte's allegations concerning the use of sarin by rebels came after Israel carried out a series of air strikes on Syrian military targets early on Sunday.
The Israeli government made no official comment, but security sources said the strikes were aimed at preventing the transfer of advanced Iranian-made missiles to Lebanon's Shia Islamist movement, Hezbollah.
The Syrian government said the Jamraya military research centre, north-west of Damascus, was hit.
A later statement gave more details, saying military positions in the Jamraya area were struck along with other facilities at Maysaloun, near the Lebanese border, and a military airport at Dimass.
The statement said there was massive damage at those locations and nearby civilian areas with many people killed or injured. It also denied that the targets had included missiles for Hezbollah.
Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad said the Israeli air strikes amounted to a "declaration of war" and threatened retaliation.
The New York Times quotes an unnamed senior Syrian official as saying dozens of elite troops stationed near the presidential palace had been killed. The AFP news agency quoted the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based activist group, as saying 42 soldiers had died and another 100 were unaccounted for.
Images on state TV showed large areas of rubble with many buildings destroyed or badly damaged
The Arab League condemned the raids and UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon expressed concern.
He said all sides should "exercise maximum calm and restraint" and "act with a sense of responsibility to prevent an escalation of what is already a devastating and highly dangerous conflict".
Russia's foreign ministry warned that the "further whipping-up of armed confrontation" sharply increased the risk of "pockets of tension" in Syria and Lebanon, and along their shared border.
Now, for all those who were eager to intervene does this affect your opinion whether we should get involved, who we should support, how we should support them etc.?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
azazel the cat wrote:Grey Templar wrote:Israel launching a couple airstrikes = our involvement in Afghanistan
I don't follow.
If you are trying to reference my post, I strongly recommend you learn about the US-USSR conflict by proxy in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Because that's what my point alluded to, in the sense that I wouldn't be surprised to see Syria used as a proxy between Israel and Iran in a similar manner.
Ahhh, that makes more sense. 
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
To be fair to Azazel, I think his point was about mission creep and how things can easily escalate. If you use Vietnam as an example, the trickle effect ended up becoming a flood, and before you know it, you have Westmoreland and 100,000 US troops in the country.
Israel attacking Syria (for reasons which I can understand) risks dragging in more Iranian involvement through Hezbollah and of course, a certain US fleet that just so happens to be bobbing along the waves nearby.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:To be fair to Azazel, I think his point was about mission creep and how things can easily escalate. If you use Vietnam as an example, the trickle effect ended up becoming a flood, and before you know it, you have Westmoreland and 100,000 US troops in the country.
I'm hoping Azazel can clear that up for us.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:To be fair to Azazel, I think his point was about mission creep and how things can easily escalate. If you use Vietnam as an example, the trickle effect ended up becoming a flood, and before you know it, you have Westmoreland and 100,000 US troops in the country.
I'm hoping Azazel can clear that up for us.
While it does apply, it's not exactly what I meant. See my previous post with the graphic for an explanation.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:While it does apply, it's not exactly what I meant. See my previous post with the graphic for an explanation.
So did you mean mission creep then?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
While mission creep was certainly an element included in the debacle to which I alluded, it wasn't the core.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
What is the difference between mission creep ( the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes) and slippery slope (a course of action that seems to lead inevitably from one action or result to another)?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote:What is the difference between mission creep ( the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes) and slippery slope (a course of action that seems to lead inevitably from one action or result to another)?
One is historical and factual; the other theoritical and uncertain.
The first can only been viewed with hindsight (or sometimes during the event) whereas the second is purely speculative and future-looking.
Are you seriously trying to trick me into making a slippery slope argument in this thread so that you can use it against me in another one?
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:Are you seriously trying to trick me into making a slippery slope argument in this thread so that you can use it against me in another one?
