VIDEO: Israeli soldier executes unarmed, wounded Palestinian attacker Maybe even worse than the murder itself is the fact that no one in the vicinity seems at all moved by it.
WARNING: This post contains a highly graphic video and images.
An IDF soldier was filmed shooting a Palestinian in the head at close range in the Tel Rumeida neighborhood of occupied Hebron Thursday, after he and another Palestinian reportedly stabbed a different soldier, lightly wounding him.
Most Israeli media outlets initially went with the usual headline, “Soldier stabbed, assailants killed.” A few hours later, however, video of the incident was released showing that the Palestinian man was already shot and lying on the ground wounded, presenting absolutely no threat to anyone at the time he was shot in the head, murdered.
The video was captured by local Palestinian resident Emad abu-Shamsiyah and distributed by B’Tselem.
Minutes earlier, before the start of the video, the two young Palestinian men, Abed al Fatah a-Sharif and Ramzi al-Qasrawi, reportedly stabbed a soldier in the Hebron neighborhood. They were shot in the aftermath of the stabbing.
In the video, which begins only after the stabbing already took place, an Israeli soldier can be seen shooting the injured Sharif in the head as he lies on the ground. The soldier is facing the camera with Sharif in between.
In a separate video we have deemed too graphic to upload, a prominent settler from Hebron can be heard telling soldiers, “this dog is still alive.”
No one in the vicinity seems bothered or surprised at all by the shooting — neither the soldiers nor a couple of police officers present nor the medical teams seen treating the wounded soldier. They completely ignore the two wounded Palestinians (al-Qasrawi is lying several feet behind a-Sharif, and can be seen at the end of the video). This total apathy reflects not only the regularity of such incidents of stabbings and responsive shootings, but also the culture of impunity in which IDF soldiers feel free to shoot and kill Palestinians against the IDF’s own rules of engagement.
The Israeli military immediately sought to distance itself from the murder. Israeli security forces have been accused by Palestinians and others of unnecessarily killing Palestinian stabbing suspects since the latest wave of violence began. Israel has consistently denied the practice, although senior ministers have in recent years given what many interpreted as a green light to killing suspected terrorists.
In October 2015, video footage show Fadi Alloun, a young Palestinian man from East Jerusalem, being shot and killed by police officers despite not appearing to pose an immediate threat. In November, two Palestinian girls were shot after stabbing an elderly man with scissors. In response to that incident, IDF Chief of General Staff Gadi Eizencot said he doesn’t want Israeli soldiers to “empty a [rifle] magazine into a girl with scissors.”
The IDF Spokesperson issued the following statement: ”An initial investigation shows that this is a severe incident that contradicts the IDF’s ethical code and what is expected from the IDF’s soldiers and commanders. A military police investigation has been opened following the findings of the initial investigation that was carried out by the commanders. The soldier has been suspended from his position until the culmination of the investigation.”
Update: Military police arrested the soldier, and high ranking officers ordered that all other soldiers who were in the vicinity at the time of the shooting should also be investigated.
Blood-chilling VIDEO: IDF soldier seen shooting injured 'Palestinian attacker'
Shocking footage has emerged online apparently showing an Israeli soldier executing a wounded Palestinian lying on the ground. The victim had reportedly been injured in retaliation for a stabbing attack before being cold-bloodedly shot in the head. The video has been uploaded to B’Tselem human rights center’s YouTube account. It shows a crowd of IDF members – all armed – helping to evacuate their fellow soldier into an ambulance somewhere in Hebron. The description to the video says the evacuee was stabbed by a Palestinian man who was allegedly injured by the Israelis in retaliation.
You can watch the full video here. (WARNING: VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC CONTENT)
While the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier is given medical treatment and proper care, and seems to be conscious, the Palestinian is lying on the ground immobilized. Both the Israeli servicemen and the medical staff can be seen ignoring the man until the ambulance leaves.
Seconds later, an IDF soldier reloads his weapon, approaches the Palestinian and fires a headshot at his victim. No one tries to prevent the soldier from killing the man, and the shot causes no reaction from bystanders. Armed Israelis are seen walking around as if nothing has happened.
The Palestinian could be seen moving his head at the beginning of the video, clearly indicating he was still alive before he was shot.
Absolutely disgusting. Am glad to hear that the Israeli army is investigating and I really do not see how this cannot result in a conviction.
With the way some Israelis view the Palestines, I am not surprised at all that something disgusting like this happens. Ironically, you'd expect the Israeli people to know better. Short memories, it seems.
Ethics sure, but not something which anyone involved probably thought about much at the time. Given the state of knife attacks in Israel right now I can see how we got here...
The Amon Goeth analogy seems... a bit much, in scale if not in mindset. I'm not dismissing what certainly appears to be a crime, but even if the video shows exactly what it appears to, it's still a bit of a reach to equivocate a soldier executing a guy who just tried to stab one of his comrades, and a guy who actively participated in organized genocide - in fact, his rule was so harsh he was actually arrested and charged by the SS for, among other thing, mistreatment of prisoners. This was a guy who treated prisoners too harshly for the Nazis.
A crime? Sure. A war crime? Maybe. Amon Goeth? That's kinda a high bar.
That's weird. It reminds me of a young soldier who, in the aftermath of a potentially lethal attack on one of his fellow soldiers, made a horrible decision that he is now going to regret for the rest of his life. Somehow I don't quite see the connection with a Nazi KZ-Kommandant who oversaw and participated in the torture and murder of literally thousands of people.
What this Israeli soldier did was wrong and there is absolutely no excuse for his conduct. He should, and very likely will, suffer severe consequences for his actions. That said, comparing him to Amon Göth is neither an accurate nor appropriate comparison.
You know whats the difference? Israel is investigating instead of celebrating. Rule of law and all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also that sound seems fake. Like you can clearly hear him cock his gun from what looks to be more than a few yards away.
Maybe guns cock louder in the ME or maybe the video was highlighted with relevant sounds at the forefront, all very easy with digital video, so I will reserve judgement. The head definitely moves so I do think that guy was shot lying down, but there are some audio inconsistencies in my mind.
DutchWinsAll wrote: You know whats the difference? Israel is investigating instead of celebrating. Rule of law and all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also that sound seems fake. Like you can clearly hear him cock his gun from what looks to be more than a few yards away.
Maybe guns cock louder in the ME or maybe the video was highlighted with relevant sounds at the forefront, all very easy with digital video, so I will reserve judgement. The head definitely moves so I do think that guy was shot lying down, but there are some audio inconsistencies in my mind.
Exactly, Funny how they are investigating and will hand out punishment for this even though the EU and the UN keep bashing on them for not doing exactly this. Its mind boggling how we have a double standard for conduct in this confrontation. A Palestinian stabs a mother in front of her kids, the Palestinians celebrate and name the killer a hero and a martyr. The Israeli's kill the Palestinian terrorist and are condemned as extra judicial murderers by the EU and the UN. Bit weird really.
I'm usually pretty disgusted by the actions of the Israeli state especially with regard to settlements.
But if they're investigating and the soldier actually gets done for this, then I think that's decent and fair. Obviously we'd have to see how the investigation pans out.
DutchWinsAll wrote: You know whats the difference? Israel is investigating instead of celebrating. Rule of law and all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also that sound seems fake. Like you can clearly hear him cock his gun from what looks to be more than a few yards away.
Maybe guns cock louder in the ME or maybe the video was highlighted with relevant sounds at the forefront, all very easy with digital video, so I will reserve judgement. The head definitely moves so I do think that guy was shot lying down, but there are some audio inconsistencies in my mind.
Exactly, Funny how they are investigating and will hand out punishment for this even though the EU and the UN keep bashing on them for not doing exactly this. Its mind boggling how we have a double standard for conduct in this confrontation. A Palestinian stabs a mother in front of her kids, the Palestinians celebrate and name the killer a hero and a martyr. The Israeli's kill the Palestinian terrorist and are condemned as extra judicial murderers by the EU and the UN. Bit weird really.
Not weird att all. We expect Israel to act like a liberal democracy because they are. We don't expect the Palestinians to, because the Palestinian State's very existence is disputed, and by any definition of the word isn't a liberal democracy.
Da Boss wrote: But if they're investigating and the soldier actually gets done for this, then I think that's decent and fair. Obviously we'd have to see how the investigation pans out.
Surely at the minimum the IDF should demolish the soldier's home (or the home of his parents) regardless? It seems to be pretty standard procedure if a Palestinian is suspected of something.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's true, but it is against the rules and has to be investigated and punished, or eventually we will all be back in the Dark Ages.
Fully agree here. War crimes are war crimes and every single one should be acted upon. I am merely pointing out that executing wounded / disabled fighters is a very common thing in a war, especially one that involves as much propaganda as the ones taking place in the Middle East.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's true, but it is against the rules and has to be investigated and punished, or eventually we will all be back in the Dark Ages.
Fully agree here. War crimes are war crimes and every single one should be acted upon. I am merely pointing out that executing wounded / disabled fighters is a very common thing in a war, especially one that involves as much propaganda as the ones taking place in the Middle East.
Maybe it is common to execute a badly wounded prisoner when you're out in the middle of a desert with no means of actually getting them to medical help. But this was not that situation. They were in an urban environment and medical help was obviously available, as can be seen by the fact that you can see an ambulance leaving at the beginning of the video. Absolutely no-one is administering any first aid or making any attempt to check on the suspects condition.
As others pointed out, this is being investigated. One of the unfortunate side effects of war. Sometimes the stress of the situations lead Soldiers to make the wrong call. The system will handle this, and claiming that this holds a resemblance to state sponsored genocide is ludicrous at best.
It reminds me of that famous video from Vietnam where the VC suspect is executed by a South Vietnamese official by shooting him in the head while the suspect is cuffed.
As others pointed out, this is being investigated. One of the unfortunate side effects of war. Sometimes the stress of the situations lead Soldiers to make the wrong call. The system will handle this, and claiming that this holds a resemblance to state sponsored genocide is ludicrous at best.
I agree that this situation is nothing like genocide, but taken in the context of ever expanding Israeli settlement supported by military force literally bulldozing homes and forcing palestinians to live in smaller and smaller areas of land or accept being second class citizens in a hostile nation or flee to gigantic refugee camps forever, I can see why people are pissed enough to draw the comparison.
Now we don't know what went on behind the scenes but what is potentially as worrying as the incident itself which could be explained as an individual soldier with battle shock of some sort doing the wrong thing
is the implication that none of the other personnel involved reported it, and no investigation was started until the video dropped onto the net
(as I say we don't know that the soldier wasn't reported, and sadly even if he was a significant number of people won't believe it)
Crimes such as this should be of no surprise to anyone. Not because Israel or its soldiers are somehow evil or whatever, but because this is the kind of thing that happens whenever you give people deadly weapons, little accountability and a whole lot of stress.
The take away people should have from this is that there aren't good guys or bad guys in the Israel and Palestine situation. There's just people. And people do gak things, and people suffer from the gak things done by other people. In situations like this many people end up both victims and perpetrators.
The only way to stop those gak things happening is to end the underlying conflict. Confrim Palestinian borders and give the people there a chance to live decent lives. That, of course, is an unbelievably difficult thing for lots of reasons. But the first step towards making that happen will be when people stop cheering for one side or the other like they're football teams.
sebster wrote: Crimes such as this should be of no surprise to anyone. Not because Israel or its soldiers are somehow evil or whatever, but because this is the kind of thing that happens whenever you give people deadly weapons, little accountability and a whole lot of stress.
'Little accountability'? How does pulling the kid from his unit and starting an investigation equate to 'little accountability'?
I really don't support Israel, but my animus is strictly relegated to wishing the US wouldn't support them financially... because it's a bum deal for both them and us.
Putting that aside, I wholeheartedly agree; there are no good guys in that fight. Indiscriminate rocket attacks and human shields for arms caches on one side, collective punishment and systemic oppression on the other, what's to like?
I agree with that argument, which is why it annoys me that one side in the conflict gets astronomically more financial and military support than the other.
sebster wrote: Crimes such as this should be of no surprise to anyone. Not because Israel or its soldiers are somehow evil or whatever, but because this is the kind of thing that happens whenever you give people deadly weapons, little accountability and a whole lot of stress.
