Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: Israel – The Throwback
Your welcome.
And I think this is without the numbers of last attack on Gaza, more then 1,400 people dead, about 1,000 of them civilians.
EDIT: Also an interesting site with a lot of articles: Ta'anit Tzedek - Jewish Fast For Gaza
(edited)
And I think this is without the numbers of last attack on Gaza, more then 1,400 people dead, about 1,000 of them civilians.
EDIT: Also an interesting site with a lot of articles: Ta'anit Tzedek - Jewish Fast For Gaza
(edited)
it's jewish, so it isn't propaganda, right? Or are they just misinformed?
And seriously, I am not making a joke as I ask this. Maybe this is just the kind of impartial, unbiased responses we have been looking for?
And seriously, I am not making a joke as I ask this. Maybe this is just the kind of impartial, unbiased responses we have been looking for?
Second - it is just untrue that the other side does not have army.
I was talking about Palestine, not other states. Army.. maybe mistake of my english but I consider under therm army =
"soldiers with tanks, air or naval forces and so"... as Israel have :-).
But I understand what you want to say... you have problems with all your neighbours, and yes they have army and like Iran,
they want to erase you from the map, so your army must be strong. This is another problem, not just Palestine problem, and this is mostly religion problem.
In this point of view I can agree, that you are "defender" because other states would really like to destroy you. Religion war are the worst :-(
This is not just problem of OSN in early 1900s, but this problem is another area, much bigger then Palestina and I do not have power"
to discuss this to details.... but in this area you can be "good" and not "evil" as I said about Israel :-) If you are not so cruel to small nation without real army, then I would not consider your country for evil, but defender, but you are same as Iran is :-(
And same answer for wars in 1967, 1973, am not able discuss this, but if .. IF somebody could have small chance to make a real tidy there (peace or something),
it could be OSN... it is just question for us, if OSN could success or not... :-) I dont know :-)
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.
This is true, at this POV I would consider Israel as "good" and really as defender, and others as evils.
But I was talking about Palestine.
-----------------
On the other hand Israel provides aid to Gaza civilians.
hm... is not this "aid" just aid from one hand and death from second hand ?
is not this aid just for media, to show that your war actions are not so cruel ??
It is just question, I do not await answer here :-)
And for therest, .... just that sorry of my english I not able to make appropriate reaction :-(
I was talking about Palestine, not other states. Army.. maybe mistake of my english but I consider under therm army =
"soldiers with tanks, air or naval forces and so"... as Israel have :-).
But I understand what you want to say... you have problems with all your neighbours, and yes they have army and like Iran,
they want to erase you from the map, so your army must be strong. This is another problem, not just Palestine problem, and this is mostly religion problem.
In this point of view I can agree, that you are "defender" because other states would really like to destroy you. Religion war are the worst :-(
This is not just problem of OSN in early 1900s, but this problem is another area, much bigger then Palestina and I do not have power"
to discuss this to details.... but in this area you can be "good" and not "evil" as I said about Israel :-) If you are not so cruel to small nation without real army, then I would not consider your country for evil, but defender, but you are same as Iran is :-(
And same answer for wars in 1967, 1973, am not able discuss this, but if .. IF somebody could have small chance to make a real tidy there (peace or something),
it could be OSN... it is just question for us, if OSN could success or not... :-) I dont know :-)
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.
This is true, at this POV I would consider Israel as "good" and really as defender, and others as evils.
But I was talking about Palestine.
-----------------
On the other hand Israel provides aid to Gaza civilians.
hm... is not this "aid" just aid from one hand and death from second hand ?
is not this aid just for media, to show that your war actions are not so cruel ??
It is just question, I do not await answer here :-)
And for therest, .... just that sorry of my english I not able to make appropriate reaction :-(
I think that now there is just tree possible solution:
1. elimination Palestine and weak neighbours by Israel and making good defending against strong neighbours, so hot place for every, but you can be alive there
2. lose war against strong neighbours and live in exil
3. or both sides can kill each others by nuclear weapons...
do you know third possibility ??
1. elimination Palestine and weak neighbours by Israel and making good defending against strong neighbours, so hot place for every, but you can be alive there
2. lose war against strong neighbours and live in exil
3. or both sides can kill each others by nuclear weapons...
do you know third possibility ??
A.Israel takes over the entire area
B.Palestine takes over the entire area
C.Situation stays like it is until A or B
D.They learn to get along
That's it really.The Gazan attacks on Israel are not acceptable, neither is Israels ghettoisation of Gaza which may well be a violation of the human rights act.
If you really want to go into what happens in the future, B leads to the destruction of Israel. A also leads to the eventual destruction of Israel because taking over Gaza wouldn't be tolerated. It's in their interest to come to a peaceful arrangement.
