no I'm talking about the tanks and bulldozers and missiles and snipers and all the other shit Israel are doing in Gaza and the West Bank. Why what are you talking about?Harmor wrote:
War crimes? Are you talking about the 800, or was it 8,000 (don't recall), unguided missiles shot into Israeli civilian settlements? Or the suicide bombers in civilian markets?
pssh, don't talk morals in this conflict.Harmor wrote:
War crimes? Are you talking about the 800, or was it 8,000 (don't recall), unguided missiles shot into Israeli civilian settlements? Or the suicide bombers in civilian markets?ruisleipa wrote:
Aaah good harmor is here to tell us everything exactly how it is. I mean, for the record and all.Harmor wrote:
For the record the flotilla was done to antagonize Israel. You don't poke a stick into a hornet's nest and expect good things to happen.
Maybe it was done to pressurise Israel to lift their illegal blockade of Gaza and continuing war crimes? In which case the IDF has kind of helped them along the way don't you think?
There have been too many war crimes to count perpetrated on BOTH sides, so I'd say they're on about equal moral standing.
Well, I guess the only reason why I don't see this as severing our ties with Israel is that we've been pretty forgiving of everything they've done so far. We can denounce them for various things, but every year or so, we still do major arms deals with them.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
But I'm saying the level of destruction necessary (even discounting the possibility of unconventional warfare from both sides) would put Israel at odds with the rest of the world, or at least the U.S./European nations. The U.S. might be able to ignore small acts of violence in that are clearly in their defense indirectly if not directly, and even some small territorial winnings...but the blood that would have to be spilled in order to truly secure their safety would be too much. The President at the very least would have to denounce it.Turquoise wrote:
I think if Israel actually killed off the Palestinians, there would be a lot more terrorism against Israel, but I honestly don't think the non-Islamic World would do much other than levy sanctions. Some of the Islamic World would probably try to attack Israel, but unless they use something like nukes, Israel would have enough power to defeat any of their neighbors.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
back on topic
Palestine doesn't have the hardware to end it and Israel knows if they don't do it in at least a moderately PC way they'll get smashed by the international community when the dust settles. It's a fight between children when all the adults are off doing their own thing. The only thing that is going to put a stop to the issue is if the international community that thoroughly fucked up the situation in the first place sacks up and does something about it. The only problem of course being that the international community is even more ineffective now than it was when they stuck their fingers in the mess in the first place.
Granted, all it would take would be one nuke from Pakistan or Iran to eliminate Israel.
Clearly, Zionism has a pretty strong influence in our government.
ON TOPIC
We basically made them in the first place. A mistake yes, but leaving them to the dogs is wrong as well.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess the only reason why I don't see this as severing our ties with Israel is that we've been pretty forgiving of everything they've done so far. We can denounce them for various things, but every year or so, we still do major arms deals with them.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
But I'm saying the level of destruction necessary (even discounting the possibility of unconventional warfare from both sides) would put Israel at odds with the rest of the world, or at least the U.S./European nations. The U.S. might be able to ignore small acts of violence in that are clearly in their defense indirectly if not directly, and even some small territorial winnings...but the blood that would have to be spilled in order to truly secure their safety would be too much. The President at the very least would have to denounce it.Turquoise wrote:
I think if Israel actually killed off the Palestinians, there would be a lot more terrorism against Israel, but I honestly don't think the non-Islamic World would do much other than levy sanctions. Some of the Islamic World would probably try to attack Israel, but unless they use something like nukes, Israel would have enough power to defeat any of their neighbors.
Granted, all it would take would be one nuke from Pakistan or Iran to eliminate Israel.
Clearly, Zionism has a pretty strong influence in our government.
it is on topic. why would someone who is so angry about it not go do anything about it?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
ON TOPIC
no really you two ARE funny, like two retarded parrots.11 Bravo wrote:
no really. you seem so angry about it. go do something. or is quote trees on the interweb your idea of solving the problem?
I DO do stuff about what I'm passionate about, but you see I don't have to justify myself to you since you never debate with me, constantly call me names and genreally act like you're five years old.
Now address my points if you're bothered. Want me to spell 'em out again?
ruise, why dont you go to gaza and help the palestinians in their struggle instead of make yourself out the way you do on an internet forum. you talk a lot of shit but just like all those "save darfur" folks, you only do it to feel better about yourself. you could give a fuck less about these people or their troubles.
