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.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also you don't deserve to be shot according to the law.

I don't care what the law says, I am just making the point that by throwing rocks and firebombs, you are trying to inflict harm. They are using rocks and firebombs not because they want to protest in a more peaceful means, but because those are the best weapons that can find. If they had mortars and RPGs they would be protesting with those.

If I were protesting against US Law enforcement, you know what I wouldn't do? Throw rocks at them. Especially if they are out in force with shotguns and M-4s. If I inflict harm, I expect to have harm inflicted back to me. But following this idea of not applying excessive force, you are actually encouraging them to keep going and going until the point of no return is met anyway.

Protest peacefully. If you go violent, expect violence in return.

Mortars and RPGs? A bit dramatic? You could make that argument for every violent riot, yet it still doesn't end up a bloody massacre each time. Not everyone is as rational as you are, but then again you haven't been in a gak situation for most of your life as a second class citizen with no future, so apples and oranges.

So we should apply excessive force in every conflict? Frazzled is right with his nuke them argument?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Mortars and RPGs? A bit dramatic?

I am sorry, are we talking about the same people here? The ones that were launching rockets into Israel not too long ago? Or another group of people?

Quit trying to isolate and judge each individual action and pointing the blame. This has been one continuous fight for the last 2000 years and will continue for the next 2000 years no matter where the US Embassy is.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also you don't deserve to be shot according to the law.

I don't care what the law says, I am just making the point that by throwing rocks and firebombs, you are trying to inflict harm. They are using rocks and firebombs not because they want to protest in a more peaceful means, but because those are the best weapons that can find. If they had mortars and RPGs they would be protesting with those.

If I were protesting against US Law enforcement, you know what I wouldn't do? Throw rocks at them. Especially if they are out in force with shotguns and M-4s. If I inflict harm, I expect to have harm inflicted back to me. But following this idea of not applying excessive force, you are actually encouraging them to keep going and going until the point of no return is met anyway.

Protest peacefully. If you go violent, expect violence in return.

Mortars and RPGs? A bit dramatic? You could make that argument for every violent riot, yet it still doesn't end up a bloody massacre each time. Not everyone is as rational as you are, but then again you haven't been in a gak situation for most of your life as a second class citizen with no future, so apples and oranges.

So we should apply excessive force in every conflict? Frazzled is right with his nuke them argument?

You mean Hamas right?

Well, it hasnt really been a continuous fight for 2000 years, more like about 70, maybe 100 or so if you want to include neighborhood riots going back to Ottoman times, but thats stretching it. Conflict in the region has been eternal, but the modern situation with current actors is one produced very much in the last century or so.

As for the rockets and mortars, more people were killed in these protests in one day than Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks have killed in 17 years.

jouso wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
That is true - They could use a sonic or microwave crowd dispersing device.

That's what the UN should do - provide to tools to break these crowds without killing them. Right now I am sure Israel is happy to utilize the tools they have without paying for expensive new tech in all their boarder units.

Israeli police and IDF are quite able to use non-lethal means whenever it's citizens involved.




Subjects get another kind of treatment, though.

Water cannons would not be effective here - truck mounted water cannons have an effective range of about 25 meters - which is throwing range for a grenade (the idea is not to endanger yourself) - they would also have to go over onto the other side of the wall to use them (not ideal). You end up providing drinking water for the riot too (not ideal). They could mount them directly on the wall - but this would be a very expensive endeavor - they'd still have to get tons of water to repel these rioters. There are lots of much more effective methods to disperse crowds without causing any harm. Microwave emitors with a certain frequency can make a crowd of 1000 people feel like they are on fire - but they will never actually burn - that's what I would probably go for in this situation if I was on the Israeli border protection team.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also you don't deserve to be shot according to the law.

I don't care what the law says, I am just making the point that by throwing rocks and firebombs, you are trying to inflict harm. They are using rocks and firebombs not because they want to protest in a more peaceful means, but because those are the best weapons that can find. If they had mortars and RPGs they would be protesting with those.