Nope, just showing that yet again you are consistently inconsistent
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Consistently inconsistent? How do you figure? I made a comparison between Afghanistan in the 1980s, wherein the USSR was attacking it, and the USA thus supplied the rebels with supplies and arms so that they could fight the USSR. It generally resulted in everything turning to crap, even more so than before (arguably). This, I compared to Syria now, where Israel has just attacked them, whilst the rebels are being supplied by Iran, and then made a very general and sarcastic statement about how excellent this will leave Syria, and everyone involved. If you want to incorporate the element of mission creep, well, the USA's funding ballooned up pretty high from what was originally going to be a small funding operation, so mission creep was definitely a factor there. I even differentiated between "mission creep" and a "slippery slope" argument, just for you, to clarify so that you don't feel like I would hold CaptJake to a standard that I don't hold myself to. I know how desperately you want me to be hypocritical (and I am in some things, admittedly) however I'm not in my arguments, and I'm afraid your childlike attempts at being clever are not up to the task of making it seem otherwise. But keep trying, kiddo! Chin up and all that! EDIT: I just noticed you said "yet again". When was there ever an instance to begin with? Please link it, or else I should just start making things up about you. 
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
I'm just showing how you like to shift the goalposts when it suits you and your arguments. We already had the discussion about your inconsistencies elsewhere so I don't think that needs covered again.
Nice to see the insults and talking down to others creeping in. Bit ahead of your usual timeline though.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I'm just showing how you like to shift the goalposts when it suits you and your arguments. We already had the discussion about your inconsistencies elsewhere so I don't think that needs covered again.
Nice to see the insults and talking down to others creeping in. Bit ahead of your usual timeline though.
Do you claim false accomplishment elsewhere, too? Actually, ya know what? I don't care. But please note that I have yet to insult you; I'm just showing how you don't actually understand the required foundations for all the claims you make.
And it's nice to see your martyr complex kicking in. Definitely right on time.
Anyway, I don't really have anything more substantial to contribute to this now that I've clarified myself beyond reasonable expectation. The Syria-1980s Afghanistan comparison was all I had to begin with; I'm still uncertain why you wanted to pick a fight with me on that, as you've yet to actually voice an opinion on anything other than me personally. So if you want to drag this further off-topic, you're on your own.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Do you often respond when you don't care? Its just that you seem to make it a habit when replying to me.
Your consistent inconsistency can be seen in several threads that we've debated in, you may remember me using your own arguments against you and asking you how you square them. Do I need to find you links that you're likely going to ignore?
Also, martyr complex? Really?? Is this like your instance that people were being jingoistic (as in aggressive foreign policy) by opting to stay out of a civil war??
But if you want to keep this on topic maybe you'll answer the question that I posted rather than continue to ignore it;
"Now, for all those who were eager to intervene does this affect your opinion whether we should get involved, who we should support, how we should support them etc.?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not sure though that asking you to clarify what appears to be two conflicting statements is an attempt to pick a fight. Had I worked off the assumption that your base argument was one or other you would have claimed "strawman".
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:BBC news reports that Iran is increasing its level of support to Syria - more troops, logistics etc etc
This could easily escalate into a god awful mess.
I for one hope the UK does not get bogged down in the middle east (again) It is amazing how much of the middle east's problems can be traced back to guys in London drawing lines on a map in the 1920s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:In this thread: A bunch of ignorant children who know absolutely nothing about the use of force policies within the IDF, yet seem to have strong opinions on the matter.
Tell me more about how Israel is aggressively interfering in the affairs of other nations, oh peaceful isolationists of the UK.
Are you suggesting that Israel should be above any criticism?
Above any criticism? No.
Above criticism by ignorant people in the West who have no knowledge of the operational realities faced by the IDF, and the ROEs it forms in response? Of course. I doubt that any of the people in this thread criticizing Israel have any experience in a combat infantry unit, let alone any insight into the true moral character of the IDF, the institutionally accepted ROEs, or the operational constraints placed upon its soldiers for the purpose of avoiding civilian casualties. They watch Arab propaganda and flock to it like flies to gak without critically evaluating the sources that produce demonstrable fabrications.