Tu Stultus Es
after all, H-60s were used to board the ship.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess the only reason why I don't see this as severing our ties with Israel is that we've been pretty forgiving of everything they've done so far. We can denounce them for various things, but every year or so, we still do major arms deals with them.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
But I'm saying the level of destruction necessary (even discounting the possibility of unconventional warfare from both sides) would put Israel at odds with the rest of the world, or at least the U.S./European nations. The U.S. might be able to ignore small acts of violence in that are clearly in their defense indirectly if not directly, and even some small territorial winnings...but the blood that would have to be spilled in order to truly secure their safety would be too much. The President at the very least would have to denounce it.Turquoise wrote:
I think if Israel actually killed off the Palestinians, there would be a lot more terrorism against Israel, but I honestly don't think the non-Islamic World would do much other than levy sanctions. Some of the Islamic World would probably try to attack Israel, but unless they use something like nukes, Israel would have enough power to defeat any of their neighbors.
Granted, all it would take would be one nuke from Pakistan or Iran to eliminate Israel.
Clearly, Zionism has a pretty strong influence in our government.
SOURCE, LUIS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle … 196938.stm
and I don't see how leaving them to the dogs would be wrong, maybe you can enlighten me as to why? I think with the IDF they can defend from any attacks, and it's not like their economy is weak or anything.
what points? i am not trying to argue your points. they may be valid. i already knopw it is going to be anti israel or anti us. the wrods may change but the context remains constant.ruisleipa wrote:
no really you two ARE funny, like two retarded parrots.11 Bravo wrote:
no really. you seem so angry about it. go do something. or is quote trees on the interweb your idea of solving the problem?
I DO do stuff about what I'm passionate about, but you see I don't have to justify myself to you since you never debate with me, constantly call me names and genreally act like you're five years old.
Now address my points if you're bothered. Want me to spell 'em out again?
i am asking why dont you go protest then? or something like that?
Hmmm?Trotskygrad wrote:
8th grade dropout?eleven bravo wrote:
ruis...you, lowing and that 8th grade drop out are in the same boat.
Ghetto?
and ruis, you need to get off your high horse and look at ALL the evidence, even the evidence that does not support your opinion. There's something called counterpoint, and all the pros use it. When you deny the people on the aid convoy had guns, you sound like that twat on the news radio this morning who was for the "Free Gaza" movement, you make the entire convoy sound like a fuckfestasticly bad idea. That's because you ignore the vices of the Aid workers and just focus on bashing the Israelis, it makes you look like you're trying to cover some shit up. Then when people pin you down on points you defend them and make yourself sound extremist and naïve.
The three of you are riding a fine line. Keep the conversation reasonable or be removed.
removed
Tu Stultus Es
names? I really hate it when people don't give names.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The three of you are riding a fine line. Keep the conversation reasonable or be removed.
Also:
is pretty reasonable amirite?Me wrote:
and I don't see how leaving them to the dogs would be wrong, maybe you can enlighten me as to why? I think with the IDF they can defend from any attacks, and it's not like their economy is weak or anything.
Well, the U.K. is more guilty of their creation than we are, but I somewhat agree.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
We basically made them in the first place. A mistake yes, but leaving them to the dogs is wrong as well.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess the only reason why I don't see this as severing our ties with Israel is that we've been pretty forgiving of everything they've done so far. We can denounce them for various things, but every year or so, we still do major arms deals with them.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
But I'm saying the level of destruction necessary (even discounting the possibility of unconventional warfare from both sides) would put Israel at odds with the rest of the world, or at least the U.S./European nations. The U.S. might be able to ignore small acts of violence in that are clearly in their defense indirectly if not directly, and even some small territorial winnings...but the blood that would have to be spilled in order to truly secure their safety would be too much. The President at the very least would have to denounce it.
Clearly, Zionism has a pretty strong influence in our government.
These points:11 Bravo wrote:
what points? i am not trying to argue your points. they may be valid. i already knopw it is going to be anti israel or anti us. the wrods may change but the context remains constant.
i am asking why dont you go protest then? or something like that?
not 'anti Israel' or 'anti US'.ruisleipa wrote:
EVEN IF that were the case the FACTS are that the boats were in INTERNATIONAL WATERS carrying AID to Gaza, and that Israel's blockade of Gaza is ILLEGAL. How does this differ from simple piracy?
nice that you don't care the points atre valid or not. Remind me why you bother posting here again?