If I were protesting against US Law enforcement, you know what I wouldn't do? Throw rocks at them. Especially if they are out in force with shotguns and M-4s. If I inflict harm, I expect to have harm inflicted back to me. But following this idea of not applying excessive force, you are actually encouraging them to keep going and going until the point of no return is met anyway.

Protest peacefully. If you go violent, expect violence in return.

Broadly speaking, US police dont respond to rock throwing by killing 60 people and injuring thousands more

Indeed. And they shouldn't. Nor should any police (or military) force. Some people here need to look up the word 'disproportional' in the dictionary. If someone bloodies your nose in a bar brawl and you respond by grabbing your shotgun and blasting his head off, you are going to jail for murder, despite the fact that the guy hit you. If some rioters throw rocks at you, you'd use water cannons or other non-lethal means to disperse them, not rifles and machine guns. Israel perfectly understands this when it is angry Jews who are throwing rocks. But when an angry Palestinian kid throws a rock he gets riddled with bullets. Israel is easily the most racist state since WW2. Apartheid South Africa has many similarities to Israel, but it wasn't anywhere near this bad.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, it hasnt really been a continuous fight for 2000 years, more like about 70, maybe 100 or so if you want to include neighborhood riots going back to Ottoman times, but thats stretching it. Conflict in the region has been eternal, but the modern situation with current actors is one produced very much in the last century or so.

As for the rockets and mortars, more people were killed in these protests in one day than Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks have killed in 17 years.

I'm sure nether side thinks about it that way. There have been Jews and Muslims fighting here for millennia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Also you don't deserve to be shot according to the law.

I don't care what the law says, I am just making the point that by throwing rocks and firebombs, you are trying to inflict harm. They are using rocks and firebombs not because they want to protest in a more peaceful means, but because those are the best weapons that can find. If they had mortars and RPGs they would be protesting with those.

If I were protesting against US Law enforcement, you know what I wouldn't do? Throw rocks at them. Especially if they are out in force with shotguns and M-4s. If I inflict harm, I expect to have harm inflicted back to me. But following this idea of not applying excessive force, you are actually encouraging them to keep going and going until the point of no return is met anyway.

Protest peacefully. If you go violent, expect violence in return.

Broadly speaking, US police dont respond to rock throwing by killing 60 people and injuring thousands more

Indeed. And they shouldn't. Nor should any police (or military) force. Some people here need to look up the word 'disproportional' in the dictionary. If someone bloodies your nose in a bar brawl and you respond by grabbing your shotgun and blasting his head off, you are going to jail for murder, despite the fact that the guy hit you. If some rioters throw rocks at you, you'd use water cannons or other non-lethal means to disperse them, not rifles and machine guns. Israel perfectly understands this when it is angry Jews who are throwing rocks. But when an angry Palestinian kid throws a rock he gets riddled with bullets. Israel is easily the most racist state since WW2. Apartheid South Africa has many similarities to Israel, but it wasn't anywhere near this bad.

Yes but what about when they start throwing grenades?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, it hasnt really been a continuous fight for 2000 years, more like about 70, maybe 100 or so if you want to include neighborhood riots going back to Ottoman times, but thats stretching it. Conflict in the region has been eternal, but the modern situation with current actors is one produced very much in the last century or so.

As for the rockets and mortars, more people were killed in these protests in one day than Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks have killed in 17 years.

I'm sure nether side thinks about it that way. There have been Jews and Muslims fighting here for centuries.

Not really. Under the Ottoman Empire, Jews and Muslims lived together peacefully for many centuries. The Muslim Ottomans treated Jews better than most Christian states did, and they even allowed some Jewish migration to the Holy Land (leading to the establishment of Zionist enclaves there in the late 19th century). Jewish-Muslim violence only started in the late 19th/early 20th century with the fall of the Ottomans and the rise of Zionism and Arab nationalism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Yes but what about when they start throwing grenades?

