Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: Israel – The Throwback
I like this :-d :-D :-D
ChuckNorris komu rumpil
"I would rather be talking about, why if OSN as disinterested party (can I call OSN disinterested ? ) make solution of your problem, why Israel made their own war plans ?"
because the international community always reacts a bit late, in such instances, so israelis rightfully recognized that they had to defend themselves.
But they went a bit overboard with the definition of 'defend'.
ChuckNorris komu rumpil
"I would rather be talking about, why if OSN as disinterested party (can I call OSN disinterested ? ) make solution of your problem, why Israel made their own war plans ?"
because the international community always reacts a bit late, in such instances, so israelis rightfully recognized that they had to defend themselves.
But they went a bit overboard with the definition of 'defend'.
it is striking how often they will use this logic and how easy we accept it...
This just rolled in on my yahoo account. Usually I don't check these newsflashes, because they contain too little information, but with just two paragraphs, it illustrates my point.
An Israeli naval patrol has killed at least four Palestinian militants off the coast of Gaza.
Hamas security officials and the Israeli army both confirmed the deaths of the men, who were in diving gear.
A spokesman for the Israeli Defence Force said: "An Israeli naval patrol spotted a boat with four men in diving suits on their way to carry out a terror attack and fired at them."
Often we accept these allegations without proof.
Were they terrorists?
What terror attack?
And how were they going to perform it?
What target in the middle of the sea?
Were they found with explosives (or did the fifth guy mysteriously take those away from the scene)?
Or were they 4 guys trying to flee their country?
Nope, they were terrorists, obviously. They wouldn't have died if they weren't.
This just rolled in on my yahoo account. Usually I don't check these newsflashes, because they contain too little information, but with just two paragraphs, it illustrates my point.
An Israeli naval patrol has killed at least four Palestinian militants off the coast of Gaza.
Hamas security officials and the Israeli army both confirmed the deaths of the men, who were in diving gear.
A spokesman for the Israeli Defence Force said: "An Israeli naval patrol spotted a boat with four men in diving suits on their way to carry out a terror attack and fired at them."
Often we accept these allegations without proof.
Were they terrorists?
What terror attack?
And how were they going to perform it?
What target in the middle of the sea?
Were they found with explosives (or did the fifth guy mysteriously take those away from the scene)?
Or were they 4 guys trying to flee their country?
Nope, they were terrorists, obviously. They wouldn't have died if they weren't.
and it might remind you of this, of course ;)
and this is meant as a joke, of course ;)
(edited)
and this is meant as a joke, of course ;)
(edited)
ok, today we post here more questions and it is still polite discussion, so I hope that at the evening there will be answers :-)
All readers can learn more from ours posts, if this is polite topic still, I hope so.
I am seeking for answers about OSN and Isreal.
All readers can learn more from ours posts, if this is polite topic still, I hope so.
I am seeking for answers about OSN and Isreal.
All readers can learn more from ours posts
Depends on how you define 'our'.
Depends on how you define 'our'.
As long as you let at least Rog and Yarden out, I agree.
at least they're honest about their pov's. You learn plenty out of their posts.
I learn about them, not about the situation.
They are just one ( extreme ) side of the situation, so it's impossible to get a good view of the whole situation.
I wished the others showed us how to differentiate between the different opinions of the israelis...
Now it looks like they all are this extreme.
(edited)
Now it looks like they all are this extreme.
(edited)
I am referring to Rumpil's post, back on page 8.
Rumpil puts some arguments on the table and then throws some of his "concluded speculations" as if they are facts or foundation to theory.
The first point I'd like to refer to is that according to Rumpil, terrorism is legitimate for sides who do not have army.
Well that is absurd. First because if your theory justifies blind attackes on civilians that why would you argue agains an army who tries to block it?
Second - it is just untrue that the other side does not have army. The Hamas is an armed organization, Hizbolla is an armed organization, that took over a country with another army, Syria has an army, Iran has an army, Iraq shot missiles on Israel, and Iran has an army. They all cooperate and the "armies" support the "organizations". That's all.