And like I said I DO 'protest or something like that'. But I don't have to justify anything to you and it makes no difference to this thread.
you do? what are you doing? what have you done to help the pals?
Valid point.... hmmm...Trotskygrad wrote:
and I don't see how leaving them to the dogs would be wrong, maybe you can enlighten me as to why? I think with the IDF they can defend from any attacks, and it's not like their economy is weak or anything.
I mean, personally, I would love to completely disconnect from this bullshit, because I generally hate both sides.
marine GS ruisTrotskygrad wrote:
names? I really hate it when people don't give names.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The three of you are riding a fine line. Keep the conversation reasonable or be removed.
Also:is pretty reasonable amirite?Me wrote:
and I don't see how leaving them to the dogs would be wrong, maybe you can enlighten me as to why? I think with the IDF they can defend from any attacks, and it's not like their economy is weak or anything.
I mean throughout the years as we have been arming them, at the point they are teched up so it doesn't matter so much what we do. I mean if we stopped supplying them now it might be an issue a decade from now, but otherwise it's a matter of what we back/denounce.
tbh, I think that they can develop their own weapon systems, as seen with IMI and the newer planes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
marine GS ruisTrotskygrad wrote:
names? I really hate it when people don't give names.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The three of you are riding a fine line. Keep the conversation reasonable or be removed.
Also:is pretty reasonable amirite?Me wrote:
and I don't see how leaving them to the dogs would be wrong, maybe you can enlighten me as to why? I think with the IDF they can defend from any attacks, and it's not like their economy is weak or anything.
I mean throughout the years as we have been arming them, at the point they are teched up so it doesn't matter so much what we do. I mean if we stopped supplying them now it might be an issue a decade from now, but otherwise it's a matter of what we back/denounce.
ah, you are doing it wrong, man. when in doubt always blame stalin - that's a sure way to go.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the U.K. is more guilty of their creation than we are, but I somewhat agree.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
They don't have the capacity that we have. They can develop some stuff, they just don't have the size to develop in all areas in parallel.Trotskygrad wrote:
tbh, I think that they can develop their own weapon systems, as seen with IMI and the newer planes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
marine GS ruisTrotskygrad wrote:
names? I really hate it when people don't give names.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The three of you are riding a fine line. Keep the conversation reasonable or be removed.
Also:
is pretty reasonable amirite?
I mean throughout the years as we have been arming them, at the point they are teched up so it doesn't matter so much what we do. I mean if we stopped supplying them now it might be an issue a decade from now, but otherwise it's a matter of what we back/denounce.
Maybe even ten years was too short, the point is eventually it would hurt but that "eventually" would take some time.
Well, I could blame the mass influx of Russians into Israel on the way the Soviets treated Jews (and on how many Russians pretended to be Jewish to seek refuge in Israel to escape the Soviets).Shahter wrote:
ah, you are doing it wrong, man. when in doubt always blame stalin - that's a sure way to go.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the U.K. is more guilty of their creation than we are, but I somewhat agree.
Is that better?
no, fuck no, can't you see? - it was all stalin's personal fault. apart from eating neborn children alive and generally being a freak bent on world domination, he also invented zionism and created this whole mess. after he did there was nothing usa could do but support israel or otherwise all the poor jews wouldl surely perish. duh.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I could blame the mass influx of Russians into Israel on the way the Soviets treated Jews (and on how many Russians pretended to be Jewish to seek refuge in Israel to escape the Soviets).Shahter wrote:
ah, you are doing it wrong, man. when in doubt always blame stalin - that's a sure way to go.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the U.K. is more guilty of their creation than we are, but I somewhat agree.
Is that better?
Last edited by Shahter (2010-05-31 12:08:54)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Nobody is blaming the Russians brosef.Shahter wrote:
no, fuck no, can't you see? - it was all stalin's personal fault. apart from eating neborn children alive and generally being a freak bent on world domination, he also invented zionism and created this whole mess. after he did there was nothing usa could do but support israel or otherwise all the poor jews wouldl surely perish. duh.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I could blame the mass influx of Russians into Israel on the way the Soviets treated Jews (and on how many Russians pretended to be Jewish to seek refuge in Israel to escape the Soviets).Shahter wrote:
ah, you are doing it wrong, man. when in doubt always blame stalin - that's a sure way to go.
Is that better?