So far as I know, no IDF soldier or Israeli policeman has ever been injured by a grenade during Palestinian protests. It is a potential threat that is spun way out of proportion by the IDF propaganda machine. You can't just open fire on a crowd because some of them might otherwise throw grenades. So, unless it is like the entire crowd of hundreds or thousands of people throwing grenades at you, you should still use exclusively non-lethal means to disperse them. The occasional improvised explosive isn't enough of a threat to warrant live fire.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Mortars and RPGs? A bit dramatic?

I am sorry, are we talking about the same people here? The ones that were launching rockets into Israel not too long ago? Or another group of people?

Quit trying to isolate and judge each individual action and pointing the blame. This has been one continuous fight for the last 2000 years and will continue for the next 2000 years no matter where the US Embassy is.

We are, not all Palestinians are Hamas. Answer the question, should we have been better of nuking Vietnam, Afghanistan amd Iraq by following your excessive force logic through?

Its impressive to say its been 2000 years, as Islam hasn't been around for that long, let alone what would become Palestine.

It has nothing to do with Islam. They were fighting long before Islam arrived on the scene.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


So we should apply excessive force in every conflict? Frazzled is right with his nuke them argument?

You mean Hamas right?

On everyone by the sound of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KTG17 wrote:
It has nothing to do with Islam. They were fighting long before Islam arrived on the scene.

Ok, I guess we can do away with all laws on war crimes and murder, its been going on forever anyway, no need to judge them.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, it hasnt really been a continuous fight for 2000 years, more like about 70, maybe 100 or so if you want to include neighborhood riots going back to Ottoman times, but thats stretching it. Conflict in the region has been eternal, but the modern situation with current actors is one produced very much in the last century or so.

As for the rockets and mortars, more people were killed in these protests in one day than Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks have killed in 17 years.

I'm sure nether side thinks about it that way. There have been Jews and Muslims fighting here for millennia.

aside from the occasional civil unrest, this really isnt true. Primarily because, for most of the last two thousand years, the Jewish population was essentially negligible or nonexistent. Islam did not exist when the old nation of Israel was obliterated and by the Romans. The conflicts in the region over the last two thousand years were Christian-Muslim or Muslim-Muslim conflicts.

During most of the Ottoman era, the Jewish population of Palestine hoveres around 2-5%. When the British mandate in Palestine began in 1920, out of an estimated population of seven hundred thousand, only a bit over ten percent were Jewish, with the overwhelmingly vast majority of those having immigrated to Palestine since 1880.

Thats why this isnt a millenia old issue. It is a relatively new issue, created by an immigrant European population displacing the native Arab population.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, it hasnt really been a continuous fight for 2000 years, more like about 70, maybe 100 or so if you want to include neighborhood riots going back to Ottoman times, but thats stretching it. Conflict in the region has been eternal, but the modern situation with current actors is one produced very much in the last century or so.

As for the rockets and mortars, more people were killed in these protests in one day than Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks have killed in 17 years.

I'm sure nether side thinks about it that way. There have been Jews and Muslims fighting here for millennia.

aside from the occasional civil unrest, this really isnt true. Primarily because, for most of the last two thousand years, the Jewish population was essentially negligible or nonexistent. Islam did not exist when the old nation of Israel was obliterated and by the Romans. The conflicts in the region over the last two thousand years were Christian-Muslim or Muslim-Muslim conflicts.

During most of the Ottoman era, the Jewish population of Palestine hoveres around 2-5%. When the British mandate in Palestine began in 1920, out of an estimated population of seven hundred thousand, only a bit over ten percent were Jewish, with the overwhelmingly vast majority of those having immigrated to Palestine since 1880.

Thats why this isnt a millenia old issue. It is a relatively new issue, created by an immigrant European population displacing the native Arab population.

I didn't say they were fighting each other. This is one of the most violent places on earth - probably the worst place for humanitarian experiments like...can 2 cultures that hate each other at a religious fundamental level get along and share a city? No - they can't. Forcing them to try is just exacerbating the issue. Israel should have driven the populations into Jordan in Syria (you know the 2 countries that joined forces with the Palestinians to try and annihilate Israel and failed at it TWICE). That would have solved the problem. It would have saved thousands of lives. While it would have been terrible press at the time - the world could have stepped in and dealt with the humanitarian issue of refugees after a war (without even choosing a side).