Egypt has an army and Jordan has an army. The war in 1948 that formed the first borders of Israel were against all those armies, who started the war but lost territories.
By the way, although at that times Israel just started to form the army, and forught against 7 different "formal"armies, did not turn into coward attacks on civilians from Israel's side.
Wars in 1967, 1973 were against armies.
All the current millitant organizations and hostile armies clearly say that they want to wipe Israel. The only fortunate point so far is that they didnot succeed yet.
Therefore, Rumpil's basic formula is either cynical of groundless.
Now, base on groundless argument, Rumpil actually denies the right of Israel to defend itself. There is a lethel conflict here but leveling ruthless terror with measures of self defence is not justiful.
Yes Israel blockades Gaza for example. It tries to explain why. There is enough evidence that there are things to defend from.
On the other hand Israel provides aid to Gaza civilians. We already went through this. Can you point out any other situation like this in History?
The efforts of the arabs are focused on de-legitimate Israel existance. The flotile was just a very successful one. Some of you guys do not accept anything that we Israelies say here.
If given evidence of the real meaning of each side from Israelies you call it propaganda (whether we lie of our govenment lies to us), and you try to undermine it by unbased speculations.
And then, based on the above you say that Israelies are extremers.
Well, between all the few Israelies that cared to post here, we have enough differences to fill a british parliament. But I regret to say that you succeed to cause us to unite here in defence, Just as the tragic incident caused us.
If you really want to argue elegantly, I would expect that from time to time you will refer to anything we say or point out.
Give us respect of self opinionated people who are able to figure out more than just the pieces of the picture, just the way you refer this ability on yourselves.
There are several people here, for example who never agreed that the Marmara was loaded with people who could not care less for peace.
The most extreme description was theat they showed seme level of resistance. You should have seen dosen of clips, hundreds of pictures, coming from all over the world and from all sides. For most of you it still does not even move an inch.
Should I bother anymore?
(edited)
Rumpil puts some arguments on the table and then throws some of his "concluded speculations" as if they are facts or foundation to theory.
The first point I'd like to refer to is that according to Rumpil, terrorism is legitimate for sides who do not have army.
Well that is absurd. First because if your theory justifies blind attackes on civilians that why would you argue agains an army who tries to block it?
Second - it is just untrue that the other side does not have army. The Hamas is an armed organization, Hizbolla is an armed organization, that took over a country with another army, Syria has an army, Iran has an army, Iraq shot missiles on Israel, and Iran has an army. They all cooperate and the "armies" support the "organizations". That's all.
Egypt has an army and Jordan has an army. The war in 1948 that formed the first borders of Israel were against all those armies, who started the war but lost territories.
By the way, although at that times Israel just started to form the army, and forught against 7 different "formal"armies, did not turn into coward attacks on civilians from Israel's side.
Wars in 1967, 1973 were against armies.
All the current millitant organizations and hostile armies clearly say that they want to wipe Israel. The only fortunate point so far is that they didnot succeed yet.
Therefore, Rumpil's basic formula is either cynical of groundless.
Now, base on groundless argument, Rumpil actually denies the right of Israel to defend itself. There is a lethel conflict here but leveling ruthless terror with measures of self defence is not justiful.
Yes Israel blockades Gaza for example. It tries to explain why. There is enough evidence that there are things to defend from.
On the other hand Israel provides aid to Gaza civilians. We already went through this. Can you point out any other situation like this in History?
The efforts of the arabs are focused on de-legitimate Israel existance. The flotile was just a very successful one. Some of you guys do not accept anything that we Israelies say here.
If given evidence of the real meaning of each side from Israelies you call it propaganda (whether we lie of our govenment lies to us), and you try to undermine it by unbased speculations.
And then, based on the above you say that Israelies are extremers.
Well, between all the few Israelies that cared to post here, we have enough differences to fill a british parliament. But I regret to say that you succeed to cause us to unite here in defence, Just as the tragic incident caused us.