'Little accountability'? How does pulling the kid from his unit and starting an investigation equate to 'little accountability'?
sebster wrote: Crimes such as this should be of no surprise to anyone. Not because Israel or its soldiers are somehow evil or whatever, but because this is the kind of thing that happens whenever you give people deadly weapons, little accountability and a whole lot of stress.
'Little accountability'? How does pulling the kid from his unit and starting an investigation equate to 'little accountability'?
Insert meme about missing the point here.
No, I didn't miss any point. But I'm sick of folks like Sebster who think any time some trooper from a western nation screws the pooch it is due in part to some perceived lack of accountability. In this particular case, there seems to be anything BUT a lack of accountability.
Da Boss wrote: I agree with that argument, which is why it annoys me that one side in the conflict gets astronomically more financial and military support than the other.
Generally speaking the US doesn't try to fund terrorist groups like Hamas. But im sure funding a group of people who openly support a campaign of stabbing random Israeli civilians is a worth while endeavor
The US has supported groups like this (who engaged in much the same, if not even more deplorable, behavior) throughout history depending on the interests of those in power in DC. Be it haitian or cuban revolutionaries throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, Afghan Mujahadeen in the 1980's, the CONTRA's, the Pinochet government, etc ad nauseum.
djones520 wrote: Lets stop acting like the Palestinians are innocent victims here.
The majority of the Palestinians - that is people who live in Palestine - are innocent victims, just as the majority of Israelis are innocent victims of rocket attacks. Can we please not confuse national identity with combatant status?
CptJake wrote: 'Little accountability'? How does pulling the kid from his unit and starting an investigation equate to 'little accountability'?
Yeah, this time, because it was caught on film. If you think this kind of thing doesn't happen regularly off camera then you are living in a land of make believe and candy cane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sturmtruppen wrote: The majority of the Palestinians - that is people who live in Palestine - are innocent victims, just as the majority of Israelis are innocent victims of rocket attacks. Can we please not confuse national identity with combatant status?
Not only that, but even the combatants on both sides, including the ones who do despicable things, are also victims. This soldier who just capped a wounded Palestinian, it shouldn't be too hard to realise how much fear he's probably gone through in the lead up to the murder. That's why the moralising is so idiotic. Everyone in this mess is a victim of the situation.
But ultimately because we're human and we're not very good at understanding or even seeing situations and structures. We look at people and we call them good and we call them bad, and struggle to understand external factors that drive the choices people make.
Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.
At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.
Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.
At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.
I ran across this video the other day, and I think it did a good job reminding me that it's not a very clear "good guy vs bad guy" situation and that the current situation has a very long and complicated history.
Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.
At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.
Not so easy when one side does not even recognise israel as a state. So that makes any agreement worth gak from day one.
Hamas came about because more peaceful movements were ignored and mugged off by the Israelis. If they are a monster, they are a monster Israel helped to create.
I fear the conflict is so many orders of magnitude worse than the Northern Irish conflict that it will never be resolved in a similar fashion. It is similar on the surface but many important factors are pretty different. The level of violence is also far higher.
Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.
At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.
Not so easy when one side does not even recognise israel as a state. So that makes any agreement worth gak from day one.
And the other does not recognize Palestine, so what's your point?
Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.
At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.
Not so easy when one side does not even recognise israel as a state. So that makes any agreement worth gak from day one.
And the other does not recognize Palestine, so what's your point?
Simples. The UK, Irish had a degree to ground we agreed on, and both sides had similarities. The groups in Gaza, and Israel have very little to agree on.
They are both inhabitants of the coastal east Mediterranean, combining modern urban and more traditional agricultural industries. While there are no Jewish Palestinians, AFAIK, there are plenty of Muslim Israelis. Finally, most people on both sides would prefer to live in peace and prosperity rather than a continuing cycle of low level violence and fear.
Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.
At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.
Not so easy when one side does not even recognise israel as a state. So that makes any agreement worth gak from day one.
And the other does not recognize Palestine, so what's your point?
Someone who doesn't know who Ariel Sharon was...
Israel objects to Palestinian statehood, and are for the creation of a state if it'll lead to an end of the conflict. However as the people who would lead that state currently advocate genocide against Israel, few are really working towards that. There's no use in giving Palestine UN recognition if that'll give them the right to petition about a wee invasion or two everything few years.
Besides that the Israeli ideal is for integration, as they have plenty of other Arab areas. Palestine position to this is on xenophobic grounds, considering one day a bunch of Jews decided to rise up and take over the old Mandate in their name. Of course were Palestine to be integrated it'd be a whole mess as things are now if the Israelis had to communicate in government with folks with Hamas' attitude.
In saying this, it benefits the current administration's politics on both sides to carry on with the war. Both sides want peace, but tell that to the extremists.=/
That's a slightly disingenuous reading of Israeli attitudes. They sidelined the peaceful Palestinian organisations and made them irrelevant, which is how Hamas came to power.
In saying this, it benefits the current administration's politics on both sides to carry on with the war. Both sides want peace, but tell that to the extremists.=/
I used to believe this. The last decade of Israeli policy in Palestine produces only one logical end; Israel, under current leadership, will never accept an independent Palestinian state, and continuation of the conflict is just so they can continue carving up the land where such a state would supposedly exist until such a state is impossible. They don't want to absorb Palestinians either. They want them forced out, otherwise their Jewish state becomes a Plurality state, which defeats the purpose of having a Jewish state. Thus Israeli politicians and governance is heavily invested politically into settlements (and more than a few of them are getting rich of it, so there's a bonus)
The Palestinians on the other hand have no one actually looking out for their best interests so they just do whatever they have to to get buy, and terrorist groups pay really good money to commit violent acts. The PLA is too weak to govern, and couldn't even if it wasn't because Israel doesn't care what they have to say. Hamas relies on violence for everything, including Israeli military offensives for PR. Both Hamas and the PLA have become financially invested in terrorism. One of the best ways for both groups to make money is to go abroad and say "give us money to fight the Israeli invaders." That of course mandates that both groups do what they do. The PLA lobbies for greater international recognition, and Hamas launches some rockets over into Israel every now and then.
I think the people want peace, but the groups governing them on both sides have become too invested ideologically and financially in the conflict to stop. The Palestinians are too disenfranchised to force a change in their governance, and Israel has simply become apathetic. Both sides are easily fear mongered because the violence against them is very real, which makes it even harder for the status quo to change.
Population of Israel is 8.5 million, of whom 75% are Jewish and 20% are Arab (presumably Muslim) that is about 1.7 million Arabs.
Population of Palestine is 1.7 million, all Palestinian Muslim Arabs (I presume.)
If Israel incorporated Palestine, the combined Arab Muslim population would be about 30% of the total population. The Jewish population would still be an absolute majority.
Of course, speculation about possible voting patterns must take into account that neither the Jews, nor the Arabs, are monoblocs.
If Israel incorporated Palestine, the combined Arab Muslim population would be about 30% of the total population. The Jewish population would still be an absolute majority.
There's a big difference (in terms of political dynamics) between being 20% of the population and 30%. And that's before we throwing in a prevailing fear in Israel that the Palestinians living outside Israel will return once the violence ends, which could propel the non-Jewish population if that happened (big if assuming they all came back) to more than half of the population. There's 6 million + Palestinians living in surrounding states. Israel doesn't want to have to accept all those people as citizens which is a main reason they've continually rejected any acknowledgement of a Right of Return (for Palestinians).
What would force a change in the status quo would be a choking off of military aid to Israel, forcing it to the negotiating table rather than giving it overwhelming force so that it can ignore palestinian grievances.
There are obviously problems with that, but I believe US policy toward Israel is a major factor in the continuing conflict.
Da Boss wrote: What would force a change in the status quo would be a choking off of military aid to Israel, forcing it to the negotiating table rather than giving it overwhelming force so that it can ignore palestinian grievances.
There are obviously problems with that, but I believe US policy toward Israel is a major factor in the continuing conflict.
I think that used to be true, but we're not as popular over there as we used to be. The current political machines in particular have very much been interested in ending US aid to Israel, both because Israel is at a point now where they don't really need it, and because we've used that relationship in the past to pressure them to end the violence which some there did not appreciate (former minster of defense something Arenes)
Especially since we cut shipment in 2014 briefly during a spike in violence in Gaza, Israel has been moving away from us on military aid.
The US definitely played a big role in the conflict throughout the 20th century, but we're past the point that a change in US policy will reliably result in a change in israel policy. I'd love to see a change in US policy (don't hold your breath), but realistically I don't think it'll help much. We're past the point where that would've mattered. Our policy changing might actually make things worse, as Israel already has a deeply internalized victim complex where it comes to international politics.
Da Boss wrote: What would force a change in the status quo would be a choking off of military aid to Israel, forcing it to the negotiating table rather than giving it overwhelming force so that it can ignore palestinian grievances.
There are obviously problems with that, but I believe US policy toward Israel is a major factor in the continuing conflict.
I think that used to be true, but we're not as popular over there as we used to be. The current political machines in particular have very much been interested in ending US aid to Israel, both because Israel is at a point now where they don't really need it, and because we've used that relationship in the past to pressure them to end the violence which some there did not appreciate (former minster of defense something Arenes)
Especially since we cut shipment in 2014 briefly during a spike in violence in Gaza, Israel has been moving away from us on military aid.
The US definitely played a big role in the conflict throughout the 20th century, but we're past the point that a change in US policy will reliably result in a change in israel policy. I'd love to see a change in US policy (don't hold your breath), but realistically I don't think it'll help much. We're past the point where that would've mattered. Our policy changing might actually make things worse, as Israel already has a deeply internalized victim complex where it comes to international politics.
If the Republicans are the ones calling the guys who load teenagers up with explosives and send them to detonate on buses or in pizzerias to kill as many civilians as possible the bad guys, then sure, sign me up.
The Hamas apologia in this thread is pretty amusing: "Well, the Israelis ignored the peaceful Palestinians, so of course they had to resort to doing their best to kill Israeli children!"
They've been fighting this "war" for 70 years, and haven't had any success. Maybe it's time they realize they're really, really bad at it and give up the ghost.
They've been fighting this "war" for 70 years, and haven't had any success. Maybe it's time they realize they're really, really bad at it and give up the ghost.
Would you? Did the 'Jews'?
I know I wouldn't.
Oppressed populations, and the Palestinians are very much oppressed, will always resist especially when that resistance has become firmly embedded in their culture. Its also definitely worth remembering that some of the founders of Israel, including a former Prime Minster, were themselves terrorists.
I am not excusing the use of soft targets, and never will, but its sheer blindness to think that Israel is the 'good guy' here; there are no good guys.
If the Republicans are the ones calling the guys who load teenagers up with explosives and send them to detonate on buses or in pizzerias to kill as many civilians as possible the bad guys, then sure, sign me up.
...
It was your unsubtle dismissive comment about singing Kumbaya that was typically Republican.
Kilkrazy wrote: Population of Israel is 8.5 million, of whom 75% are Jewish and 20% are Arab (presumably Muslim) that is about 1.7 million Arabs.
Population of Palestine is 1.7 million, all Palestinian Muslim Arabs (I presume.)
If Israel incorporated Palestine, the combined Arab Muslim population would be about 30% of the total population. The Jewish population would still be an absolute majority.
Of course, speculation about possible voting patterns must take into account that neither the Jews, nor the Arabs, are monoblocs.
If Israel incorporates Palestine Isreal ceases to exist. They know this. Palestine knows this.
Why doesn't Egypt incorporate Gaza and Jordan Palestine? Because they know they would reap the whirlwind.
There are no Jews in Gaza. There are no Jews in the West Bank, There were no Jews in the Old City after the 48 war. they were all killed or driven out.
Ustrello wrote: Because people have seen what happens when you try to incorporate them, they try and launch a coup against you.
Indeed, call it naive, but this situation isn't just the fault of Israel and Palestine. Its the rest of the Middle East's apathy which is the problem. If any of them actually gave a damn for doing anything other than pissing off the Israelis we wouldn't be where we are now with Palestine.