Well you can't go wrong with an argument that starts with "they should have ethnically cleansed better."

Some of you don't seem familiar with 'the Bible.' read through it, and some additional history books. The exodus, the wars, Jericho, then the Romans coming in, etc. I mean, you guys keep going back to the Ottomans and its like you are neglecting to include hundreds of years of violence that neither side wants to forget.

Its hard to remember an event the living members themselves have been dead for just as long. Also lol, the Bible is one of the worst books to read on the region. Its a bunch of hearsay of actual history and made up stories. The Exodus for example is a pure myth.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well you can't go wrong with an argument that starts with "they should have ethnically cleansed better."

I didn't say they should have killed them all. They certainly could have - they had the ability and didn't. Something that the Invading armies surely would have done. Something that Palestinian defenders are ever willing to talk about.

Well one group considers it the history of their race, so whether you want to consider what is in it or not is irrelevant. There are many that do.

Jewish/Arab relations didn't go downhill at the forming of Israel. Its been a cycle of violence for over 2000 years. When you grasp that, you'll begin to grasp how deep the issues go there. You don't seem to.

Israel has a no nonsense, violent government, but given what many of the founding members went through during the holocaust, then the numerous arab wars, its no wonder they are as warlike as they are. But you can't necessarily blame them for that. If I was surrounded by enemies for 70s years, and still have some on my border, I would be jaded too.

Its just a part of the world who's problems are not going to go away anytime soon. And like I said, it isn't like I agree with many of the things they do, but I can understand some of them.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well you can't go wrong with an argument that starts with "they should have ethnically cleansed better."

I didn't say they should have killed them all. They certainly could have - they had the ability and didn't. Something that the Invading armies surely would have done. Something that Palestinian defenders are ever willing to talk about.

Ethnically cleansing is more than just killing people. Yes the Palestinians talk about it, but are we going to 1984 condemn them for thought crimes? The Palestinians are in no position to carry out idle threats and the modern Israel has nukes, so unless people hate Israel so much they make the world end it hardly matters now.

The strange thing is, before Israel (and probably still today), most surrounding Arab countries strongly disliked Palestinians because they were (and are, I think) considered related to Jews.

 KTG17 wrote:
Well one group considers it the history of their race, so whether you want to consider what is in it or not is irrelevant. There are many that do.

Jewish/Arab relations didn't go downhill at the forming of Israel. Its been a cycle of violence for over 2000 years. When you grasp that, you'll begin to grasp how deep the issues go there. You don't seem to.

Israel has a no nonsense, violent government, but given what many of the founding members went through during the holocaust, then the numerous arab wars, its no wonder they are as warlike as they are. But you can't necessarily blame them for that. If I was surrounded by enemies for 70s years, and still have some on my border, I would be jaded too.

Its just a part of the world who's problems are not going to go away anytime soon. And like I said, it isn't like I agree with many of the things they do, but I can understand some of them.

And those people aren't living healthy lives. Extremely orthodox Jews are no better than the extremists on the other side of the fence.

And Jewish-Arab relations did go downhill. Believe it or not, but Muslim countries for a long time were more tolerant to Jews than Christian Europe was. I grasp the issues better it seems. Let me show you again how little you grasp it: the majority of the founding members did not live through the Holocaust. Most were living in Palestine at the time. Only a few partly witnessed the Holocaust.

Bran Dawri wrote:
The strange thing is, before Israel (and probably still today), most surrounding Arab countries strongly disliked Palestinians because they were (and are, I think) considered related to Jews.