In short, some criticism is valid. This criticism, made mostly by ignorant people, is not. My involvement in this thread begins and ends with the illumination of the ignorance of said ignorant parties. Further involvement is a waste of time
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Don't forget to breathe you two
29408
Post by: Melissia
If you want to rant about ignorance, I would point out that you have shown vast amounts of ignorance of the plight that Palestinians and Syrians face. Knowing only about one side and assuming the other side is somehow evil and deserves to die does not make you an expert
50512
Post by: Jihadin
No one heere is an expert. Only closest "expert" that can come close to that are those that been, lived, dealt, and taken action there...or else where...being whatever subject some thread pretain to.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Exactly my point. Although I would also argue that an unbiased third party observer is more of an expert than someone who has lived and breathed the issue but only ever sees it from one side. But I wouldn't call myself or anyone else in this thread either unbiased or an expert
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Third party views though are questionable because of their perception. I'm going to use the possible gas attack in Syria. Already the US and other power countries are convincrd Assad launched the attack. Though now we have a possible....A "Strong P" that the rebels used it. Have a UN team actually gone in and inspected the site? I'm taking it the sarin gas was non persistant since it went harmless after a certain time. We have to find the smoking gun.....but if the rebels did use it...and AQ are in their ranks....then we might have a bigger problem...
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Do you often respond when you don't care? Its just that you seem to make it a habit when replying to me.
Your consistent inconsistency can be seen in several threads that we've debated in, you may remember me using your own arguments against you and asking you how you square them. Do I need to find you links that you're likely going to ignore?
Yeah, you should definitely find links, as you've yet to use my arguments against me. You've certainly attempted to use strawmen, though. If you disagree, then by all means, find a link to the posts you're referring to; I'm quite certain you'll only find your own errors, as kettle logic isn't really my thing.
And for what it's worth, I usually respond when I'm online, even if only out of habit. You are right, however: I should stop responding to you and just let you have your argument from repetition
And if you really want to continue this discussion/argument, maybe we should hash it out via PM so as to not completely derail this thread? I'm more than happy to clarify for you any inconsistency you think you've ever uncovered.
5559
Post by: Ratbarf
This may be going off topic but I prefer it when two people have a disagreement on a forum that they hash it out publicly. That way we all get to witness the literary thrusts and ripostes of those involved in the pseudo-intellectual gladiatorial arena that is the internet.
That may just be me though.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Ratbarf wrote:This may be going off topic but I prefer it when two people have a disagreement on a forum that they hash it out publicly. That way we all get to witness the literary thrusts and ripostes of those involved in the pseudo-intellectual gladiatorial arena that is the internet.
That may just be me though.
Yeah, I'm perfectly fine to do that as I know what I've said is lacking in fallacious arguments (though I've been sometimes proven to be factually wrong in my data); but I'd just as soon not be the one responsible for having the thread locked.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:BBC news reports that Iran is increasing its level of support to Syria - more troops, logistics etc etc
This could easily escalate into a god awful mess.
I for one hope the UK does not get bogged down in the middle east (again) It is amazing how much of the middle east's problems can be traced back to guys in London drawing lines on a map in the 1920s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:In this thread: A bunch of ignorant children who know absolutely nothing about the use of force policies within the IDF, yet seem to have strong opinions on the matter.
Tell me more about how Israel is aggressively interfering in the affairs of other nations, oh peaceful isolationists of the UK.
Are you suggesting that Israel should be above any criticism?
Above any criticism? No.
Above criticism by ignorant people in the West who have no knowledge of the operational realities faced by the IDF, and the ROEs it forms in response? Of course. I doubt that any of the people in this thread criticizing Israel have any experience in a combat infantry unit, let alone any insight into the true moral character of the IDF, the institutionally accepted ROEs, or the operational constraints placed upon its soldiers for the purpose of avoiding civilian casualties. They watch Arab propaganda and flock to it like flies to gak without critically evaluating the sources that produce demonstrable fabrications.