If you really want to argue elegantly, I would expect that from time to time you will refer to anything we say or point out.
Give us respect of self opinionated people who are able to figure out more than just the pieces of the picture, just the way you refer this ability on yourselves.
There are several people here, for example who never agreed that the Marmara was loaded with people who could not care less for peace.
The most extreme description was theat they showed seme level of resistance. You should have seen dosen of clips, hundreds of pictures, coming from all over the world and from all sides. For most of you it still does not even move an inch.
Should I bother anymore?
(edited)
you seem to have your head on your shoulders:
"
The first point I'd like to refer to is that according to Rumpil, terrorism is legitimate for sides who do not have army.
Well that is absurd. First because if your theory justifies bling attackes on civilians that why would you argue agains an army who tries to block it?"
I don't think anybody is arguing that shooting civilians is acceptable.
However, I had another question, that I already posted in the two other topics and that never got answered:
"Is executing an opposing leader, even is he is a suspected terrorist, by means of a rocket strike that kills several innocent bystanders, a method that israeli's prefer? Why would you think the IDF still uses that method? (plz, don't use the "hamas uses human shield" defence)
Secondly, aren't those civilians just as dead as the ones from hamas terrorist attacks. So is there any more difference? So, yes, hamas missiles are directly shot at the israeli houses, but shooting a rocket at a car in the middle of rush hour isn't exactly avoiding those people?
How much of a nuance between those two kinds of attacks can you expect from anybody to make?
"By the way, although at that times Israel just started to form the army, and forught against 7 different "formal"armies, did not turn into coward attacks on civilians from Israel's side.
Wars in 1967, 1973 were against armies.
All the current millitant organizations and hostile armies clearly say that they want to wipe Israel. The only fortunate point so far is that they didnot succeed yet.
Therefore, Rumpil's basic formula is either cynical of groundless. "
That was then. I don't ague about this. This discussion is about now, about the current approach. You can't reaosnably expect for "israel's ennemies" to attack them on israels terms. And israel can win any straight out war. And I don't approve of terrorism, as I don't approve of any war.
"Yes Israel blockades Gaza for example. It tries to explain why. There is enough evidence that there are things to defend from.
On the other hand Israel provides aid to Gaza civilians. We already went through this. Can you point out any other situation like this in History?"
Well. 1) Israel has closed the borders between gaza and the rest of the world. It is guarding that prison. Cynically put, if they don't bring food, who will? Don't beat them on their chest for allowing those people a bit of food (and I am restraining myself from using the prhase "allowing gaza not to die") 2) Israel doesn't bring all the necessary food into gaza. In short, people are slowly starving. UN reports say only one quarter of necessary food is brought in. Giving any less food would even be a bigger disgrace. And a terrible PR loss, for israel. Further, no building materials are allowed to be brought in, despite the fact that the place has been bombed (by israel) 18 months ago). So again, very dependent on how you perceive 'On the other hand Israel provides aid to Gaza civilians.'
I don't say that israel doens't have the right to defend itself, nor have I ever did so. I only want to point out that there seems to be a problem with the means israel employs, the ferocity they use to employ them and the specific intermediate goals they seem to set themself to. None of them will bring them closer to peace. (and none of them have ever shown any succes in history - not unless you want to wipe out your enemy)
"
The first point I'd like to refer to is that according to Rumpil, terrorism is legitimate for sides who do not have army.
Well that is absurd. First because if your theory justifies bling attackes on civilians that why would you argue agains an army who tries to block it?"
I don't think anybody is arguing that shooting civilians is acceptable.
However, I had another question, that I already posted in the two other topics and that never got answered:
"Is executing an opposing leader, even is he is a suspected terrorist, by means of a rocket strike that kills several innocent bystanders, a method that israeli's prefer? Why would you think the IDF still uses that method? (plz, don't use the "hamas uses human shield" defence)
Secondly, aren't those civilians just as dead as the ones from hamas terrorist attacks. So is there any more difference? So, yes, hamas missiles are directly shot at the israeli houses, but shooting a rocket at a car in the middle of rush hour isn't exactly avoiding those people?
