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.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I have tremendous sympathy for rebellions that target economic and government targets (such as the IRA under Sinn Fein)- I have nothing but condemnation for any organization that targets random civilians exclusively.

That would be the IRA that planted bombs in pubs and murdered young women for asking for directions from a soldier?

Any armed resistance will naturally devolve over time as others join the fray and the losing side gets more desperate.

The Weather Underground in the United States represents a very acute and small sampling of an organization that actually achieved their result of targeting organizations related to the government (for war protest purposes) without causing civilian casualties.

Although after their stint as far left activists, several members did have a run in with a Brinks truck.

 Frazzled wrote:

It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.

So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.

No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?

 Frazzled wrote:

It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.

So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.

Nah, B52's would probably still be way too modern. Anything that can fly is a no-no.

Isreal will have to use good old fashioned trebuchets to bomb Gaza. With plague infected pigs...
Say yay to the trebuchet!

 dæl wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I have tremendous sympathy for rebellions that target economic and government targets (such as the IRA under Sinn Fein)- I have nothing but condemnation for any organization that targets random civilians exclusively.

That would be the IRA that planted bombs in pubs and murdered young women for asking for directions from a soldier?

Rebellions cause civilian casualties. When you employ people willing to fight for their beliefs against the government, you can't expect much restraint at the individual level. I would argue that you have to look at an organization's policies rather than the individual incidents to establish whether the organization is targeting the government or the population. Both of those incidents are terrible, and I would much rather have no violence or deaths at all- but if violence must be used, let it be directed against government and economic targets. I would argue that an armed rebellion ought to target the government, and not the population as a means of altering governmental policy. And while a degree of sheltering within the local population is to be expected, armed action should only be engaged in when combatants are not in neutral homes or areas.

They are the messiest and worst of conflicts, and no one comes out as the good guy.

 dæl wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I have tremendous sympathy for rebellions that target economic and government targets (such as the IRA under Sinn Fein)- I have nothing but condemnation for any organization that targets random civilians exclusively.

That would be the IRA that planted bombs in pubs and murdered young women for asking for directions from a soldier?

but you're ok with Hamas kidnapping and murdering teenage boys?

He said that where?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
He said that where?

Clearly anyone who disapproves of Israeli policy wants the terrorists to win.

Well, that's a position only a fething idiot could hold.

Gitzbitah wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I have tremendous sympathy for rebellions that target economic and government targets (such as the IRA under Sinn Fein)- I have nothing but condemnation for any organization that targets random civilians exclusively.

That would be the IRA that planted bombs in pubs and murdered young women for asking for directions from a soldier?

Rebellions cause civilian casualties. When you employ people willing to fight for their beliefs against the government, you can't expect much restraint at the individual level. I would argue that you have to look at an organization's policies rather than the individual incidents to establish whether the organization is targeting the government or the population. Both of those incidents are terrible, and I would much rather have no violence or deaths at all- but if violence must be used, let it be directed against government and economic targets. I would argue that an armed rebellion ought to target the government, and not the population as a means of altering governmental policy. And while a degree of sheltering within the local population is to be expected, armed action should only be engaged in when combatants are not in neutral homes or areas.

They are the messiest and worst of conflicts, and no one comes out as the good guy.

Hamas have very little chance of targeting anything, a large proportion of strikes they launch never even make it to the border. I do not support the acts of terror by Hamas, however you cannot equate terrorists with a supposedly civilised state. Gaza has no army, no air force, no navy, they are a refugee population in their own lands who are attacked by a modern military without any means of defending themselves. That is a very tenuous definition of a war.

Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I have tremendous sympathy for rebellions that target economic and government targets (such as the IRA under Sinn Fein)- I have nothing but condemnation for any organization that targets random civilians exclusively.

That would be the IRA that planted bombs in pubs and murdered young women for asking for directions from a soldier?

but you're ok with Hamas kidnapping and murdering teenage boys?

Please quote where I said anything in support of Hamas attacking Israeli civilians.

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.

So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.

No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?

If they don't want to die they shouldn't elect a group that believes in exterminating the other side.
Sorry what was your argument again?

Here's the fun part - why are they shooting at Israel again?
I Israel does what you say they want will they quit shooting rockets at Israel? What if they don't? Can Israel go Dresden on Gaza?
What does Israel get in return?
Why doesn't Egypt take back Gaza? It is after all, Eyptian territory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
He said that where?

He's supporting the Gazans. The Gazans elected Hamas. Hamas, in addition to firing rockets daily and hiding those rockets in hospitals and schools, recently kidnapped and killed three teenagers. You know, the third that started this most recent round of fun time.

Inversely, Israel also has blood on its hands in a myriad of ways.

But when you say, Hey if Israel just lets go completely of Gaza will that work? Then you get the "no all the Israelis need to leave crowd." And we're back to bombing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Please quote where I said anything in support of Hamas attacking Israeli civilians.

