Who Are The Rest Of The World Going To Hate Now Bush Is Gone?

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Who Are The Rest Of The World Going To Hate Now Bush Is Gone?

Poll

Who Are The Rest Of The World Going To Hate Now Bush Is Gone?

China	12%	12% - 15
Russia	16%	16% - 20
Israel	22%	22% - 27
America (Because Not Much Will Change)	39%	39% - 48
Other (Please Specify)	9%	9% - 11
Total: 121

2008-11-11 06:22:01

#176

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6595|Éire

M.O.A.B wrote:
Yes but the IRA was/is more organised than Hamas and they IRA didn't persistently attack civilians as Hamas does, although they set off bombs in shopping centres and so on. But then again, the Palestinians aren't the indigenous people of that region. The number of attacks Hamas carries out is probably several times more than anything the IRA did and they don't really go for a specific target, they pick a general large populated area and shoot the missile at it in the hope they'll hit something with a lot of people, military or civilian inside it.

I've never defended Hamas' policy of attacking populated, urban areas so I'm not going to start now. Having said that their mentality of attacking a large populated area in the aim of getting at least a few hardcore Zionists is pretty much the same mentality as an Israeli tank commander blowing up an occupied apartment in the hope of getting a few militants... both attitudes are wrong.

You say the Palestinians are not the indigenous population... well fair enough, when the Canaanites come back they should be given back their land but until then Jews from the Ukraine, Germany, America, Argentina, Poland, Russia and so on certainly don't have any God-given right to be there.

2008-11-11 12:55:16

#177

imortal: Member; +240|6969|Austin, TX

Braddock wrote:
I've never defended Hamas' policy of attacking populated, urban areas so I'm not going to start now. Having said that their mentality of attacking a large populated area in the aim of getting at least a few hardcore Zionists is pretty much the same mentality as an Israeli tank commander blowing up an occupied apartment in the hope of getting a few militants... both attitudes are wrong.

...except for the minor issue of combantants. If the tank commander knows they are there, and present a direct threat... well, it sucks, but it is war. Firing long distance attacks into population centers is not near the same thing.

"If your enemy chooses to hide behind civilians, you must fight them regardless of the civilians. Otherwise this will become the tactic of ALL terror groups. Deny them this" Magpul Dynamics

2008-11-12 07:16:26

#178

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6956|USA

CameronPoe wrote:
lowing wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:

Ah I see you condone collective punishment. Next time your second cousin gets caught throwing stones at somebody I'll be sure to bulldoze your house.... With your rationale why didn't the US not just carpet bomb Iraq into oblivion? Perhaps a nuke or two?
Nope I do not, but on the other hand what choice does Israel have? They either pound the site to dust to protect themselves, or leave it alone and let the attacks continue.
At least you are not denying my argument I see.
Did the topic shift without me realising, damn you caught me. The original thrust of what I was talking about was land theft, wanton property destruction (i.e., to no military benefit) and illegal settlement - which has nothing to what you've managed to morph the conversation into. I must be more vigilant in future. Pounding an enemy location into the ground does no equal bulldozing some granny's house and building an apartment block on it, last I checked anyway.

I have no qualms with hitting a military target ftr.

Cam, is it not a fact that Israel continuously gets hammered from "civilian sites" most of which are not military targets?. Hamas and Hezzbolah use innocent people as shields while they launch attacks and you condemn Israel for protecting themselves against these attacks yet say nothing of this practice.

2008-11-12 07:30:40

#179

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6860

lowing wrote:
Cam, is it not a fact that Israel continuously gets hammered from "civilian sites" most of which are not military targets?. Hamas and Hezzbolah use innocent people as shields while they launch attacks and you condemn Israel for protecting themselves against these attacks yet say nothing of this practice.

When a militant fires on you from a position, that place becomes a military target while said militant fires on you from that position or holes himself up there. You are addressing an issue entirely divorced from what I've been talking about: non-military acquisition of land, farms, property, the wanton non-military destruction of same, the building of civilian infrastructure on occupied land (as outlawed by the Geneva Convention) and the putting in place of impediments designed to destroy and strangulate an economy to the point where the inhabitants no longer live 'normal' lives and some of whom, as a consequence filled with understandable bile and hatred, feel the futile need to blow themselves up whilst taking a few of the enemy down with them.