Oh Come on Boss....don't you all have a Program like the US Peace Corp....wait one......now that I think about it.....They're not in Kuwait....Iraq....Afghanistan.....Israel.....Egypt(?)...think Jordan...
A simpler solution would be to realize the ambitions of King Adbullah of Transjordan ( what the land was prior) and have Jordan annex all the palestinian territories to Jordan. There was never a "palestinian" state their to begin with. There would not be a viable one with the territories left them anyhow for a 2 state solution, so give it to Jordan.
Frazzled wrote: More then that. They slaughter all the Jews.
There are no Jews in Gaza. There are no Jews in the West Bank
Well, I would say that given that if you are a Jew living in Gaza or the West Bank, there is a way more hospitable country ready (and eager even) to welcome you, a few dozens/hundreds of kilometers away, so need for anyone to slaughter you for you to want to move out…
Jihadin wrote: How many here. Would actually go live in the Middle East.
If Iran is part of the Middle East, then not definitely, but I think I could enjoy spending a few years there.
thekingofkings wrote: A simpler solution would be to realize the ambitions of King Adbullah of Transjordan ( what the land was prior) and have Jordan annex all the palestinian territories to Jordan. There was never a "palestinian" state their to begin with. There would not be a viable one with the territories left them anyhow for a 2 state solution, so give it to Jordan.
Jordan wants absolutely nothing to do with the Palestinian territories.
thekingofkings wrote: A simpler solution would be to realize the ambitions of King Adbullah of Transjordan ( what the land was prior) and have Jordan annex all the palestinian territories to Jordan. There was never a "palestinian" state their to begin with. There would not be a viable one with the territories left them anyhow for a 2 state solution, so give it to Jordan.
Jordan wants absolutely nothing to do with the Palestinian territories.
The West Bank was actually Jordan territory before the 6-day War iirc. Gaza was Egyptian, but I don't think Egypt would like that place back.
thekingofkings wrote: A simpler solution would be to realize the ambitions of King Adbullah of Transjordan ( what the land was prior) and have Jordan annex all the palestinian territories to Jordan. There was never a "palestinian" state their to begin with. There would not be a viable one with the territories left them anyhow for a 2 state solution, so give it to Jordan.
Jordan wants absolutely nothing to do with the Palestinian territories.
The West Bank was actually Jordan territory before the 6-day War iirc. Gaza was Egyptian, but I don't think Egypt would like that place back.
Exactly. Neither Egypt nor Jordan want anything to do with that hornet's nest. 1. on the one hand it shows how far the region has come. Two of the big combatants are now effectively out of it(keep us out of it). 2. It also shows how messed up the situation is. These territories have become a real world sociology experiment invented by some evil mad scientist. Even if Gaza and the West Bank were normal, they are so small they cannot effectively exist on their own.
A Town Called Malus wrote:Absolutely disgusting. Am glad to hear that the Israeli army is investigating and I really do not see how this cannot result in a conviction.
The man stabbed an Israeli soldier.
I have no sympathy for the man in question.
Palestinians don't want to be executed? Then let them stop stabbing Israeli soldiers.
A Town Called Malus wrote:Absolutely disgusting. Am glad to hear that the Israeli army is investigating and I really do not see how this cannot result in a conviction.
The man stabbed an Israeli soldier.
I have no sympathy for the man in question.
I don't think I read any post implying the guy was worthy of sympathy. That has nothing to do with wether or not the trooper who capped him was right or wrong for doing so.
CptJake wrote:I don't think I read any post implying the guy was worthy of sympathy. That has nothing to do with wether or not the trooper who capped him was right or wrong for doing so.
How do you read "absolutely disgusting?"
Basically, the OP boils down to this:
Palestinian stabs Israel soldier.
Israeli soldier executes Palestinian.
Israeli news sources don't seem to care.
How awful!
Except...are we missing the fact that the Palestinian stabbed an Israeli soldier? Are we missing the fact that Palestinians stabbing Israeli soldiers is apparently a common thing?
CptJake wrote:I don't think I read any post implying the guy was worthy of sympathy. That has nothing to do with wether or not the trooper who capped him was right or wrong for doing so.
How do you read "absolutely disgusting?"
Basically, the OP boils down to this:
Palestinian stabs Israel soldier.
Israeli soldier executes Palestinian.
Israeli news sources don't seem to care.
How awful!
Except...are we missing the fact that the Palestinian stabbed an Israeli soldier? Are we missing the fact that Palestinians stabbing Israeli soldiers is apparently a common thing?
This reminds me of the Black Lives Matter people.
#Bluelivesmatter
The Palestinian was lying on the ground, wounded. At that point, we're in mop-up phase. The man is no longer a threat. He's a prisoner with rights. He was executed, which is something we don't accept.
While I also won't shed a tear for him, what the Israeli soldier did was wrong, and more recent news reports show he has been picked up and will likely face trial.
That is how we handle things in a civilized world. Please, if you feel so strongly about this, go move over there and teach them how wrong they are. Join the armed forces. See the world. Kill a prisoner. Get a court martial and spend the rest of your life in Fort Leavenworth, to steal a line from A Few Good Men.
We don't want you on that wall, Traditio. We don't need you on that wall.
A Town Called Malus wrote:Absolutely disgusting. Am glad to hear that the Israeli army is investigating and I really do not see how this cannot result in a conviction.
The man stabbed an Israeli soldier.
I have no sympathy for the man in question.
I don't think I read any post implying the guy was worthy of sympathy. That has nothing to do with wether or not the trooper who capped him was right or wrong for doing so.
I think it's also in the title calling him a suspect when it's pretty well known that he did what he did.
CptJake wrote:I don't think I read any post implying the guy was worthy of sympathy. That has nothing to do with wether or not the trooper who capped him was right or wrong for doing so.
How do you read "absolutely disgusting?"
Basically, the OP boils down to this:
Palestinian stabs Israel soldier.
Israeli soldier executes Palestinian.
Israeli news sources don't seem to care.
How awful!
Except...are we missing the fact that the Palestinian stabbed an Israeli soldier? Are we missing the fact that Palestinians stabbing Israeli soldiers is apparently a common thing?
This reminds me of the Black Lives Matter people.
#Bluelivesmatter
Palestinian stabs Israel soldier.
SKIPPED STEP: Israeli Troops engage scum bags. One killed one laying on the ground wounded and at that point unarmed and not resisting.
Israeli soldier executes Palestinian.
At some point you transition from 'cap him' to 'okay, everything is secure, he is unarmed and not resisting, lets try to patch him up and send him to the interrogators'. Basically, once the objective area is secure, you are generally responsible for wounded bad guys, even if a couple of minutes before hand you were still trying to kill him.
At least that is the way I learned it, and the way I trained my guys.
Except...are we missing the fact that the Palestinian stabbed an Israeli soldier?
And?
Under no circumstances can any soldier become Judge Dread once the rounds stop flying. If he does decide to become Judge Dread that means that he is a war criminal and should be treated accordingly.
I don't think that the vast majority of posters here, whatever their opinion of the parties involved, have any problem with an IDF soldier engaging a guy who is stabbing them.
Traditio wrote: Except...are we missing the fact that the Palestinian stabbed an Israeli soldier? Are we missing the fact that Palestinians stabbing Israeli soldiers is apparently a common thing?
No. I think we are all pretty clear on that. What there seems to be disagreement on is when use of force may continue. For most of us it seems use of force may continue so long as there is still a threat, and that the detained individual was no longer a threat. Extra judicial killing of a suspect should, rightly, be frowned upon and the perpetrator punished.
CptJake wrote:I don't think I read any post implying the guy was worthy of sympathy. That has nothing to do with wether or not the trooper who capped him was right or wrong for doing so.
How do you read "absolutely disgusting?"
Basically, the OP boils down to this:
Palestinian stabs Israel soldier.
Israeli soldier executes Palestinian.
Israeli news sources don't seem to care.
How awful!
Except...are we missing the fact that the Palestinian stabbed an Israeli soldier? Are we missing the fact that Palestinians stabbing Israeli soldiers is apparently a common thing?
This reminds me of the Black Lives Matter people.
#Bluelivesmatter
Palestinian stabs Israel soldier.
SKIPPED STEP: Israeli Troops engage scum bags. One killed one laying on the ground wounded and at that point unarmed and not resisting.
Israeli soldier executes Palestinian.
At some point you transition from 'cap him' to 'okay, everything is secure, he is unarmed and not resisting, lets try to patch him up and send him to the interrogators'. Basically, once the objective area is secure, you are generally responsible for wounded bad guys, even if a couple of minutes before hand you were still trying to kill him.
At least that is the way I learned it, and the way I trained my guys.
That's the way it should be. You should have a valid justification for every time you pull the trigger.
DutchWinsAll wrote: You know whats the difference? Israel is investigating instead of celebrating. Rule of law and all.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also that sound seems fake. Like you can clearly hear him cock his gun from what looks to be more than a few yards away.
Maybe guns cock louder in the ME or maybe the video was highlighted with relevant sounds at the forefront, all very easy with digital video, so I will reserve judgement. The head definitely moves so I do think that guy was shot lying down, but there are some audio inconsistencies in my mind.
You can hear the charging handle on an M16/M4 from about a kilometer away, given the correct environmental conditions. Sound seems fine.
First part of your post nails it though. And the parallels drawn to Nazis and other war criminals are simply idiotic - one soldier (probably 18 or 19 years old) shot a terrorist who just stabbed one of his friends. Suddenly all Israelis are evil? The bias on this forum is completely disgusting.
CptJake wrote: No, I didn't miss any point. But I'm sick of folks like Sebster who think any time some trooper from a western nation screws the pooch it is due in part to some perceived lack of accountability. In this particular case, there seems to be anything BUT a lack of accountability.
And I'm really, hopelessly sick of internet people who project so much in to other people's posts that I'm honestly left wondering why they bother reading, they should just be talking with themselves.
I never criticised the iDF, because there is nothing to criticise the IDF for when it comes to this. But you're missing the difference between a lack of accountability because of a lack of punishment (not the problem here), and a lack of accountability because it is basically impossible to know what every soldier is doing during a conflict.
But by all means just make up stuff about 'folks like sebster'. That always leads to useful conversation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I dunno, I'm pretty okay with calling, say, Hamas the bad guys.
They do some pretty gakky things pretty consistently, but I'm pretty okay with calling that any effort to pick out good guys and bad guys a fairly useless way of looking at the problem.
Think of it this way, if you got intel that let you wipe out the entirety of Hamas tomorrow, then a year from now there'd be another organisation doing Hamas things. Because Hamas is a product of the situation, they fill a position created by the circumstances.
This doesn't mean we need to embrace Hamas, but any thinking that you solve this by taking on Hamas directly is just wrong.
I also rarely break out the guitar to sing Kumbaya around the campfire, though.
You mention that a lot. I think you might protest too much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: Not so easy when one side does not even recognise israel as a state. So that makes any agreement worth gak from day one.
This argument gets trotted out every time, and it makes zero sense. Palestine doesn't recognise Israel, but Israel not only fails to recognise Palestine either, they are actively claiming more and more of Palestine as Israel every year. And yet apparently the only problem is failure to recognise Israel, because reasons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Suddenly all Israelis are evil? The bias on this forum is completely disgusting.
No-one has said that. It can't even be interpreted in to anyone's statements. You're just making gak up.
This is a complex and challenging subject when everyone comes to it honestly, when people make disingenuous posts like yours above it becomes near impossible. So stop it. Start reading what people actually post, and spend time thinking about their actual point of view. Or maybe just don't post in these threads if you're not capable of that.
A Town Called Malus wrote:Absolutely disgusting. Am glad to hear that the Israeli army is investigating and I really do not see how this cannot result in a conviction.
The man stabbed an Israeli soldier.
I have no sympathy for the man in question.
I don't think I read any post implying the guy was worthy of sympathy. That has nothing to do with wether or not the trooper who capped him was right or wrong for doing so.
I think it's also in the title calling him a suspect when it's pretty well known that he did what he did.
Whilst true that it seems like an open and shut case with regards to the palestinian, there is still the protocol of innocent until proven guilty, hence my use of suspect.
