Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

Probably deserving of its own thread really.

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.

**sound of goalposts being dragged**

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.

Traditio wrote:

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.

Last in thread warning. Topic and politeness, neither are negotiable. Just because someone else goes off topic doesn't mean they have to be followed.

 Ustrello wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How very Republican of you.

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.

Yeah you are about 90 percent wrong there

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/16447/Default.aspx

http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/middle-east/israeli-palestinian-relations/wikileaks-israel-actively-supported-hamas-6980

etc etc

Traditio wrote:

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"

Dreadclaw nailed it. If nothing else actions like this hurt the Israeli cause more than Hamas could ever reasonably hope to.

 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.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How very Republican of you.

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.

Yeah you are about 90 percent wrong there

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/16447/Default.aspx

http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/middle-east/israeli-palestinian-relations/wikileaks-israel-actively-supported-hamas-6980

etc etc

Did you even read those articles or did you just read the first two lines?

 Ustrello wrote:


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.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:


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:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 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.

I believe that they meant more that cutting the head of of AQ meant that IS grew in its place.

The violence of attacking AQ merely served to provide a power vacuum and the civilian casualties necessary for IS to rise to its current position.

edited at mod request.

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.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How very Republican of you.

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?

 Frazzled wrote:
edited at mod request.

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).

 Xenomancers wrote:

Are you suggesting Israel sponsored Hamas?

You'd be surprised the things some states do.

To what end?

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

It is a disgusting incident in the OP, but in all fairness to the Israelis this is a rogue soldier and the Israeli police have arrested him.

I'm going to speak from experience.

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.

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm going to speak from experience.

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.

Great point.

 Frazzled wrote:
edited at mod request.

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.

It is, but then they released the X95 which is everything the Tavor should have been from the start.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

"Blast"