Then why not just nuke them?

Well no I disagree here. The strategy needs to support the goal. The goal against Japan was to destroy the shipping and manufacturing and to compel the nation into surrender. The goal, as stated by Israel, is to knock out Hamas, not kill civilians they hope they can live with later. I'm not understanding how stopping food from getting in is doing that. That's why the bombing/artillery is nothing like firebombing of Dresden or Japan in terms of potential damage. Who needed to care how many civilians were killed in those instances?

I'm not backpedalling here...Hamas shares the blame to be sure...but there is a limit to what you can do to achieve Israel's stated goals. I mean if you just want to wipe Gaza off the map, well then....

Ahk

Clearly mdma needs a time-out. Observe his last 6 posts for reasons.

There have been PM's, warnings, appeals...enough.


mdma is suspended for 7 days.

Different situation. Different choices available.

I dunno. Reading the news today and, oh boy... well no one has the moral highground here in my book, but if Israel ever had any they're haemorrhaging it fast. Just like Lebanon this is going on too long and too intense. I don't see the problem with letting the humanitarian aid through. I don't see the problem with letting them eat for crying out loud.

You fight the militants. You support the civilians - even if they don't support you.


Ahk

I don't see the irony.

He's picking the word 'cooperate" because you did, here:


Now he gives you respectful reply and you make insults. You had better chill out Moshe.

Um guys I'm talking about long before the Romans showed up. I'm talking 500 BC. IN terms of Native that's  more than enough for me. Although once someone has established and laid their argmuement it wont matter what I say, they were "never native". The truth stretches father back. That's just the way it is. The way I see it, Palestinians and Jews have both been kicked out or pushed around in the region for as long as the Greek written word. Fact is the region is so old we can't even make "native/invader" arguments because the peoples have moved around and mixed in that area so very much.



Yes except Bill Clintons family wasnt removed from Ireland by the Ottomans, yes? Of course yes. So indeed Peis, Jews do have a family heritage that spans generations in the area. You want to keep the argument restrained to your little 2-3 year pockets in the last half a century, by all means go ahead. I can see farther back.


Yes, and sometimes they are removed. NAtive Americans came across a land bridge from Siberia. Does that mean there are no native americans only transplanted Siberians? Migration doesn't preclude native status.

A stand by what I said 100 posts ago: They are both native and they both need to get along....and really that shouldnt be so freakin hard.


Just sayin,
Ahk

No. It is my contention they use a form of attack they know will do very little damage to their enemy besides the damage done to them on the international stage when they counter attack because of impending civilian casualties. Your example in the link of Israeli incursions: I agree/admit this qualifies, however it's hard not to notice that during those incursions it was only Hamas dying rather than everyone else within 50 meters.


I'm sorry I disagree. It's a shoot and scoot weapon. You advance in. Set it up rapidly. Use the TLAR targeting system and let fly. Dismantle (or leave? Not sure if this is a one-use device or not) and get away. Your position, even in "the open" (this isnt accurate, imo, they could simply be from behind a hill or the back of a pick-up), wont be detected until you fire. By the time a reaction comes you're gone. Even if a building is required for cover they could get away from the population centers, warn people. If you did it on manhattan island you could still find open spaces.

As to what the UN says about this...well they're going to say whatever they will. I wont bother to argue with them. I would only sound my opinion that they miss the mark when they say:
...IMo, that depends on what those violations are. The reality of conflict regardless of what world law makers may say, is that the combatants will each lower themselves to the point of the enemy. It is unlawful to use gas or chemical weapons in most circumstances and has been for a long time, but this law is only adhered until one combatant crosses the line and uses them. Then both will.

in other words: If Hamas is going to continually break conventions, in the real world, this actually does justify breeches in said convention and it becomes a question of severities. IMO Israel shows little regard to how severe they cross this line. I mean they could just flatten the place and give everyone the finger if they wanted to go that far. They wouldn't be the first now would they?

At the end of the day, imo, the UN goes after the combatant who is doing the most damage, but the insinuation that Israel should just stand and take Hamas infractions is flawed imo. This simply doesn't jive with any number of a multitude of conflicts that have happened just in the last century.



Ahk

It's not a question of who deserves to die.  No one "deserves" to die.

But if you shout, "God is great and I want to die...",  so then you run off a cliff what's going to happen? And if you've been preparing yourself for this moment psychologically since your Mom told you it was such a great thing to do when you were a kid? What's going to happen? The guy is going to die. Did he "deserve" it? Non sequitor. Does not compute. Does not relate. Why do those kids "deserve" to be brainwashed for suicide?

Now take Hamas. Civilian casualties is there strategy. If you don't agree then lets just not argue the point and ignore each other. But it is the strategy because there is no other strategy to it. Everything else is for not. Pointless. So when Hamas sets up their rocket attacks in such a way as to not bring about any deaths of their sworn enemies - Israel - but rather to purposely push Israel into counter attacking and most likely to cause civilian casualties...after warnings....after appeals...they only stepped it up...

Well then you tell me what "deserve" has to do with it? Hamas is to blame. From all accounts UN and otherwise they are actually causing fewer casualties than Western forces usually do in Iraq or Afghanistan. So obviously they are trying because I know those forces do.

Ahk

Nope. You quit anytime you're cornered. If you need to "quit" on me it's because you can't answer my point. If you can't answer then by all means, "quit" on me and cease your ambiguous, implicating, pointless, out-of-context replies to my posts. By all means, ignore me. I ignore your posts if they aren't replies to mine. BUt if I state that Jews and Palestinans are both native to the region then by all means, don't reply with your hilarious, "Uh, no they aren't" when you :

a; Know full well you're wrong and
b; would probably admit this point anytime it wasn't inconvienent to your point.