The UN wrote a report? Let me put it on the fridge along with all the other ones. Ooh look they used colored crayons this time.
There were five Council resolutions on Israel. One each on the likes of hellish countries like Syria, North Korea and Iran. Libya got an offer of “technical assistance.” And countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and China were among the 95 percent of states that were never mentioned.
Too many people already believe that Jews control the sources of power in our country (you only have to read tweets in support of Donald Trump to see this).
To be fair, Israel has played no small role in perpetuating one of the largest humanitarian and international crisis' of the 20th century with sweeping repercussions across the region.
Also to be fair, there's at least 20 other countries I can think off off the top of my head with gak just as bad (if not worse) that deserve to be called out but never are
I feel like I've mentioned before that the only way to be consistently called out on your gak by the UN is to basically have no friends willing to stick their necks out for you, and there's really only one country on the planet that consistently manages to fit that description (and occasionally Sri Lanka).
Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.
The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.
KTG17 wrote: Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.
The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.
Naturally, if the defensive gunfire had killed the attacker outright, we wouldn't be in this situation discussing this, and everything would've been alright. But every country in the world accepts that there is a difference between immediate defense against an immediate threat - and killing an attacker that poses no threat whatsoever minutes later without any defensive reason.
KTG17 wrote: Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.
The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.
Well yeah, there's this sort of weird expectation that the soldiers act like human beings.
Frazzled wrote: This is why those who have a more neutral viewpoint, or heaven's to betsy, defend Israel, feel a bit put upon by nonsensical comparisons.
To be clear, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm referring to the gist of the op-ed; specifically:
On March 24, 2016, the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) wrapped up its annual meeting in New York by condemning only one country for violating women’s rights anywhere on the planet – Israel, for violating the rights of Palestinian women.
I don't believe this has actually happened. So far as my reading goes, they didn't denounce anyone at all.
I didn't look into the second claim because, well, it doesn't matter, when your story is 50% a lie at the 50% point, it sort of doesn't matter what happens in the rest of it, credibility-wise.
KTG17 wrote: Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.
The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.
Naturally, if the defensive gunfire had killed the attacker outright, we wouldn't be in this situation discussing this, and everything would've been alright. But every country in the world accepts that there is a difference between immediate defense against an immediate threat - and killing an attacker that poses no threat whatsoever minutes later without any defensive reason.
Looks at Russia, China, Iran, SA, Vietnam, NK, Syria, Egypt...your statement lacks merit. Lots of countries don't care about prisoners unless they can get information or use them for political purposes.
KTG17 wrote: Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.
The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.
Naturally, if the defensive gunfire had killed the attacker outright, we wouldn't be in this situation discussing this, and everything would've been alright. But every country in the world accepts that there is a difference between immediate defense against an immediate threat - and killing an attacker that poses no threat whatsoever minutes later without any defensive reason.
Looks at Russia, China, Iran, SA, Vietnam, NK, Syria, Egypt...your statement lacks merit. Lots of countries don't care about prisoners unless they can get information or use them for political purposes.
Granted, in reality, there are countries which care very little. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that Israel does not want to be mentioned in one sentence with the countries you just mentioned, so there's good reason for them to crack down on actions like this, I'd think.
KTG17 wrote: Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.
The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.
The Dakka OT, where even extrajudicial murder can find at least one champion.
I am an attacker, without warning, I stab and kill you with a knife in front of a group of people. Your family, friends, all suffer, and I am treated humanely. I might even get 20 years in prison with 3 meals a day and one day get released.
Or
I am an attacker, without warning, I stab you, you survive, but may have injuries you carry for the rest of your life. It prevents you from living a full life. Meanwhile, I am treated humanely, and may get something like 5-10 years in prison with 3 meals a day, and one day get released and brag about it.
Or
I am an attacker, without warning, I stab you, you survive with minor injuries, but suffer psychological issues due to the attack. Meanwhile, I am treated humanely, and may get something like less than 5 years in prison with 3 meals a day, and one day get released and brag about it.
I understand the 'civilized' argument, but to be honest pull that attempt on a family member or friend of mine and I can assure your I wont be thinking of the rights of the attacker.
To be honest, if the environment allows for someone to strike, knowing that they will be protected from retaliation, that itself probably doesnt discourage someone to act out violently. Some say that capital punishment shouldnt be allowed as it isnt a deterrent, but I can assure you in many cases it is. If the punishment for violent crime were more severe, there would be less of it.
Whatever the conditions that prompted the attacker to do what he did, he either judged that the punishment was worth the crime, or he didnt expect to survive. I hope its the second.
KTG17 wrote: To be honest, if the environment allows for someone to strike, knowing that they will be protected from retaliation, that itself probably doesnt discourage someone to act out violently. Some say that capital punishment shouldnt be allowed as it isnt a deterrent, but I can assure you in many cases it is. If the punishment for violent crime were more severe, there would be less of it.
And yet crime has continued a very long downward trend even as capital punishment becomes rarer, and rarer, and rarer to the point it barely exists in the US anymore. There were more powerball winners in 2015 than offenders executed.
KTG17 wrote: Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.
The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.
Naturally, if the defensive gunfire had killed the attacker outright, we wouldn't be in this situation discussing this, and everything would've been alright. But every country in the world accepts that there is a difference between immediate defense against an immediate threat - and killing an attacker that poses no threat whatsoever minutes later without any defensive reason.
Looks at Russia, China, Iran, SA, Vietnam, NK, Syria, Egypt...your statement lacks merit. Lots of countries don't care about prisoners unless they can get information or use them for political purposes.
Granted, in reality, there are countries which care very little. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that Israel does not want to be mentioned in one sentence with the countries you just mentioned, so there's good reason for them to crack down on actions like this, I'd think.
Very true. Israel tends to hold itself to West European military standards vs. those of its neighbors.
KTG17 wrote: To be honest, if the environment allows for someone to strike, knowing that they will be protected from retaliation, that itself probably doesnt discourage someone to act out violently. Some say that capital punishment shouldnt be allowed as it isnt a deterrent, but I can assure you in many cases it is. If the punishment for violent crime were more severe, there would be less of it.
And yet crime has continued a very long downward trend even as capital punishment becomes rarer, and rarer, and rarer to the point it barely exists in the US anymore. There were more powerball winners in 2015 than offenders executed.
But CHLers reached 1mm in Texas alone.
To the topic. Any update on the actual situation at this point?
KTG17 wrote: To be honest, if the environment allows for someone to strike, knowing that they will be protected from retaliation, that itself probably doesnt discourage someone to act out violently. Some say that capital punishment shouldnt be allowed as it isnt a deterrent, but I can assure you in many cases it is. If the punishment for violent crime were more severe, there would be less of it.
And yet crime has continued a very long downward trend even as capital punishment becomes rarer, and rarer, and rarer to the point it barely exists in the US anymore. There were more powerball winners in 2015 than offenders executed.
You obviously haven't been on the receiving end of violent crime, nor someone close to you. Americans murder each other to the tune of about 14k a year, and many of those found guilty sit on death row for decades. Its also the main reason the NRA is so powerful and guns will never be banned in the US. Guns are used in crime, but many feel the 'law' cannot protect them from those who have no fear of it, and have to protect themselves.
When the murder rate gets to 0, I'll consider being in favor of banishing capital punishment. In the meantime, some people act worst than animals, and should be treated as such.
KTG17 wrote: Especially one that had just tried to murder another human being. Its amazing there aren't more people jumping to the prisoner's defense. :/
I know right? I hate that whole "human rights" and "rule of law" thing. Why can't I just summarily execute everyone that I think deserves it?!?!
KTG17 wrote: Its amazing there is this view that when someone tries to kill someone, and fails, he is rewarded by being treated as a human being. Never mind if what the soldier did was right or wrong, the attacker has to assume that its quite possible to be killed in the act of trying to kill someone. This isn't like they knocked on his door in the middle of the night to ask questions.
The mistake the soldiers really made was not emptying their clip the first time around.
Naturally, if the defensive gunfire had killed the attacker outright, we wouldn't be in this situation discussing this, and everything would've been alright. But every country in the world accepts that there is a difference between immediate defense against an immediate threat - and killing an attacker that poses no threat whatsoever minutes later without any defensive reason.
One small point: There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with soldiers engaging in offensive actions and actively trying to kill their enemy. Soldiers are not boxed in by some fethed up requirement to ONLY engage defensively against an immediate threat.
Not saying that applies to this case (I already stated my position earlier), but no one should be under the impression soldiers can only kill in defense.
KTG17 wrote: Especially one that had just tried to murder another human being. Its amazing there aren't more people jumping to the prisoner's defense. :/
I know right? I hate that whole "human rights" and "rule of law" thing. Why can't I just summarily execute everyone that I think deserves it?!?!
It was fact he was un armed , if he was armed and did not obey a request to stand down and moved with hostile intent to the shooter no one would bat a eyelid. You can kill, but they must be a hostile threat not a now contained prisoner on the ground with no access to a weapon. .
Of it comes put he had a frag grenade or such, so be it, justified. Details matter.
KTG17 wrote: . In the meantime, some people act worst than animals, and should be treated as such.
I know; some people even advocate the execution of incapacitated prisoners. It's absolutely barbaric.
If it helps, Team Wienie believes that cat lovers got no reason to live.
However the US capital justice system, is pretty flawed, and I would not peg someone's life to it.
I was raised by my parents to "Treat others as you expect them to treat you." The flip side to that, is expect others to treat me like I treat them. Unfortunately, most people dont live like that. I can't expect to not get a bloody nose if I go around punching people. Hell, if I go around punching people, I full deserve and expect to at some point get my ass kicked. And so should you doing the same.
If you have this idea that you can run up to someone, punch them in the nose, then back up and say I am stopping, and hitting me will be an act of battery, then you really deserve to get your ass kicked. I don't care what the law says.
Every decision has a cost/benefit. This attacker decided it was worth it. I assume he felt he had nothing to lose, or was an idiot. Either case, it ended as you should expect it.
It isn't like he stole a bag of Doritos from a convenience store. Think about the act of killing an innocent person. He was dumb enough to do it in front of other people, especially the other guys in his unit. I have no problem with what they did.
The moral of the story should be (1) Dont try to murder someone, and (2) dont try to murder a soldier in front of his unit. I can follow both of those no problem.
The moral of the story should be (1) Dont try to murder someone, and (2) dont try to murder a soldier in front of his unit. I can follow both of those no problem.
And yet you're completely fine with murder as retribution.
KTG17 wrote: If you have this idea that you can run up to someone, punch them in the nose, then back up and say I am stopping, and hitting me will be an act of battery, then you really deserve to get your ass kicked. I don't care what the law says.
Let's say someone runs up to you and tries to punch you in the face. He hits, but your friend swings a crowbar at him and breaks both his legs before anything else happens. In what sort of twisted fantasy world do you live if you think it is alright to beat someone who is no threat to anyone any longer to death five minutes later because you're still pissed? Considering you're very eager to denounce others as lower than animals, being unable to control your own anger is a bit ironic.
KTG17 wrote: Some say that capital punishment shouldnt be allowed as it isnt a deterrent, but I can assure you in many cases it is. If the punishment for violent crime were more severe, there would be less of it.
And now we're on to "I'm right because I'm right!" as an argument. Great.
Just out of curiosity, if you are opposed to violence, how do you propose to stop that attacker from ever swinging the knife, or punching me?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am totally fine with an eye for an eye. It's the whole point of my case of treating others as I want to be treated. All of you are so focused on the soldiers retaliation but none of you have expressed any anger for the attacker.
I'm not opposed to violence in self-defense. Shooting an immobilized person lying on the ground in the head isn't self-defense, it's an execution.
I'd advocate in favour of policies that would help create a more equitable society where people aren't pushed to attacking soldiers with knives. That's not going to happen though; extremists on both sides will make sure that any negotiations in good faith are impossible.
Eye for an eye is why Israel and Palestine look like they do in the first place. You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.
CptJake wrote:Palestinian stabs Israel soldier.
SKIPPED STEP: Israeli Troops engage scum bags. One killed one laying on the ground wounded and at that point unarmed and not resisting.