YOU JUST DID.
"derp they're not targetting anything, they're just launching rockets that mostly get intercepted derp"

Dude they shot rockets at a NUCLEAR REACTOR. Even Zombie Stalin knew not to do that.

Again. What exactly does Hamas want, besides the destruction of Israel?

This is why we wshould stay out of it, of the whole area frankly.

"Shouldn't have elected Hamas".

Yeah, I'm sure everyone voted for them.

And even then that doesn't justify mass murder.

 LordofHats wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
He said that where?

Clearly anyone who disapproves of Israeli policy wants the terrorists to win.

Ya know... we could almost have this thing play out inside a large building.. the Palestinians take it over, grabbing hostages, including one off-duty Jewish detective's estranged wife (he happens to be in town visiting her, trying to patch up their marriage). Of course, these terrorists don't get him, and he's able to crawl through airshafts and other parts of the building to take out the Terrorist group-members one by one, until eventually, he meets the Leader of the Terrorists and they fight resulting in the Terrorist being thrown from the building to his death.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Ya know... we could almost have this thing play out inside a large building.. the Palestinians take it over, grabbing hostages, including one off-duty Jewish detective's estranged wife (he happens to be in town visiting her, trying to patch up their marriage). Of course, these terrorists don't get him, and he's able to crawl through airshafts and other parts of the building to take out the Terrorist group-members one by one, until eventually, he meets the Leader of the Terrorists and they fight resulting in the Terrorist being thrown from the building to his death.

I see what you did there;

 Frazzled wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.

So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.

No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?

If they don't want to die they shouldn't elect a group that believes in exterminating the other side.

If Israel didn't want to face rocket attacks perhaps they shouldn't elect people like Michael Ben-Ari who claimed “There are no innocents in Gaza … mow them (all) down”. Or Moshe Feiglin who offered this "solution" to the conflict. Perhaps the Jerusalem Post shouldn't publish things like this.

Sorry what was your argument again?

Two state solution, withdrawal to the original borders by Israel and an end to the blockade. But I suppose that means I support terrorists or am an anti-semite or something.

Here's the fun part - why are they shooting at Israel again?

I Israel does what you say they want will they quit shooting rockets at Israel?

The leaked documents from 2011 say so yes.

What if they don't? Can Israel go Dresden on Gaza?

Is that what you think they should do? Firebomb over a million people, most under the age of 18?

What does Israel get in return?

They get peace, and they get to stop committing war crimes.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
He said that where?

He's supporting the Gazans. The Gazans elected Hamas.

How many years ago? Because the majority of Gazans no longer support the rocket attacks, conversely the majority of Israelis support an even more extreme bombing campaign against Gaza.

Hamas, in addition to firing rockets daily and hiding those rockets in hospitals and schools, recently kidnapped and killed three teenagers. You know, the third that started this most recent round of fun time.

The IDF have been kidnapping and torturing children for years, as was outlined in last years UN report. Notice how I didn't naturally assume you supported these actions just because you support Israel, guess I must be doing this wrong.

But when you say, Hey if Israel just lets go completely of Gaza will that work? Then you get the "no all the Israelis need to leave crowd." And we're back to bombing.

Again, please quote where I have said all Israelis need to leave Israel. You know, this could work better if you respond to what I actually say.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
He said that where?

Clearly anyone who disapproves of Israeli policy wants the terrorists to win.

Ya know... we could almost have this thing play out inside a large building.. the Palestinians take it over, grabbing hostages, including one off-duty Jewish detective's estranged wife (he happens to be in town visiting her, trying to patch up their marriage). Of course, these terrorists don't get him, and he's able to crawl through airshafts and other parts of the building to take out the Terrorist group-members one by one, until eventually, he meets the Leader of the Terrorists and they fight resulting in the Terrorist being thrown from the building to his death.

And then both sides start shooting random innocents.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
"Shouldn't have elected Hamas".

Yeah, I'm sure everyone voted for them.

And even then that doesn't justify mass murder.

As soon as there is mass murder we'll be the first to know about it.

Frazzled wrote:

Please quote where I said anything in support of Hamas attacking Israeli civilians.

YOU JUST DID.
"derp they're not targetting anything, they're just launching rockets that mostly get intercepted derp"

Dude they shot rockets at a NUCLEAR REACTOR. Even Zombie Stalin knew not to do that.

Again. What exactly does Hamas want, besides the destruction of Israel?

This is why we wshould stay out of it, of the whole area frankly.

Except he didn't say that. He said that the majority of their attacks don't reach Israel and that due to the technology they cannot target with any accuracy.

dæl wrote:Hamas have very little chance of targeting anything, a large proportion of strikes they launch never even make it to the border. I do not support the acts of terror by Hamas, however you cannot equate terrorists with a supposedly civilised state. Gaza has no army, no air force, no navy, they are a refugee population in their own lands who are attacked by a modern military without any means of defending themselves. That is a very tenuous definition of a war.