Just say it: Yes, Ahk, they are both "native".....or indeed just ignore me. But if you want to play games I'll "play them back".

One last time:

The bottom line is Hamas knew that if they set up and fire their rockets from neighborhoods they knew those neighborhoods would be in danger from the counter attack. They count on it, it's part of the strategy. The bottom line is they were lobbing the rockets long before the air strikes and they were lobbing the rockets all the way through the warnings of impending air strikes if they didn't stop, thusly Hamas killed the innocent here. Ironically the only players in this game who wanted to see innocent civilians die is Hamas, so why defend them?

Ahk

You didn't have any valid points. And if you did, and you want them to go un-ignored, then maybe you should've answered my point instead of throwing up the BS smoke-screen charge of racism in order for YOU to ignore my valid point:

When your childrens TV shows are all just there to breed hate, when you proudly tell your children that the best thing they can accomplish in life is to kill a jew, then how exactly is that going to bring peace?

Answer it if you have the guts.
Ahk

I'm not reading it. Another convienent snap-shot, tunnel-viewed fenced-in picture of inaccurate history. Tell me: why is it we must refrain from bringing anything into the debate that i from before the 20th century? Because you decided it's all that's relevant? Tough.

 This is just more crap and dribble from you because you can't admit my original point was sound: BOTH are native to the region. Thank you for finally, after all the squirming, admitting it. The rest of your jibberish here is just that:jibberish. THey are both native to the region, more than anyone else in history or the world. It just dosn't get any more native than this. The Jews and the Palestinians are the only ones who can historically claim nativity to the area. Thank you for finally admitting it. So the Ottomans kicked the Jews out and the British put 'em back in. So what? Both native to the region. Just like I said 10 posts ago.

Why must you put up all this bullshit - what 6 posts of you going "no they aren't" when you knew full well they are.

 You can dance around all day with your fumbling excuses and morphing definitions but you still are terrified, absolutely horrified at the prospect of tackling the ONE and ONLY issue to this story:

The bottom line is Hamas knew that if they set up and fire their rockets from neighborhoods they knew those neighborhoods would be in danger from the counter attack. They count on it, it's part of the strategy. The bottom line is they were lobbing the rockets long before the air strikes and they were lobbing the rockets all the way through the warnings of impending air strikes if they didn't stop, thusly Hamas killed the innocent here. Ironically the only players in this game who wanted to see innocent civilians die is Hamas, so why defend them?

Answer it if you have the guts.
Ahk

Oh my so indignant! I'll start a count of posts and we'll see how long it is before you or someone else comes here to confidently yak about 'war crimes' of Israel counter attacks to rockets. I guess this is your shallow way of admitting the point? Yeah ok. We can move on.


Baloney. That would inherently make the word "they" racist. It is a given that I am speaking in generalities. Secondly I never used the word "they". I said:

so giving me a diatribe about "any time you use the word they..." is kinda pointless.

AND since what I said you know full well can be backed up by youtube, news sources, interviews and tv programs right here until the Second Coming I still have to laugh at your accusation of racism. It is in bold denial of the reality.

Fact is you know Im right, you know it's counter productive (to say the least) to the goal of peace - which was the point you need to ignore - and since you can't argue it you hide behind the weakest false accusation of racism. You could've said "Yeah ok but this is why..." or something like that but instead you chose to insult rather than admit a point you know full well is valid. Do all - absolutely every single one - Palestinians feel this way? No. Of course not. But then that's not what I said and you're too smart to think it was, so please don't pretend.

Heck, you don't even remember what I said now but yer darn sure it's racist. lol.

Subsequently I chose to ignore the rest of whatever it is you said. You're wasting my time.
Ahk

And so another selective look at one snapshot in history. So you're telling me there were no records of jews near jerusalem before the big bad British put them there in 1948? No, Im not with you. I'm above you. I'm ahead of you. I'm on to you.
I'm talking about Palestinians (yes, Palestinians) who have called Gaza city(state) home for 5000 years. Im talking about Jews who migrated and settled East of their territory 3000 years ago. Who kicked the Jews out Peis? Oh? Don't want to argue about that eh? Lets just keep it to "this" two month period in 1948 or "that" 6 month period in 1967. Just stop. It's hard to watch you squirm. Both are native to the region. Period. No argument. I say that both because it's true and because I know you can't stand it when I do. And I know it irritates you when I dismiss you like this but you're just going to have to try harder not to be so easily dismiss-able.


Nope. Not the 1920's. Not the 1940's. Not the 1960's. Stop dancing around the truth of what I said and just admit what every historian knows: Jews and Palestinians are indeed as "native" to the region as it gets. Stop trying to sell me something you know is crap.

...

Ok so I'm completely ignoring the rest of your reply. You're back to your old games again. If you need to waste my time ignoring my points and bringing up stupid ones - like "I'm-not-even-going-to-think-about-it" stupid replies - then you're just wasting my time. If you're not going to answer my points then Im not reading yours.  You dance around every non-issue, every little convenient snap-shot in history while ignoring the rest, and trying to sell me crap you don't even believe yourself. Even the 1-sentence about syria is a joke. You know you can't tackle the one and only salient point to this story:

The bottom line is Hamas knew that if they set up and fire their rockets from neighborhoods they knew those neighborhoods would be in danger from the counter attack. They count on it, it's part of the strategy. The bottom line is they were lobbing the rockets long before the air strikes and they were lobbing the rockets all the way through the warnings of impending air strikes if they didn't stop, thusly Hamas killed the innocent here. Ironically the only players in this game who wanted to see innocent civilians die is Hamas, so why defend them?

You dance and squirm and throw up a lot of smoke screens but every reply that you purposely ignore this point only confirms it's truth.

When you answer it - properly - I'll continue.
Ahk