Israeli soldier executes Palestinian.
At some point you transition from 'cap him' to 'okay, everything is secure, he is unarmed and not resisting, lets try to patch him up and send him to the interrogators'. Basically, once the objective area is secure, you are generally responsible for wounded bad guys, even if a couple of minutes before hand you were still trying to kill him.
At least that is the way I learned it, and the way I trained my guys.
Ultimately, I don't disagree with any of this. If the soldier broke the law by shooting the man, then he should face trial.
What I do disagree with is the general tone of the OP.
It is not tragic that the Palestinian died. It is not a fault on the part of Israelis that they aren't disturbed/upset about it. The Palestinian is not deserving of our sympathy.
The "right" to stand trial after stabbing an enemy soldier is a luxury of modern society with its modern jurisprudence [ultimately of Christian inspiration, may I add].
The Palestinian wasn't afforded the luxury. Too bad for him, but fact is, he had it coming. [I have similar sentiments about the Black Lives Matter protests.]
I'd dare you to travel back in time, integrate into the Carthaginian community, stab a Roman soldier, and then demand a trial...but I'm pretty sure we both know how that would work out for you.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm not opposed to violence in self-defense. Shooting an immobilized person lying on the ground in the head isn't self-defense, it's an execution.
I'd advocate in favour of policies that would help create a more equitable society where people aren't pushed to attacking soldiers with knives. That's not going to happen though; extremists on both sides will make sure that any negotiations in good faith are impossible.
Eye for an eye is why Israel and Palestine look like they do in the first place. You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.
Ok that was a nice idealist response, but it doesn't answer my question.
You are so fixated on the response of the soldier, and completely brushing aside the act that started everything in the first place.
You state you would like a more equitable society but it will never be equitable. Ever. Some will always have more than others, and others who will attempt to take from others. I don't care if it's political, economical, or whatever, so long as someone thinks that it's worth taking the action to hurt someone, at a cost they are comfortable, they will.
I am arguing that until that cost becomes so great, people will continue to take those risks.
So when you come up with some concrete ideas that can prevent innocent people from being murdered (this donkey-cave was not innocent), rape, child abuse, please let me know. In the meantime, I am not going to shed a tear for the donkey-caves who inflict this kind of hurt and pain on others, and pay the ultimate price for it.
And I am not some huge support of Israel btw. I don't care if this was between a Candian and an Eskimo.
So when you come up with some concrete ideas that can prevent innocent people from being murdered (this donkey-cave was not innocent), rape, child abuse, please let me know. In the meantime, I am not going to shed a tear for the donkey-caves who inflict this kind of hurt and pain on others, and pay the ultimate price for it.
I dunno, not killing people because we're really pissed might be a good place to start. Is the soldier completely without agency? Is retaliation and eye for an eye a natural law, or can we, as thinking human beings, stop and realize that shooting a disarmed and injured assaliant only makes people angry?
It's hardly idealistic to accept the concept of the rule of law, if anything it's rather cynical to claim that it'll never work.
KTG17 wrote: You are so fixated on the response of the soldier, and completely brushing aside the act that started everything in the first place.
The problem with that angle is that israeli encroachment on Palestinian land is what 'started everything in the first place'
Well, technically it was the British deciding to create a new state inside someone else's country that 'started everything in the first place', but i think you can get my point here.
The most concerning thing for me in this, is that nobody batted an eyelid - i hope this isn't the modus operandi for israeli forces.
Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.
At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.
KTG17 wrote: You are so fixated on the response of the soldier, and completely brushing aside the act that started everything in the first place.
The problem with that angle is that israeli encroachment on Palestinian land is what 'started everything in the first place'
Well, technically it was the British deciding to create a new state inside someone else's country that 'started everything in the first place', but i think you can get my point here.
The most concerning thing for me in this, is that nobody batted an eyelid - i hope this isn't the modus operandi for israeli forces.
No, stop looking at this at a macro level. There is bs going on all over the world and not all of it is political. And it isn't Israel's encroachment, it's that they even exist in the first place.
I am just saying this attacker made a decision to take a life. And this soldier prob nothing to do with the political decisions of Israel as a whole. He was just doing his job. He has a family, friends, etc, and all that was trying to be taken from him.
I am looking at this at a very micro level. One guy tried to kill another, and got killed himself. Suits me.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.
This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.
This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable
We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence. We solved the problem of German aggression with violence. We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence. Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity). We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of German aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence.
Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity).
We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.
I didn't say it was completely true, I just said it was really quotable, cause it is Just rolls off the tongue nicely
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.
This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable
it is sad but true, which is why so many wars are lost. You either kill all the people take over completely and after 50 years and two generations they become your people or you lose. You cant kill a few then walk away and expect them to except that you where the good guy. The people left behind or the natives will hate you for the war and you will have a whole new wave of hate...isis.
I'd dare you to travel back in time, integrate into the Carthaginian community, stab a Roman soldier, and then demand a trial...but I'm pretty sure we both know how that would work out for you.
Its almost as though the last 2 thousand years of incremental civilisation never happened.
The parts of the world where violence is the first, and usually only, response are also the parts of the world mired in gak. I wonder if there is a connection........
Frazzled wrote: Your flag says Britain (notes to self number of times England used violence to "sort something out"...wow....long list).
I'm a Scot.
Violence is rapidly becoming obsolete in the modern world. Violent places and cultures are pretty much universally economically and/or socially backward, they sometimes intrude on the more civilised areas (politically and geographically) of course but the modern world is extremely complex and requires stability. State level violence of the kind that used to be common would readily bankrupt any country that went beyond sabre rattling due to the collapse of its economy and trade but also the staggeringly high cost of conducting military operations. The small scale Middle Eastern adventures and populist bombings that have been going on for the last 16 years or so are staggeringly expensive yet almost completely ineffective.
War no longer pays and violence begets violence.
On the social level civil violence in developed countries has also been dropping of, exactly why is hard to pin down but its a real phenomenon.
Its almost as though the last 2 thousand years of incremental civilisation never happened.
The parts of the world where violence is the first, and usually only, response are also the parts of the world mired in gak. I wonder if there is a connection........
I am always amused when people think mankind has done any kind of progression. Civilized? Man hasn't changed in 1000s of years. Its been doing the same thing year after year, only with better tools. Most history books are loaded with wars and who invaded who and who killed who over religion or whatever, and there is no difference now than what was going on then. People are still stealing, raping, even enslaving in parts of the world just like they did 1000 years ago, only in most cases just better dressed. Now man is polluting the entire planet rather than in isolated areas as well as pissing on each other. And if anything, things will get a lot worse. Nationalism is on the rise, lines on maps being tested, military spending increasing. I think we're hitting a point to where the world was prior to WWI.
Just wait till populations have difficulty getting access to drinkable water and food. Then the fun will really start.
"I'm a Scot."
Be proud, if it weren't for Scots (or more properly their haggis) the Germans would have successfully invade England. Only the haggis launchers kept the Hun across the Channel...
"Violence is rapidly becoming obsolete in the modern world."
Er, really?
Frazzled wrote: Your flag says Britain (notes to self number of times England used violence to "sort something out"...wow....long list).
I'm a Scot.
Violence is rapidly becoming obsolete in the modern world. Violent places and cultures are pretty much universally economically and/or socially backward, they sometimes intrude on the more civilised areas (politically and geographically) of course but the modern world is extremely complex and requires stability. State level violence of the kind that used to be common would readily bankrupt any country that went beyond sabre rattling due to the collapse of its economy and trade but also the staggeringly high cost of conducting military operations. The small scale Middle Eastern adventures and populist bombings that have been going on for the last 16 years or so are staggeringly expensive yet almost completely ineffective.
War no longer pays and violence begets violence.
On the social level civil violence in developed countries has also been dropping of, exactly why is hard to pin down but its a real phenomenon.
Violence will never be obsolete. It is hard written into our DNA and will always be that way. Your post reminded me of this quote.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
You can have your dreams of "obsolete" all you want, but it never will be. Have no fear though, because there will always be those who have the ability to stand ready to be violent, on your behalf.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.
This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable
We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of German aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence.
Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity).
We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.
You're right, I should have written "violence alone" as opposed to "violence".
Judging by the fact that ISIS exists you didn't exactly solve the bin Laden issue just because you shot him though.
Its almost as though the last 2 thousand years of incremental civilisation never happened.
The parts of the world where violence is the first, and usually only, response are also the parts of the world mired in gak. I wonder if there is a connection........
I am always amused when people think mankind has done any kind of progression. Civilized? Man hasn't changed in 1000s of years. Its been doing the same thing year after year, only with better tools. Most history books are loaded with wars and who invaded who and who killed who over religion or whatever, and there is no difference now than what was going on then. People are still stealing, raping, even enslaving in parts of the world just like they did 1000 years ago, only in most cases just better dressed. Now man is polluting the entire planet rather than in isolated areas as well as pissing on each other. And if anything, things will get a lot worse. Nationalism is on the rise, lines on maps being tested, military spending increasing. I think we're hitting a point to where the world was prior to WWI.
Just wait till populations have difficulty getting access to drinkable water and food. Then the fun will really start.
"Humans act like animals, always have, for thousands of years. If people act like animals, they should be treated like animals. Don't want to be treated like animals, stop acting like animals. Humans can never not act like animals, it's nature. How dare people act like animals, they should stop. It will only get worse, can't be helped."
I think that post is like a Schrödinger's Post: barbaric violence is the cause and solution to all our problems.
I am always amused when people think mankind has done any kind of progression.
Once upon a time 30 was considered an old man, most people can now expect to live until their late 70's. Infant mortality used to be around 40%, now its around 0.001%. We live lives that are unbelievably comfortable compared to our ancestors (even recent ancestors), there are even people who actually live in space. No progress at all.....
Violence will never be obsolete. It is hard written into our DNA and will always be that way.
Yet its incidence is decreasing year on year in most (if not all) parts of the world with stable governments and economies. If you don't like obsolete how about obsolescent, that fits better.
Providing that our personal world is stable both economically and (broadly) socially there is no need for violence, that is at least as central to human behaviour as our capacity for violence. It's simple risk vs reward. Of course if the reward outways the risk....
I am aware that my view point sounds utopian but it really isn't. Chaos will destroy our extremely comfortable lives and the most certain way of bringing chaos is violence. Since WW2 there have been no 'real' wars between developed nations, lots of little brush wars and a few civil/colonial wars but nothing like their used to be. Its not economically worth it and people are simply not as jingoistic as they once were so popular support just isn't there. Of course nuclear weapons were a strong dampening factor as well.
djones520 wrote: Have no fear though, because there will always be those who have the ability to stand ready to be violent, on your behalf.
As a professional soldier that includes me. Given that the "big strong man with a stick" hasn't done more than chase disorganised militias around for the last few decades how long will it be before there is no need for that man at all?
Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.
At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.
Palestine elected Hamas.....
Indeed, after Hamas was sponsored by Israel as a more hardline, strictly religious alternative to the increasingly moderate PLO. That worked much better than they had expected or wanted.
Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.
At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.
Palestine elected Hamas.....
Indeed, after Hamas was sponsored by Israel as a more hardline, strictly religious alternative to the increasingly moderate PLO. That worked much better than they had expected or wanted.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.
This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable
We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of German aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence.
Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity).
We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.
Well, sort of. Violence was one aspect of the solution in these instances (which would have proven fruitless if not paired with other actions...like the Marshall Plan), and in a couple of those instances, the fundamental problems aren't solved just morphed into a new form (e.g. Bin Laden is dead...but global islamic terrorism is arguably stronger than ever).
Vaktathi wrote:Well, sort of. Violence was one aspect of the solution in these instances (which would have proven fruitless if not paired with other actions...like the Marshall Plan), and in a couple of those instances, the fundamental problems aren't solved just morphed into a new form (e.g. Bin Laden is dead...but global islamic terrorism is arguably stronger than ever).
Islamic terrorism has been around for a long time.
Islamic terrorism has been around for a long time.