In short, some criticism is valid. This criticism, made mostly by ignorant people, is not. My involvement in this thread begins and ends with the illumination of the ignorance of said ignorant parties. Further involvement is a waste of time
There are plenty of people on this site who have infantry combat experience. There are also people on this site who spent time on an island to the west of Britain standing around checkpoints all day. The bad guys (or good guys depending on your viewpoint) didn't wear uniforms then either.
Point is, some people on this site can relate to what you are saying. Automatically Appended Next Post: azazel the cat wrote:Ratbarf wrote:This may be going off topic but I prefer it when two people have a disagreement on a forum that they hash it out publicly. That way we all get to witness the literary thrusts and ripostes of those involved in the pseudo-intellectual gladiatorial arena that is the internet.
That may just be me though.
Yeah, I'm perfectly fine to do that as I know what I've said is lacking in fallacious arguments (though I've been sometimes proven to be factually wrong in my data); but I'd just as soon not be the one responsible for having the thread locked.
Console yourself with the fact your avatar is one of my favourites. That face reminds me of an old school teacher! Automatically Appended Next Post:  Jihadin wrote:No one heere is an expert. Only closest "expert" that can come close to that are those that been, lived, dealt, and taken action there...or else where...being whatever subject some thread pretain to.
I'm an expert at drinking alcohol and falling over. Wait, what are we talking about here? War? Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, let's get this thread back OT before a mod's foot connects with our rears.
John Kerry is in Moscow to thrash things out with the Russians over Syria. Chances of anything getting done = America tearing up the declaration of independence!
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Melissia wrote:If you want to rant about ignorance, I would point out that you have shown vast amounts of ignorance of the plight that Palestinians and Syrians face. Knowing only about one side and assuming the other side is somehow evil and deserves to die does not make you an expert
I didn't say either of those things. Thanks for playing though.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Jihadin wrote:No one heere is an expert. Only closest "expert" that can come close to that are those that been, lived, dealt, and taken action there...or else where...being whatever subject some thread pretain to.
Hey I may not be an expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn, so lets do this!
23
Post by: djones520
 Frazzled wrote: Jihadin wrote:No one heere is an expert. Only closest "expert" that can come close to that are those that been, lived, dealt, and taken action there...or else where...being whatever subject some thread pretain to.
Hey I may not be an expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn, so lets do this!
Not a Holiday Inn Express, so your opinion is still invalid.
221
Post by: Frazzled
touche!
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
azazel the cat wrote:And if you really want to continue this discussion/argument, maybe we should hash it out via PM so as to not completely derail this thread? I'm more than happy to clarify for you any inconsistency you think you've ever uncovered.
PM sent
By the way did you ever answer this; "Now, for all those who were eager to intervene does this affect your opinion whether we should get involved, who we should support, how we should support them etc.?" ?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Is none of the above a valid answer? We go in guns blazing, neither government soldier nor rebel is our friend.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
My own opinion is that we stay clear or any military action in Syria, but that we give aid to Turkey and possibly Jordan for the refugees crossing the border.
Before the reports of the rebels using chemical weapons broke members of the community were set on military action against Assad because of allegations of his forces using chemical weapons. I was curious how the news about the rebels may have changed their opinion, if at all.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I am more inclined to do nothing. Or do what you suggest.
And if we do go in, nobody's our friend.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Grey Templar wrote:I am more inclined to do nothing. Or do what you suggest.
And if we do go in, nobody's our friend.
Pretty much.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Melissia wrote:If you want to rant about ignorance, I would point out that you have shown vast amounts of ignorance of the plight that Palestinians and Syrians face. Knowing only about one side and assuming the other side is somehow evil and deserves to die does not make you an expert
I didn't say either of those things. Thanks for playing though.
Yeah, but you did have a pop at Britain for getting involved in other countries' affairs, not long after Israel bombed targets in Syria. Maybe this was what she was hinting at?
73070
Post by: Valion
Grey Templar wrote:I am more inclined to do nothing. Or do what you suggest.
And if we do go in, nobody's our friend.
That's simply how we must go in. And we must. Does anyone really believe it's a good idea to let chemical weapons fall into the hands of al Qaeda-aligned groups?
|
|