B.Palestine takes over the entire area
C.Situation stays like it is until A or B
D.They learn to get along
That's it really.The Gazan attacks on Israel are not acceptable, neither is Israels ghettoisation of Gaza which may well be a violation of the human rights act.
If you really want to go into what happens in the future, B leads to the destruction of Israel. A also leads to the eventual destruction of Israel because taking over Gaza wouldn't be tolerated. It's in their interest to come to a peaceful arrangement.
possibility D is very hard, religion problems... :-( but the best one.
but every other possibility has the one result, at this region will always be people crying and suffering from terror
but every other possibility has the one result, at this region will always be people crying and suffering from terror
Well, while there are malcontents, there cannot be peace.
When the malcontents outweigh the peaceful, there will not be peace.
When the malcontents outweigh the peaceful, there will not be peace.
Even if the peaceful outweigh the malcontents, there will still not be peace. There will still be a minority that wan't to bomb the other ones.
this is more or less the same point I got to.
Israel needs its army to look strong against its neighbours, who (likely/unlikely?) would wage war against them. Altough a part of this fear might be a cultivated fear, and not a reasonable founded fear, meaning that israeli's might fear an attack more than they realistically should fear one. This amount of fear will differ over individuals, as well, much like some americans thought after 9/11 a terrorism insurance policy was a smarter investment than an omnium insurance (which covered terrorism as well), or those who started stocking chemwarfare protection. This fear might be cultivated as well, much in the sense as that the US army distributed chemwarfare protection to everyone, including embedded journalists, even those far away from the front. Well knowing that the chance of such an attack was small, but more than happy with the psychological aspect of creating a sense of fear into the journalists and personel this distribution generated.
Just to make clear: I don't say the fear is completely ungrounded, I want to mention that some people have an interest in generating as much of it, as part in political power play. Army personel might be a bit biased in this, for example.
"This is true, at this POV I would consider Israel as "good" and really as defender, and others as evils."
Second, whilst they definitely 'need' their army, the exact use of it is more of a debate. Much like rumpil said. The "defender" became the offender.
Israel needs its army to look strong against its neighbours, who (likely/unlikely?) would wage war against them. Altough a part of this fear might be a cultivated fear, and not a reasonable founded fear, meaning that israeli's might fear an attack more than they realistically should fear one. This amount of fear will differ over individuals, as well, much like some americans thought after 9/11 a terrorism insurance policy was a smarter investment than an omnium insurance (which covered terrorism as well), or those who started stocking chemwarfare protection. This fear might be cultivated as well, much in the sense as that the US army distributed chemwarfare protection to everyone, including embedded journalists, even those far away from the front. Well knowing that the chance of such an attack was small, but more than happy with the psychological aspect of creating a sense of fear into the journalists and personel this distribution generated.
Just to make clear: I don't say the fear is completely ungrounded, I want to mention that some people have an interest in generating as much of it, as part in political power play. Army personel might be a bit biased in this, for example.
"This is true, at this POV I would consider Israel as "good" and really as defender, and others as evils."
Second, whilst they definitely 'need' their army, the exact use of it is more of a debate. Much like rumpil said. The "defender" became the offender.
Thats what the first line was.
1)Chance of war
2)Will be war
basically.
1)Chance of war
2)Will be war
basically.
nin, how did the situation in ireland turn for completely shit to the situation it is today? I always wondered what the difference was between palestine/israel?
Forgive my overgeneralisation, but religious differences (check), mutual hate (check), both have their version of history at their side (check), very few families without casualies, so plenty of room for revenge (check?), bad economy of ireland (check?)
Forgive my overgeneralisation, but religious differences (check), mutual hate (check), both have their version of history at their side (check), very few families without casualies, so plenty of room for revenge (check?), bad economy of ireland (check?)
it is always same.... as my today ugly conflict with my wife....
She does not want to listen to my "truth", listen to my "orders", listen to my the best "facts".
And the problem as usually started at the past, when she realized that the husband is not king :-D :-D. (black day in our history :-) )
I solved this is peace, she went sleep and I open bottle of good red wine (red portugal). No damage, no hurt, no casualties (I will drink just half of bottle :-D)
She does not want to listen to my "truth", listen to my "orders", listen to my the best "facts".
And the problem as usually started at the past, when she realized that the husband is not king :-D :-D. (black day in our history :-) )
I solved this is peace, she went sleep and I open bottle of good red wine (red portugal). No damage, no hurt, no casualties (I will drink just half of bottle :-D)
Trust me, winning is about as easy as pushing a Jeep up a hill.
and I was forgetting all time to translate my OSN .. it is in eng UNO :-D sorry :-)
I do not need to win, I just need from others that they will follow my commands, is it too much :-D ???