He specifically stated Global Islamic terrorism. Global Jihad is a fairly new concept (circa 19th century) spawned by a series of things; the rise of Pan-Islamism and Decolonization in particular. Prior to the later half of the 20th century, violent Jihadism existed most certainly and is very old, but it was a regional issue. We could be lazy and simply mark the outcome of the 6 Days War, Islamic Revolutions of the 1970s, and the first Intifada (EDIT: Afghanistan War too really, the Soviet one, not the later American one) as the major turning points that shifted this from a regional problem to a global one.
LordofHats wrote:He specifically stated Global Islamic terrorism. Global Jihad is a fairly new concept (circa 19th century) spawned by a series of things; the rise of Pan-Islamism and Decolonization in particular. Prior to the later half of the 20th century, violent Jihadism existed most certainly and is very old, but it was a regional issue. We could be lazy and simply mark the outcome of the 6 Days War, Islamic Revolutions of the 1970s, and the first Intifada as the major turning points that shifted this from a regional problem to a global one.
I'm pretty sure that Charles Martel would have disagreed with the bolded. All of those Catholics praying the rosary on behalf of their navy at Lepanto (by which (as well as by guns...lots and lots of guns)) was obtained a most glorious victory) would probably disagree with you, too.
"Convert the world or die (or make them die) trying" is as old as Islam itself.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.
This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable
We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence. We solved the problem of German aggression with violence. We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence. Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity). We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.
Well, sort of. Violence was one aspect of the solution in these instances (which would have proven fruitless if not paired with other actions...like the Marshall Plan), .
No, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of Japan were not part of the solution. They were applied after massive violence destroyed the will to fight of the Germans and the Japanese. The plans were never held out as a carrot to the stick of violence and used to 'solve' the problem of aggression. The aggression was literally beat out of them, their infrastructures massively damaged, their economies shattered, and their militaries thrashed. That is what solved their aggression. The Marshall Plan and MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan came after the aggression was stopped/solved.
I'm pretty sure that Charles Martel would have disagreed with the bolded. All of those Catholics praying the rosary on behalf of their navy at Lepanto would probably disagree with you, too.
Not all warfare/violence precipitated by Muslims in history is terrorism. How does the Battle of Tours even need to be differentiated from the current problem? That should be abundantly self evident.
LordofHats wrote:Not all warfare/violence precipitated by Muslims in history is terrorism. How does the Battle of Tours even need to be differentiated from the current problem? That should be abundantly self evident.
It's a purely accidental difference. The only reason "terrorism" is less common than outright warfare is because the Mohommedans don't have the manpower, the resources or the training to succeed in so doing.
The mentality behind modern terrorism is essentially the same as that behind historical "jihad" going back even to Mohammad himself.
If I might slightly adjust the lines of good ole Johnny Rebel:
"I like the West the way it is:
I'm sure that you do too...
Ole Mohammad thinks it's his:
I know he's wrong, don't you?"
LordofHats wrote:Not all warfare/violence precipitated by Muslims in history is terrorism. How does the Battle of Tours even need to be differentiated from the current problem? That should be abundantly self evident.
It's a purely accidental difference. The only reason "terrorism" is less common than outright warfare is because the Mohommedans don't have the manpower, the resources or the training to succeed in so doing.
The mentality behind modern terrorism is essentially the same as that behind historical "jihad" going back even to Mohammad himself.
If I might slightly adjust the lines of good ole Johnny Rebel:
"I like the West the way it is:
I'm sure that you do too...
Ole Mohammad thinks it's his:
I know he's wrong, don't you?"
There's a very big difference between classical state warfare and terrorism, and it's not even remotely accidental.
The ideology behind both is essentially the same. Whether private Mohammedan individuals or organizations commit acts of violence, or whether Mohammedan states commit acts of violence, the underlying reason is the same:
They're Mohammedan. We're not. They think they have some kind of divine entitlement.
Thus the reason I have even LESS sympathy for the stabber.
People love to decry the crusades.
Never mind the fact that it was a direct response to previous Mohammedan aggression.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchWinsAll wrote:Gone grab a few Blacks behind our truck later and wash down the dip with some Busch Light? Disgusting.
Please explain to me why ISIS is raping and beheading Christians in the middle east.
Then please explain to me why Charles Martel had to repel a horde of angry Muslims from the West.
And then explain why they are different.
Please explain to me how this is remotely on topic. Or better, don't. Because it isn't on topic. So stop it now. This is a thread about an Israeli soldier putting a wounded guy down, that's it. It's not about whether Tours and Lepanto are different to ISIS' deeds.
motyak wrote:Please explain to me how this is remotely on topic. Or better, don't. Because it isn't on topic. So stop it now. This is a thread about an Israeli soldier putting a wounded guy down, that's it. It's not about whether Tours and Lepanto are different to ISIS' deeds.
Fair enough.
I would, however, like to turn to a different aspect of the issue:
Why, I ask those reading this thread, do you suppose that our Palestinian stabbed the Israeli soldier in the first place?
Having answered that, why should Israelis be upset over the fact that he subsequently was killed (whether legally or otherwise)?
Silent Puffin? wrote:Alienation, poverty, revenge, brainwashing or any number of other reasons
Oh. So there's no chance at all that he attempted to murder an Israeli soldier because he harbors any resentment towards the state of Israel, huh?
Because it was cold blooded murder?
People get murdered in a "cold blooded" way all the time and people generally do not and should not be upset over it (at least, not in the natural order).
If someone murders a drug lord in cold blood, that doesn't upset me (again, in the natural order).
Silent Puffin? wrote:Alienation, poverty, revenge, brainwashing or any number of other reasons
Oh. So there's no chance at all that he attempted to murder an Israeli soldier because he harbors any resentment towards the state of Israel, huh?
Its blatantly obvious that he harboured resentment towards Israel but you asked for the reason and that will go far far further than because he was a 'Mohammedan'.
People get murdered in a "cold blooded" way all the time and people generally do not and should not care.
If someone murders a drug lord in cold blood, that doesn't upset me.
Silent Puffin? wrote:Its blatantly obvious that he harboured resentment towards Israel
And was willing to attempt to murder someone because of it.
Yes. If I were an Israeli, I would be weeping over such a tragedy as his death. [/sarcasm]
but you asked for the reason and that will go far far further than because he was a 'Mohammedan'.
Of course, of course! Because Mohammedans historically have had OUTSTANDING relations with the Jews and are vehement supporters of the Jewish state! [/sarcasm]
You are a terrible person.
Again, I qualify my assertion: "In the natural order."
Sorry, but, naturally speaking, I don't really see the death of a dangerous criminal and public menace as particularly tragic.
Matt: What's the difference, Jed? Tell me, what's the difference between us and them?
Jed: Because...WE LIVE HERE! (shoots soldier)
From the original, but you get the point.
The original is pretty hypocritically hilarious ("America gets invaded by X" films are in general), but for me the 2012 remake of Red Dawn just steals the freaking cake;
I probably saw the first Red Dawn at too young an age to really appreciate the irony of it all, but the remake sure as hell brought that home All I could think on my first viewing was "there's some guy in a cave in Afghanistan somewhere giving this exact same speech and handing out TNT sweater vests"
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.
This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable
We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of German aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence.
Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity).
We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.
Well, sort of. Violence was one aspect of the solution in these instances (which would have proven fruitless if not paired with other actions...like the Marshall Plan), .
No, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of Japan were not part of the solution. They were applied after massive violence destroyed the will to fight of the Germans and the Japanese. The plans were never held out as a carrot to the stick of violence and used to 'solve' the problem of aggression. The aggression was literally beat out of them, their infrastructures massively damaged, their economies shattered, and their militaries thrashed. That is what solved their aggression. The Marshall Plan and MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan came after the aggression was stopped/solved.
Temporarily stopped/solved. Economic instability and ruination likely would have only fueled future conflict, be it in 10/15/20/30 years. These societies had to be rebuilt and basically recreated with different values. Simply killing lots of people and blowing stuff up didn't do it on its own. Blowing stuff up and killing lots of people certainly hasn't solved anything in Afghanistan in 30 years, it didn't permanently solve anything after WW1 for any of the combatants and they had to do it again, Mexico still arguably exports violence up here (just in different forms), etc.
Vaktathi wrote:Well, sort of. Violence was one aspect of the solution in these instances (which would have proven fruitless if not paired with other actions...like the Marshall Plan), and in a couple of those instances, the fundamental problems aren't solved just morphed into a new form (e.g. Bin Laden is dead...but global islamic terrorism is arguably stronger than ever).
Islamic terrorism has been around for a long time.
...
...
When did Mohammad forge his little book?
Sure, and by the same logic one can talk about "Israelite" aggression going back to antiquity and their massacre of the inhabitants of places like Jericho during their conquests, or "Christian" terrorism where Christianity was spread by the sword under the Romans, and later various other European peoples up through the middle ages and then through the renaissance and through the colonial era around the globe.
But lets not do that. I'm was clearly referencing the modern post-colonial, primarily Arab & central Asian phenomenon we know today borne largely from the ruin and breakup of the Ottoman & British empires.
Traditio wrote: Having answered that, why should Israelis be upset over the fact that he subsequently was killed (whether legally or otherwise)?
Because it undermines the rule of law and due process
Because it will help recruit and inspire the next wave of terrorists
Because it made Israel less safe
Because it undermines the claim that Israel is the most moral army on the planet
Because it is a propaganda victory for those states who would delegitimatize Israel
Because now the focus is no longer on the attackers, it is on Israel's response to them
Or any one of countless other reasons why shooting a restrained, unarmed detainee who is not actively posing a threat is a Bad Idea
Vaktathi wrote: the ruin and breakup of the Ottoman & British empires.
Terrorism as we know it today was largely born during the wars for Algeria and Lebanon. So lets add the French to that little listeroo Those are the conflicts that taught the guys who taught Bin Laden
Vaktathi wrote: the ruin and breakup of the Ottoman & British empires.
Terrorism as we know it today was largely born during the wars for Algeria and Lebanon. So lets add the French to that little listeroo Those are the conflicts that taught the guys who taught Bin Laden
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Because it undermines the rule of law and due process
That's a rather abstract reason to be upset.
As I said in reply to another poster, people get killed all the time and absolutely zero feths are given by most people.
And note, this is even when arrests and convictions are made and sentences are carried out.
You know Lt. Joseph Kenda? One of his cases comes to mind:
A black handyman murders [and rapes, as I recall, but I'm not sure] a woman and murders her children as well. Kenda investigates and gets pretty much irrefutable evidence (physical and otherwise) that the man is guilty. Case goes to trial and the stupid jurors render a "not guilty" verdict.
Later on down the line, our man gets murdered by some other bad guy and thrown out of a window.
Do you know how many feths were given by Kenda?
I'll let you guess.
[Hint: the answer is a non-decimal number less than 1.]
Do you know how many feths were given by me and practically anyone else?
Again: none. Not any. Not a single feth was given.
Because it will help recruit and inspire the next wave of terrorists
Because it made Israel less safe
Because it undermines the claim that Israel is the most moral army on the planet
Because it is a propaganda victory for those states who would delegitimatize Israel
Because now the focus is no longer on the attackers, it is on Israel's response to them
Again, all of this is really abstract and "meta" reasons for being upset.
Or any one of countless other reasons why shooting a restrained, unarmed detainee who is not actively posing a threat is a Bad Idea
As I said: meh.
Should the Israeli soldier be tried? Sure.
Should a single feth be given [in the natural order] by anyone not directly involved with the investigation? Nope.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me make my argument in slightly a different way:
The Israeli soldier has proven himself to be a criminal threat to dangerous detainees.
Achmed McStabbStabb has proven himself to be a criminal threat to representatives of the Israeli State.
Frankly, I think that one poses more of a danger to civil society than the other.
No, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of Japan were not part of the solution. They were applied after massive violence destroyed the will to fight of the Germans and the Japanese. The plans were never held out as a carrot to the stick of violence and used to 'solve' the problem of aggression. The aggression was literally beat out of them, their infrastructures massively damaged, their economies shattered, and their militaries thrashed. That is what solved their aggression. The Marshall Plan and MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan came after the aggression was stopped/solved.
This is 100% right.