How much of a nuance between those two kinds of attacks can you expect from anybody to make?
"By the way, although at that times Israel just started to form the army, and forught against 7 different "formal"armies, did not turn into coward attacks on civilians from Israel's side.
Wars in 1967, 1973 were against armies.
All the current millitant organizations and hostile armies clearly say that they want to wipe Israel. The only fortunate point so far is that they didnot succeed yet.
Therefore, Rumpil's basic formula is either cynical of groundless. "
That was then. I don't ague about this. This discussion is about now, about the current approach. You can't reaosnably expect for "israel's ennemies" to attack them on israels terms. And israel can win any straight out war. And I don't approve of terrorism, as I don't approve of any war.
"Yes Israel blockades Gaza for example. It tries to explain why. There is enough evidence that there are things to defend from.
On the other hand Israel provides aid to Gaza civilians. We already went through this. Can you point out any other situation like this in History?"
Well. 1) Israel has closed the borders between gaza and the rest of the world. It is guarding that prison. Cynically put, if they don't bring food, who will? Don't beat them on their chest for allowing those people a bit of food (and I am restraining myself from using the prhase "allowing gaza not to die") 2) Israel doesn't bring all the necessary food into gaza. In short, people are slowly starving. UN reports say only one quarter of necessary food is brought in. Giving any less food would even be a bigger disgrace. And a terrible PR loss, for israel. Further, no building materials are allowed to be brought in, despite the fact that the place has been bombed (by israel) 18 months ago). So again, very dependent on how you perceive 'On the other hand Israel provides aid to Gaza civilians.'
I don't say that israel doens't have the right to defend itself, nor have I ever did so. I only want to point out that there seems to be a problem with the means israel employs, the ferocity they use to employ them and the specific intermediate goals they seem to set themself to. None of them will bring them closer to peace. (and none of them have ever shown any succes in history - not unless you want to wipe out your enemy)
I never got a answer to my question in the first thread so I'll ask again.
What was the problem with waiting until the boat docked and arresting and questioning those on board?
Not like they were going to over run the entire country with knives and iron bars is it?
(edited)
What was the problem with waiting until the boat docked and arresting and questioning those on board?
Not like they were going to over run the entire country with knives and iron bars is it?
(edited)
Unfortunately I agree with some of your conclusion, but I dissagree with other statements.
I don't agree that we have much of a choice.
It is not fair to judge the force that is being used in defence against poroven hostility.
It was not fair to judge Israel for building a wall, as it is also not fair to avoid any of our reasoning about blockade.
I disagree about the starving population, as I also wonder if it's not hypocrete to not cooperate with Israel when some organizations do want to give a hand.
Yes, I agree that we are now in a worse position, part of it we can blame our leaders and local politics, but the other side(S) absolutely do not come clean to the table.
I do not accept that in this situation there is one automatic side to condemn and the other side gets automatic excuse for relief. This is what is happening here.
Although Israel made mistakes and missed opportunities, the arabs did not do better. However they now take a very cynical attitude and according to what I read in this forum they easily get away with it.
I don't agree that we have much of a choice.
It is not fair to judge the force that is being used in defence against poroven hostility.
It was not fair to judge Israel for building a wall, as it is also not fair to avoid any of our reasoning about blockade.
I disagree about the starving population, as I also wonder if it's not hypocrete to not cooperate with Israel when some organizations do want to give a hand.
Yes, I agree that we are now in a worse position, part of it we can blame our leaders and local politics, but the other side(S) absolutely do not come clean to the table.
I do not accept that in this situation there is one automatic side to condemn and the other side gets automatic excuse for relief. This is what is happening here.
Although Israel made mistakes and missed opportunities, the arabs did not do better. However they now take a very cynical attitude and according to what I read in this forum they easily get away with it.