There you go again "IamMe"... Did I say anything of the sort??  lol ... Again... try actually READING what I wrote if you want any kind of credibility.



HMMM   ....   I thought we already covered your "expulsion" accusations IamMe??  Want to go over it again??  Interesting  how you've conveniently forgotten 

Interesting how you previously didn't bother to answer my seemingly straight forward question:


Should this forum take that to mean that while you don't like Israel's defense tactics, you have no "real world" alternative solutions which make any sense or which can be defended against basic logic??  Imagine that. 

If I agree with Terry's comments related to the "morality" of war does that turn both Terry and me into pacifists? 

While the actions of Hamas remain the primary target of the discussions related to this issue, confusion continues related to whether the peoples who inhabit the territories are only "terrorists" where the actions taken against them are those of a legitimate nation.  Some Western nations have labeled Hamas a terrorist group and as a consequence refuse to negotiate with them as do the Israelis. This is not the case with most of the rest of the nations of the planet, including the Islamic ones in the ME, Afghanistan, Pakistan in SW Asia or the Chinese or Japanese and others including some of the states along with Russia of the former USSR. 

The list of those who have labeled Hamas as terrorists reflect, sans, Israel though it has been suggested Israel, AIPAC, PNAC and other groups supporting Israel, at the very least not only encouraged, but demanded current invasion and occupation Iraq, the U.S., Britain, and Australia were the largest members who made up the Bush "Coalition of the Willing."  The connections to me are obvious.  Which leads one to the question can a nation state also use military tactics that might be determined to be war crimes or act in ways they might be determined to be terrorist. At Nuremberg they were. 

Returning to Terry's comments related to war and morality, even the major partners in the "Coalition of the Willing" objected to the actions taken by the U.S. in the conquest of Fallujah with the use of weaponry most nations have banned such as MK 77, the modern and more hideous form of napalm, as well as white phosphorus known in the U.S. military by the nick name "Willie Pete."  There are demands from many nations cluster bombs be banned, but they are still used by the U.S. and Israel as noted in the last
war with Lebanon as well by the U.S. in Afghanistan that proved quite deadly when they resembled packets of food air dropped to starving Afghanis.

While possibly appearing OT, how does one put a value on what I describe as asymmetric warfare when Hamas unquestionably has used rather primitive weaponry against Israel civlians, as well as suicide bombings while Israel uses more dangerous and deadly weaponry against the civilian population in the Palestinian territories much provided
by the U.S.?

IMO there are many complex issues related to the continued refusal of the U.S. and Israel to negotiate with those they label terrorists, than the usual reference by realityman
back to Hamas Covenant of 1988 and the refusal to recognize Israel's "right to exist."  Are other Muslim nations given a pass as only Jordan and Egypt have official peace
treaties with Israel.  Saddam provided rewards to Palestinian suicide bombers families, but what about the Saudis? Do they get a pass because of their relationship to the U.S. and specifically to the Bush family? 

With the exception of mdma who states on his profile he is a resident of Israel and possibly Terry, because his spouse is an Israeli citizen, there is no location listed for realityman,  I'm in the U.S. as is Crypotomaniac,  and IamMe is in Ireland and the other primary member engaged is    Fredledingue, whose profile location is listed as
Lithuania-Belgium.  We are all in many ways hampered by only being able to read about the issues while not being subject to the daily "warfare" that continues to take place
between various (rather than terrorist) militant groups in the Palestinian territories which are not limited totally to those taken by Hamas in conflict with the nation state of
Israel and the IDF and IAF.

Not all that many decades ago, it would have been hard for me to believe during the cold war or later during the war in Vietnam, the changes in alliances and cooperation between nations would have evolved to their current state.  Still there are those who refuse to even consider that Hamas, a very new political entity, might evolve.  For any who bothered to read Cobban's long article, the evolution of those previously labeled as "terrorists" is a realistic possibility.  Those, Britain labeled as terrorists back in 1776 in the U.S. became a nation state and the "terrorists" who blew up the King David Hotel, have now evolved into the state of Israel.  But so long as warfare symmetric or asymmetric remains the choice of Hamas and the government in Israel, ordinary Israelis and Palestinians will continue to pay the horrible price.

BTW, in the About.com listing of groups labeled as terrorist, Fatah is listed as well and once again it begs the question related to groups labeled terrorist and who can act as appropriate representatives when Hamas was chose by the people in an established legitimate election.

Which returns us to the poll at the top of each page and the discussions and arguments following it. Like the daily news for years now, maybe only a circular discussion based
on personal opinion and reflecting those of written ones from a variety of sources.


 

Whatever your opinion is doesn't really matter. War is War. Why are you so infatuated with the past, which has nothing to do with today's Wars or how they are fought. Immoral or no, you or anyone else can't change that... I certainly can't.

Like I said, the best that can be done is to watch out for your mates and make it home alive and well.

Rubish!


Hamas targets civilians by choice. The Israeli's target terrorists. The terrorists hide behind women, children, schools and residential neighborhoods in a feeble attempt to get international sympathy or hope that Israel won't target them where there are civilians. And you support that?... you're being used as a tool.

And also, as I said before,"there is no morality in war". Never has been. Examples of what? More of the same lame argument?

Nothing about Hamas I note. You must support them?

...Targeting Hamas who are attacking Israel is the job of the Israeli military. If the people in Gaza were smarter, they would kick out and/or not support them. The fact is that since they don't tells me they don't mind dying for a terrorist group.

It really is simple... Don't attack Israel. Surely that is a concept that is easy to grasp.

Then negotiations would proceed, checkpoints would be opened and so on...

A lasting Peace would be nice. A 'truce' is still in effect even though groups 'other than Hamas' are still attacking Israel, albeit at a lesser frequency.

And you bleat about "International Law"! That is pretty feeble and not reality.

Everyone ignores it and of course allies will ignore it as being part of one side.

Even though Israel SHOULD re invade Gaza strip, it won't happen for a simple reason, both sides governments get tons of money for the peacemaking process, plus, even if Israel WILL re invade Gaza, the same thing that happened in the last Israel-Lebanon war will happen in Gaza. Plus if the PM of Israel will go to war he'll lose his popularity, and won't be elected again, since the Israely people are to lazy to raise their @$$es even to defend themselfs. And why would Israel care about Fatah anyway?
Another thing I want to say is that there is a simple solution to the kasam shooting, with no electricity, they want be able to produce the rockets, so Israel has to just cut out all the supplies that go to Gaza, and Gaza will return to the stone age, Israel has a real good reason for that, doesn't the people in Gaza want to have their own independent country? Here they go, they'll have, entirely their, and Israel doesn't have to give them anything since israel is not responsible for someone else's country, they should produce their own supplies....
oh yeah, about the "giving-the-land-to-them-to-prevent-war" topic, it's BS, same thing happened with Hitler, Britain gave a part of Czech to Germany, and thought that this will prevent the war, but you know the result, same thing here, the giving of land will just strech the time when the war will start.