And since then, worrying about the political ramifications of getting hands too dirty has led to the US to not finish off opponents ends up costing far more in the long run.
Finally, I find at least one other person sees the difference between the way we fought in WWII versus Korea, Vietnam. Desert Storm, and even Afghanistan, and the legacy of that.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Because it undermines the rule of law and due process
That's a rather abstract reason to be upset.
As I said in reply to another poster, people get killed all the time and absolutely zero feths are given by most people.
And note, this is even when arrests and convictions are made and sentences are carried out.
You know Lt. Joseph Kenda? One of his cases comes to mind:
A black handyman murders [and rapes, as I recall, but I'm not sure] a woman and murders her children as well. Kenda investigates and gets pretty much irrefutable evidence (physical and otherwise) that the man is guilty. Case goes to trial and the stupid jurors render a "not guilty" verdict.
Later on down the line, our man gets murdered by some other bad guy and thrown out of a window.
Do you know how many feths were given by Kenda?
I'll let you guess.
[Hint: the answer is a non-decimal number less than 1.]
Do you know how many feths were given by me and practically anyone else?
Again: none. Not any. Not a single feth was given.
This is one of the most impressive non sequitors that I have ever read
Because it will help recruit and inspire the next wave of terrorists
Because it made Israel less safe
Because it undermines the claim that Israel is the most moral army on the planet
Because it is a propaganda victory for those states who would delegitimatize Israel
Because now the focus is no longer on the attackers, it is on Israel's response to them
Again, all of this is really abstract and "meta" reasons for being upset.
Or any one of countless other reasons why shooting a restrained, unarmed detainee who is not actively posing a threat is a Bad Idea
As I said: meh.
Those arguments being neither abstract, nor meta. But if you insist on dismissing arguments out of hand because your best articulated rebuttal is "meh" then actual discussion seems an outside possibility.
Traditio wrote: Should a single feth be given [in the natural order] by anyone not directly involved with the investigation? Nope.
And yet here we are both discussing it. Curious
Traditio wrote: Let me make my argument in slightly a different way:
The Israeli soldier has proven himself to be a criminal threat to dangerous detainees.
Achmed McStabbStabb has proven himself to be a criminal threat to representatives of the Israeli State.
Frankly, I think that one poses more of a danger to civil society than the other.
Seeing as the soldier is still alive and has little concern for extra judicial killing you would be correct that one poses more of a danger to civil society than the other, but not the one you think
No, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of Japan were not part of the solution. They were applied after massive violence destroyed the will to fight of the Germans and the Japanese. The plans were never held out as a carrot to the stick of violence and used to 'solve' the problem of aggression. The aggression was literally beat out of them, their infrastructures massively damaged, their economies shattered, and their militaries thrashed. That is what solved their aggression. The Marshall Plan and MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan came after the aggression was stopped/solved.
This is 100% right.
Except, again, no it's not. There was a *ton* of effort put into reshaping the social and cultural structures of these nations post-war such that the drives which existed before either were not there or were channeled into other directions. Again, simply levelling stuff and killing lots of people didn't solve anything in the long run, there was a *whole* lot more to it than that.
And since then, worrying about the political ramifications of getting hands too dirty has led to the US to not finish off opponents ends up costing far more in the long run.
Finally, I find at least one other person sees the difference between the way we fought in WWII versus Korea, Vietnam. Desert Storm, and even Afghanistan, and the legacy of that.
You mean, besides completely different circumstances, goals, and rationales behind the decisions to enter such conflicts in the first place?
Vaktathi wrote: There was a *ton* of effort put into reshaping the social and cultural structures of these nations post-war such that the drives which existed before either were not there or were channeled into other directions.
One might propose the world learned something from World War I, where a bunch of countries just killed a bunch of strapping young lads and deciding taking all of Germany and Austria's gak was good enough to call "bygones." (it wasn't). Of course, the Western Allies, and the USSR, went in... slightly different directions with that nation building concept XD
No, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of Japan were not part of the solution. They were applied after massive violence destroyed the will to fight of the Germans and the Japanese. The plans were never held out as a carrot to the stick of violence and used to 'solve' the problem of aggression. The aggression was literally beat out of them, their infrastructures massively damaged, their economies shattered, and their militaries thrashed. That is what solved their aggression. The Marshall Plan and MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan came after the aggression was stopped/solved.
This is 100% right.
Except, again, no it's not. There was a *ton* of effort put into reshaping the social and cultural structures of these nations post-war such that the drives which existed before either were not there or were channeled into other directions. Again, simply levelling stuff and killing lots of people didn't solve anything in the long run, there was a *whole* lot more to it than that.
The key to why my statement is correct is highlighted. Pot-war. Period. The aggression was solved by violence, massive amounts of it. My statement was never about 'long term', it was about what solved the German and Japanese aggression. No reshaping could take place, no long term cultural structures or social norms re-made until the aggression was solved by the violence.
Bluntly, violence was not just an answer, violence was THE answer. Nothing else was gonna work.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:This is one of the most impressive non sequitors that I have ever read
So far as I can tell, your claim is that feths should be given because the killing undermines law and order.
I see no reason why we should restrict the scope of this objection to such killings are done under the color of authority.
Fact is, people illegally get killed all the time and are not causes for us to give a feth.
Essentially, you are claiming no more than: "He broke the law!"
Do you shed a tear every time somebody jaywalks?
Does it wound your heart every time somebody lights a bong?
Those arguments being neither abstract, nor meta. But if you insist on dismissing arguments out of hand because your best articulated rebuttal is "meh" then actual discussion seems an outside possibility.
The reasons you cited essentially boiled down to: "You potentially made us look bad in front of people who could, in principle, use what you did as an excuse to 'get back at us' later on."
You'll have to pardon me if I'm not quite prepared to pull out my torch and pitchfork.
Seeing as the soldier is still alive and has little concern for extra judicial killing you would be correct that one poses more of a danger to civil society than the other, but not the one you think
Given the fact that I'm not in the habit of stabbing Israeli soldiers, I'm not particularly concerned about this danger.
No, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of Japan were not part of the solution. They were applied after massive violence destroyed the will to fight of the Germans and the Japanese. The plans were never held out as a carrot to the stick of violence and used to 'solve' the problem of aggression. The aggression was literally beat out of them, their infrastructures massively damaged, their economies shattered, and their militaries thrashed. That is what solved their aggression. The Marshall Plan and MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan came after the aggression was stopped/solved.
This is 100% right.
Except, again, no it's not. There was a *ton* of effort put into reshaping the social and cultural structures of these nations post-war such that the drives which existed before either were not there or were channeled into other directions. Again, simply levelling stuff and killing lots of people didn't solve anything in the long run, there was a *whole* lot more to it than that.
The key to why my statement is correct is highlighted. Pot-war. Period. The aggression was solved by violence, massive amounts of it. My statement was never about 'long term', it was about what solved the German and Japanese aggression. No reshaping could take place, no long term cultural structures or social norms re-made until the aggression was solved by the violence.
Bluntly, violence was not just an answer, violence was THE answer. Nothing else was gonna work.
Ok, well, if we want to go off just what is happening at that moment, sure, but that's just addressing the symptoms, not the underlying root issue, and won't necessarily prevent additional violence down the road unless you're going to go the full distance and obliterate the population. One will notice that a starving, economically collapsed, and defeated-in-the-field Germany in WW1 wasn't a recipe for European peace. Violence is a *component* of the solution, not the whole solution (again, unless you're going to extirpate the population, which is another thing altogether).
Vaktathi wrote: There was a *ton* of effort put into reshaping the social and cultural structures of these nations post-war such that the drives which existed before either were not there or were channeled into other directions.
One might propose the world learned something from World War I, where a bunch of countries just killed a bunch of strapping young lads and deciding taking all of Germany and Austria's gak was good enough to call "bygones." (it wasn't). Of course, the Western Allies, and the USSR, went in... slightly different directions with that nation building concept XD
Just a wee bit. They also made the mistake in WW1 of taking the punitive route instead of the cooperative route, ensuring a much greater willingness to dive back into war in 1939, and putting the idea in the heads of the Germans that there wasn't much to be gained by quitting when it was reasonable to do so instead of fighting to the bitter end.
Eh, to be fair Germany might have surrendered (and Japan wanted to) had it not been for the Allied demand of unconditional surrender. Don't know that we really want to get into a debate about that one though. XD
Traditio wrote: So far as I can tell, your claim is that feths should be given because the killing undermines law and order.
I see no reason why we should restrict the scope of this objection to such killings are done under the color of authority.
Fact is, people illegally get killed all the time and are not causes for us to give a feth.
Essentially, you are claiming no more than: "He broke the law!"
Do you shed a tear every time somebody jaywalks?
Does it wound your heart every time somebody lights a bong?
So now you're adding strawmen to your rebuttal techniques I see. It is a little more nuanced than "He broke the law!". A citizen soldier of the state of Israel, wearing the flag of his country, and under an oath to maintain allegiance to the laws of Israel killed someone in cold blood who was restrained, and not a threat. You can attempt to compare that to jaywalking or getting stoned, but it would be a false comparison.
Traditio wrote: The reasons you cited essentially boiled down to: "You potentially made us look bad in front of people who could, in principle, use what you did as an excuse to 'get back at us' later on."
You'll have to pardon me if I'm not quite prepared to pull out my torch and pitchfork.
Just out of curiosity if the killing of someone who is restrained and poses no threat doesn't provoke a reaction what would?
Traditio wrote: Given the fact that I'm not in the habit of stabbing Israeli soldiers, I'm not particularly concerned about this danger.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:So now you're adding strawmen to your rebuttal techniques I see. It is a little more nuanced than "He broke the law!"
You asserted, so far as I understood you, that his actions undermined law and order.
By definition, so does every crime.
A citizen soldier of the state of Israel, wearing the flag of his country, and under an oath to maintain allegiance to the laws of Israel killed someone in cold blood who was restrained, and not a threat.
Even ignoring the fact that the restrained person who was "not a threat" just stabbed a soldier, I simply can't bring myself to see this as something that the common Israeli should care about.
It's not like he shot the [in effect] prisoner of war and is getting off scot-free. He's under investigation.
It would be like the Black Lives Matter people protesting over a policeman killing an unarmed black criminal in cold blood...and then subsequently being arrested and investigated by his (or some other) department.
Given all of that, I don't see anything to be upset about.
You can attempt to compare that to jaywalking or getting stoned, but it would be a false comparison.
The comparison is with respect to the undermining of law. Jaywalkers and stoners, in virtue of their commission of acts which are contrary to the letter of the law, undermine, to that extent, law and order.
And I still don't care all that much about them.
Just out of curiosity if the killing of someone who is restrained and poses no threat doesn't provoke a reaction what would?
How about killing someone who is restrained, poses no immediate threat and is innocent?
Traditio wrote: Given the fact that I'm not in the habit of stabbing Israeli soldiers, I'm not particularly concerned about this danger.
**sound of goalposts being dragged**
Ok. Let me reword that:
Given the fact that Israelis generally aren't in the habit of stabbing Israeli soldiers, I can understand why they don't really give a feth about this "danger" to their civil society.
DutchWinsAll wrote:LOL at trying to backpedal on the Johnny Rebel line.
I'm not backpedaling on the Johnny Rebel line. I love his music. The music is fantastic and the I find the lyrics to be intensely amusing.
That said:
I wasn't talking about black people. I'm talking about Muslims.
So you're a fan of his lyrics like this, guessing that a lot of it will be blocked:
Roses are red, and violet's are blue
And [see forum posting rules]'s are black, you know that's true
But they don't mind, cause what the heck!
You gotta be black to get a welfare check!
And I'm broke...no joke
I ain't got a nickel for a coke!
And I ain't black, you see
So Uncle Sam won't help poor [see forum posting rules]-hatin' me.
Jig-A-Boo, jig-a-boo...where are you?
I's here in the woodpile...watchin' you
Jig-A-Boo, jig-a-boo...come out!
No! Cause I'm scared of the white man's a-way down South
You know it!...cause I show it.
Stick your black head out and I'll blow it!
And the NAACP
Can't keep you away from little old [see forum posting rules]-hatin' me!