Yeah, there is plenty of room for them in Egypt, but Egypt wants nothing to do with them. Jordan gave up the West Bank, it doesn't want them either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

And Jewish-Arab relations did go downhill. Believe it or not, but Muslim countries for a long time were more tolerant to Jews than Christian Europe was. I grasp the issues better it seems. Let me show you again how little you grasp it: the majority of the founding members did not live through the Holocaust. Most were living in Palestine at the time. Only a few partly witnessed the Holocaust.

EVERYONE WITNESSED THE HOLOCAUST. They all saw it happen regardless of where they were. That is why they act the way they do and why Israel exists. It gives the Jews a place of their own since they didn't feel they had that in Europe, as well as a sanctuary. Europe isn't their homeland. They consider the area of Israel to be. And for some 2000 years it was.

The Palestine region was largely peaceful for four hundred years (barring an 8 year Egyptian invasion) until the 20th century and the advent of European immigration. It is clear that peace can absolutely reign in the region. The...monumentally buggered dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, largely by the UK and France, can be directly traced to most of the current conflicts in the Middle East today.

 KTG17 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

And Jewish-Arab relations did go downhill. Believe it or not, but Muslim countries for a long time were more tolerant to Jews than Christian Europe was. I grasp the issues better it seems. Let me show you again how little you grasp it: the majority of the founding members did not live through the Holocaust. Most were living in Palestine at the time. Only a few partly witnessed the Holocaust.

EVERYONE WITNESSED THE HOLOCAUST. They all saw it happen regardless of where they were. That is why they act the way they do and why Israel exists. It gives the Jews a place of their own since they didn't feel they had that in Europe, as well as a sanctuary. Europe isn't their homeland. They consider the area of Israel to be. And for some 2000 years it was.

That's a ridiculous moving of goalposts. You said what many went through during the Holocaust, which is simply untrue. And its not why Israel exists. The majority of its founding members were already involved in terrorism and creation of a Jewish state before the Holocaust.

And for 2000 years what was? The longest they could possibly claim it is 1500 years. Palestinians have lived there just as long. The homeland argument is pure bollocks.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, it hasnt really been a continuous fight for 2000 years, more like about 70, maybe 100 or so if you want to include neighborhood riots going back to Ottoman times, but thats stretching it. Conflict in the region has been eternal, but the modern situation with current actors is one produced very much in the last century or so.

As for the rockets and mortars, more people were killed in these protests in one day than Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks have killed in 17 years.

I'm sure nether side thinks about it that way. There have been Jews and Muslims fighting here for millennia.

aside from the occasional civil unrest, this really isnt true. Primarily because, for most of the last two thousand years, the Jewish population was essentially negligible or nonexistent. Islam did not exist when the old nation of Israel was obliterated and by the Romans. The conflicts in the region over the last two thousand years were Christian-Muslim or Muslim-Muslim conflicts.

During most of the Ottoman era, the Jewish population of Palestine hoveres around 2-5%. When the British mandate in Palestine began in 1920, out of an estimated population of seven hundred thousand, only a bit over ten percent were Jewish, with the overwhelmingly vast majority of those having immigrated to Palestine since 1880.

Thats why this isnt a millenia old issue. It is a relatively new issue, created by an immigrant European population displacing the native Arab population.

Also the Mongols.

Okay guys, after thinking about it long and hard for about 3 seconds, you're right! Israel, bad, everyone else, good!

Can't wait to tell everyone about being enlightened!

So now that we are all in agreement here, what can we do about those Israelis shooting up those poor Palestinians? I mean, I hope we're not just going to bang away on our keyboards back and forth here. Lets do something substantial for the peace process. There might even be a cash prize in the works if we pull it off!

Pressure our respective governments to not just let Israel get away with it? But some American posters would rather throw their hands in the air going "watcha gonna do?"

Well lets get on it man! Want to draft up the letter? Its going to take at least 5 for one of our congressmen to open a file on it.

Can't wait! We're going to make change happen!

Should we pressure them about the border thing too? Or just take one issue at a time?

Wow. Teddy is long gone from the pram.

Well if you want to be serious. For everyone throwing their hands up going it is what it is, there is another voting for the Israel supporter. Having your government not being a blatant apologist is a start.