How many Israeli civilians have died due to Hamas' random rocket attacks?
And now how many Gaza civilians have died due to Israel's targeted strikes?

Two state solution, withdrawal to the original borders by Israel and an end to the blockade. But I suppose that means I support terrorists or am an anti-semite or something.

They tried that with Arafat. the PLO said no.

Hamas's stated goal is the extermination of Israel, not "two states." Thats kind of hard to negotiate over.

 Frazzled wrote:

Two state solution, withdrawal to the original borders by Israel and an end to the blockade. But I suppose that means I support terrorists or am an anti-semite or something.

They tried that with Arafat. the PLO said no.

Hamas's stated goal is the extermination of Israel, not "two states." Thats kind of hard to negotiate over.

Ah yes, because something which didn't work 10 years ago couldn't possibly work now. It's such a shame that politics never changes.

 Frazzled wrote:


They tried that with Arafat. the PLO said no.

Um, no. Israel and the PLO came to terms in 2002. Israel refused to abide by the most basic element of the agreement; to stop building settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. It shouldn't be a shock that when the PLO tried to maintain the agreement as best they could and got nothing for it, radicals like Hamas managed to jump up and take over. Today Fatah as a group still gets called collaborators even by Palestinians who don't support Hamas.

Israel lost the legitimacy of being able to say "we tried to do this peacefully" in 2002. They've never approached the peace process with honesty.

 Frazzled wrote:

Please quote where I said anything in support of Hamas attacking Israeli civilians.

YOU JUST DID.
"derp they're not targetting anything, they're just launching rockets that mostly get intercepted derp"

Is that a direct quote is it? Besides which that isn't supporting Hamas, it was explaining why they don't target military facilities. Did you actually not understand that or did you intentionally misquote me?

What exactly does Hamas want, besides the destruction of Israel?

Withdrawal to the 1967 borders, as was outlined in 2006 and again in 2011

This is why we wshould stay out of it, of the whole area frankly.

I wish you would too, Israel might be more inclined to pursue peace if they lacked US support.

I wish you would too, Israel might be more inclined to pursue peace if they lacked US support.

Honestly, I highly doubt that.

 LordofHats wrote:

I wish you would too, Israel might be more inclined to pursue peace if they lacked US support.

Honestly, I highly doubt that.

Economic sanctions may force their hand, they would lack the veto they effectively have in the UN.

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.

So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.

No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?

Forced by whom?

The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.

But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?

 dæl wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

I wish you would too, Israel might be more inclined to pursue peace if they lacked US support.

Honestly, I highly doubt that.

Economic sanctions may force their hand, they would lack the veto they effectively have in the UN.

They have no veto in the UN, as the US alone can't veto anything. France, Russia, and China are typically against Israel, with Britain as a swing vote. If we can count on anyone not to cut Israel slack, it's the UN (because Israel is like, the only country in the world the UN is ever actually bothering go after for anything).

When it comes to the UN the US and Israel have barely made any progress.

It's become painfully apparent the last 10 years that Israel will never leave the West Bank on its own. It'll take a lot more than losing US support to get them to change the current course they're on. Our support for them isn't small but it's not necessary for them. They've made a point of assure the self-sufficiency of their military. They can get by without my government's help just fine. Economic sanctions are kind of a joke. They haven't stopped Iran, North Korea, or anyone really. When a country is dead set on its ideological course costing them money is just taken as a cost of achieving the goal.

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.

So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.

No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?

Forced by whom?

The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.

But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?

You do know there is a blockade which prevents basic provisions from getting into Gaza right? That 30% of people's earnings are spent on getting clean water after all their wells were bulldozed or bombed? That people are dying because the basic medical supplies are lacking.

As I pointed out by linking articles above, Israelis are just as guilty of calling for genocide, and Hamas are actually willing to engage in a peace process.

Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It doesn't, however using modern weaponry to launch air strikes against what is essentially an open air prison that you have crippled economically, whilst actively targeting water supplies and humanitarian centres. That makes you immoral.

So you'd be ok if they used B52's to carpet bomb Gaza then? Your argument holds no merit.

No, I'd be ok when the people of Gaza aren't forced to live in abject poverty and are not bombed at all. Sorry what was your argument again?

Forced by whom?

The Hamas leaders are living in Luxury.

But, when one sides want the other side to be eradicated... what's the point?

Well, if Israel stopped killing peoples mums and dads and brothers and sisters and instead worked to improve the situation in the strip then Hamas might not get so much support.

"Lets kill the other guy because he's killing us" is a lot more catchy than "Lets kill the other guy who is giving us medical aid and food and schools and all round being quite nice, actually"

Hearts and Minds and all that.

Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?

A combination of the Christian Right and the conservative value of a strong national defense combined together to create some amazing things sometimes.

 LordofHats wrote:

Can someone please explain to me why so many US citizens are so unwavering in their support of Israel?

A combination of the Christian Right and the conservative value of a strong national defense combined together to create some amazing things sometimes.

Someone should probably tell them that Israel is Jewish