Truly great stuff man, you've got some deep thoughts there.
I'm simply shocked, shocked I say, that you're anti-Muslim.
DutchWinsAll wrote:So you're a fan of his lyrics like this
Yes.
I would like to note the following:
1. This entire line of conversation is a de-rail from the initial thread topic and I strongly recommend discontinuing this line of conversation. Even more so since I only initially brought up Johnny Rebel's lyrics in an emended form to address the Mohammedan problem.
2. Given the fact that I specifically emended the lyrics to deal with the Mohammedan problem, I can't help note the sheer liberal bigotry in calling me out and shaming me based purely on my musical preferences. You don't like Johnny Rebel? That's fine. I do. Even if you're black, so what? Why on earth would you care what I listen to in the privacy of my own home, on my own time? If you tell me that I posted racist song lyrics, then I'll tell you that I posted an emended version of those lyrics wholly denuded of the original racism. I didn't even bother posting the song title.
The fact that you take offense to the mere mention of the man's name...but you accuse him of being a bigot, I'm sure.
3. Have you actually bothered listening to the song, part of the lyrics of which you posted? The music and the way that he sings it is fantastic. Even if you're black, I bet that you'll be tapping your foot to it.
Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.
At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.
Palestine elected Hamas.....
Indeed, after Hamas was sponsored by Israel as a more hardline, strictly religious alternative to the increasingly moderate PLO. That worked much better than they had expected or wanted.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:So now you're adding strawmen to your rebuttal techniques I see. It is a little more nuanced than "He broke the law!"
You asserted, so far as I understood you, that his actions undermined law and order.
By definition, so does every crime.
There is a world of difference between the actions of a private citizen, and one in uniform sworn to uphold those laws.
Traditio wrote: Even ignoring the fact that the restrained person who was "not a threat" just stabbed a soldier, I simply can't bring myself to see this as something that the common Israeli should care about.
I'm unclear as to what part of the fact that the prisoner was restrained and posed no risk to the soldier you are having difficulty with. I have already outlined why the common Israeli should care. You replied "meh".
Traditio wrote: It's not like he shot the [in effect] prisoner of war and is getting off scot-free. He's under investigation.
It would be like the Black Lives Matter people protesting over a policeman killing an unarmed black criminal in cold blood...and then subsequently being arrested and investigated by his (or some other) department.
Given all of that, I don't see anything to be upset about.
So when in your world should protesters have a right to protest? Surely you can see the contradiction in believing that this soldier can act with legal impunity, execute people extra-judicially and that no one should care, but the people should have faith that the legal system works
Traditio wrote: The comparison is with respect to the undermining of law. Jaywalkers and stoners, in virtue of their commission of acts which are contrary to the letter of the law, undermine, to that extent, law and order.
And I still don't care all that much about them.
The comparison is still false. The only way that your comparison would be accurate is if it is a DEA agent charged with enforcing drug laws toking.
Traditio wrote: How about killing someone who is restrained, poses no immediate threat and is innocent?
So the deceased detainee was given a fair trial in front a properly constituted court, and sentenced in accordance with the law of the land? Silly me, I thought that he was shot while being detained.
Traditio wrote: Ok. Let me reword that:
Given the fact that Israelis generally aren't in the habit of stabbing Israeli soldiers, I can understand why they don't really give a feth about this "danger" to their civil society.
Again, I outlined the reasons for this. Your response to legitimate concerns was "meh"
Vaktathi wrote: Except, again, no it's not. There was a *ton* of effort put into reshaping the social and cultural structures of these nations post-war such that the drives which existed before either were not there or were channeled into other directions. Again, simply levelling stuff and killing lots of people didn't solve anything in the long run, there was a *whole* lot more to it than that. . . . You mean, besides completely different circumstances, goals, and rationales behind the decisions to enter such conflicts in the first place?
Yes, the original point was that in WWII, Germany was beat down to the point of exhaustion, and so was Japan. There was never any insurrection, or anything to interrupt the post war environment. Everyone could mostly focus on rebuilding. Yes, the cold war followed, but that was a separate conflict in itself.
Korea was treated as it was called - a police action. North Korea was beaten down, and exhausted, and had China not entered the war, there would be a single, democratic Korea today. However, when China did enter the war, the US didn't treat China as the aggressor that it was. It didn't officially attack China in response. The UN basically sat back and took whatever punches China decided to throw. The result? That half-measured response left the Korean legacy we still have today. China was never beat down to the point of exhaustion.
Similar things in Vietnam. The US for the most part fought a reactionary guerrilla war against the VC, who were being supported by North Vietnam, who didn't actually send in regular troops. However, once the NV started sending regular troops, the US still fought a reactionary war, holding off attacking the source of their problems directly except for a few bombing campaigns that ALWAYS brought NV to the peace talks. The result, Vietnam was never beat down to the point of exhaustion.
Same applies to Desert Storm. Politics as usual prevented the US from finishing the job, and left behind a mess it had to go back and try to finish, only to completely screw up that aftermath, in which it did not beat down the insurgents either. There were a few open battles where the US let loose like Fallujah, but that didnt look nice on the evening news, so those kinds of events were kept at a minimum. The insurgents in Iraq were never beat down to the point of exhaustion.
And the same for the Taliban.
It sucks, but you can't fight a war with one hand behind your back and hope for complete victory. Most of the time, politicians seem to direct the military to accomplish limited military goals in hopes of achieving the most objectives they can with as little loss as possible, not realizing that this is far more expensive in the long run. Had we shown China we were willing to go all the way, Korea would look very different today. Had we let loose on North Vietnam, Vietnam would look very different today. Had we finished off Saddam in the Gulf War, there would have been no 2003 invasion. Had the US committed all of its resources in Afghanistan, there would be no Taliban today.
Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.
At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.
Palestine elected Hamas.....
Indeed, after Hamas was sponsored by Israel as a more hardline, strictly religious alternative to the increasingly moderate PLO. That worked much better than they had expected or wanted.
Did you even read those articles or did you just read the first two lines?
I read them and they backed up his assertion that:
Indeed, after Hamas was sponsored by Israel as a more hardline, strictly religious alternative to the increasingly moderate PLO. That worked much better than they had expected or wanted.
Did you even read those articles or did you just read the first two lines?
I read them and they backed up his assertion that:
Indeed, after Hamas was sponsored by Israel as a more hardline, strictly religious alternative to the increasingly moderate PLO. That worked much better than they had expected or wanted.
Or the fact that in the third article it never says that, just using hamas as a foil to punish PLO for the infitada
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.
This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable
We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of German aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence.
Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity).
We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.
You're right, I should have written "violence alone" as opposed to "violence".
Judging by the fact that ISIS exists you didn't exactly solve the bin Laden issue just because you shot him though.
ISIL is not AQ. IN fact in certain regions they are fighting each other.
Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.
At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.
Palestine elected Hamas.....
Indeed, after Hamas was sponsored by Israel as a more hardline, strictly religious alternative to the increasingly moderate PLO. That worked much better than they had expected or wanted.
Are you suggesting Israel sponsored Hamas? A known anti-Semitic terrorist organization? To what end? To destroy themselves?
The question OT I have to ask is, why do none of the Israelis I see not have the Tavor? Come on guys, thats a righteous bang stick.
The Galil was supposed to be the Israeli service rifle years ago. The Tavor was supposed to be the service rifle too. Its replacement the Micro Tavor is what's currently meant to be universally used.
Apart from good old Colt had to stick its finger in, just like what they did with the US when they wanted to adopt a new service rifle.
Despite the Israelis officially adopting their own manufactured rifles, by and large a lot of their soldiers carry about M4s and M16 variants. The M16s are surplus from the US and used by the reserves, whilst IIRC they bought the M4s new. As a bonus the American guns have a different format of magazine to the Tavors, so they take the dummy mags the reservists use better (though speaking of those, IIRC those are being replaced with straight chamber cutoffs which are a bit more universal).
On which note, the Israeli minis I'm sculpting right now all have M16s, though they're second line units. Mike Bravo Miniature's new IDF all have Tavors (they're coming out with M4 shorties and Galils eventually).
There's a little fact twisting going on here. Did Israel support "Hamas"?
Short version; this is standard counter insurgency. Have a group of non-state actors you don't like? Find some other group of non-state actors to help you feth them up, and by feth them up I don't just mean with guns and bombs. Israel supported an organization called Mujama al-Islamiya, a charity that operated in Gaza in conjunction with the Muslim Brotherhood (which Israel during the 70s saw as a fairly benign and unaggressive organization because well, it was). Israel gave them money, supplies, and general preferential treatment throughout the late 70s and early 80s. They did this because they hoped moving in non-secular Islamist groups would undermine the PLO (which was secular), erode its support, and make them less of a problem. Israel's support however, ended up being used to buy guns and bomb making supplies and members of Mujama led by Ahmed Yassin in 1987 formed Hamas.
So, yes and no. Israel supported an organization that they saw as benign, and at first was, and this backfired on them a decade later when members of that group formed Hamas. Of course in 1987, Hamas wasn't as powerful as it is today and we can't really fault Israel because I don't think they could have seen this coming. It's not like they're the first country to ever shoot themselves in the foot in the long run playing a short run game. Remember this guy? Yeah. Thank the CIA for him living long enough to become a brutal dictator.
I was gonna write a long version of this story, because it's very interesting how Israel "created" Hamas during the First Intifada, but now I'm too lazy to write it out.
To destroy themselves?
To be fair, I doubt Israel was setting out to replace the PLO with someone much, MUCH worse. They just wanted to undermine the PLO, improve their PR, and honestly probably make things a bit better in the occupied territories. It's not like Israeli's are heartless. Their government just promotes a heartless foreign police
There are Laws in place. In military justice with a overview of Geneva Convention. Actually. A country can just meet the standards that are in place and/or exceed the standards. Its unacceptable to go below standards. The action one individual does not condemned the entire nation. The individual took it upon himself to opt a wounded out. US Marine Corp had a similar incident when one of their Marines opted out a wounded insurgent. On video. One see the left hand raise in surrender but movement on the right hand indicated otherwise. Marine shot the Insurgent. Video evidence shows him opting out a wounded Insurgent. Evidence afterwards proved the Marine made the right choice.
How about we wait and see what the "JAG" version of the IDF comes out with.
There are Laws in place. In military justice with a overview of Geneva Convention. Actually. A country can just meet the standards that are in place and/or exceed the standards. Its unacceptable to go below standards. The action one individual does not condemned the entire nation. The individual took it upon himself to opt a wounded out. US Marine Corp had a similar incident when one of their Marines opted out a wounded insurgent. On video. One see the left hand raise in surrender but movement on the right hand indicated otherwise. Marine shot the Insurgent. Video evidence shows him opting out a wounded Insurgent. Evidence afterwards proved the Marine made the right choice.
How about we wait and see what the "JAG" version of the IDF comes out with.
Are you suggesting Israel sponsored Hamas? A known anti-Semitic terrorist organization? To what end? To destroy themselves?
Replace Israel with America and Hamas with al-Qaeda and you should have an answer to that question.
America just didn't realize the jihad they were funding in Afghanistan would come back to bite them when the Soviets collapsed. And we absolutely helped the jihad. Not even indirectly, totally directly.We allowed the Pakistani ISI dictate to whom our billions of dollars and weapons went to. They picked Hekmatyar, so we picked Hekmatyar, They were anti-Tajik Massoud, so we were anti-Massoud. We knew rich Persian Gulf sheiks were funding radical Islamism, but hey, they were anti-Soviet. We just never stopped to think that their anti-Soviet doctrine was based on their view of us as atheists too. We absolutely funded the takfiri school of Islam, and are paying for it now.
Communism was the enemy then, not Islamism. Now Islamism is the enemy, and Communism is kinda meh.
It's just sooooo much easier to get indignant over someone killing in the name of a religion instead of the name of a state for some reason.
Radical Islanism. Got what your saying Dutch. Just pointed it out I know where you are going. Pretty much hopefully I stopped the broad stroke jumpers who may/may not flame you of blaming Islam as a whole
Edit
Also very recently found out from a Pakistani individual what the script means.
!