2008-11-12 07:59:51

#180

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6595|Éire

imortal wrote:
Braddock wrote:
I've never defended Hamas' policy of attacking populated, urban areas so I'm not going to start now. Having said that their mentality of attacking a large populated area in the aim of getting at least a few hardcore Zionists is pretty much the same mentality as an Israeli tank commander blowing up an occupied apartment in the hope of getting a few militants... both attitudes are wrong.
...except for the minor issue of combantants. If the tank commander knows they are there, and present a direct threat... well, it sucks, but it is war. Firing long distance attacks into population centers is not near the same thing.

"If your enemy chooses to hide behind civilians, you must fight them regardless of the civilians. Otherwise this will become the tactic of ALL terror groups. Deny them this" Magpul Dynamics

Terror attacks aside, CamPoe has raised a more important issue in this thread: Israel's wanton seizure and destruction of Palestinian land (in contravention of International law btw) and the deliberate settling of ultra Zionist settlers on said land. And all this sanctioned and carried out by the Israeli state itself, not some shady terror organisation. People conveniently sidestep this element of the argument in order to discuss the gruesome terror attacks that this activity actually inspires.

2008-11-12 10:24:08

#181

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6956|USA

CameronPoe wrote:
lowing wrote:
Cam, is it not a fact that Israel continuously gets hammered from "civilian sites" most of which are not military targets?. Hamas and Hezzbolah use innocent people as shields while they launch attacks and you condemn Israel for protecting themselves against these attacks yet say nothing of this practice.
When a militant fires on you from a position, that place becomes a military target while said militant fires on you from that position or holes himself up there. You are addressing an issue entirely divorced from what I've been talking about: non-military acquisition of land, farms, property, the wanton non-military destruction of same, the building of civilian infrastructure on occupied land (as outlawed by the Geneva Convention) and the putting in place of impediments designed to destroy and strangulate an economy to the point where the inhabitants no longer live 'normal' lives and some of whom, as a consequence filled with understandable bile and hatred, feel the futile need to blow themselves up whilst taking a few of the enemy down with them.

The land you are saying was illegally taken was the same land attacks have been launched against Israel from is it not?

2008-11-12 10:28:54

#182

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6860

lowing wrote:
The land you are saying was illegally taken was the same land attacks have been launched against Israel from is it not?

I'm not 'saying' it's illegal - it is in fact actually illegal under international law and the laws of war that concern civilians rights. And I'm pretty sure attacks haven't been launched from every square inch of it. And I'm pretty sure building civilian settlements on the stolen land, even more in the midst of Palestinians than previously, is not a military tactic aimed at defence of Israel.......

2008-11-12 10:29:52

#183

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7066

laws of war...lol

2008-11-12 10:30:55

#184

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6860

usmarine wrote:
laws of war...lol

Oh I'm sorry - I guess when you were in the army you laughed gayly whilst filling civilians with lead...

2008-11-12 10:32:15

#185

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7066

if i were in the army i would be laughing gayly i suppose

2008-11-12 10:32:42

#186

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6860

usmarine wrote:
if i were in the army i would be laughing gayly i suppose

I thought you served?

2008-11-12 10:44:21

#187

SgtHeihn: Should have ducked; +394|6791|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

I think its time we hate Luxembourg. We need to spread the hate out so its not to be considered bad.

2008-11-12 11:09:15

#188

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7066

CameronPoe wrote:
usmarine wrote:
if i were in the army i would be laughing gayly i suppose
I thought you served?

i guess i was the only one who understood my joke.

2008-11-12 12:11:33

#189

NgoDamWei: Member; +7|5968|Western North Carolina

"i guess i was the only one who understood my joke."

Nope, we are not alone.

2008-11-12 14:27:48

#190

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7066

Pretty much all the "stan's" and "ia's" annoy me.

2008-11-12 14:48:55

#191

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6860

usmarine wrote:
Pretty much all the "stan's" and "ia's" annoy me.

California, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia...

2008-11-12 14:50:05

#192

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7066

CameronPoe wrote:
usmarine wrote:
Pretty much all the "stan's" and "ia's" annoy me.
California, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia...

hmmm...was speaking about countries. but ya, those fit also.

2008-11-12 15:53:44

#193

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6804|so randum

usmarine wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
usmarine wrote:
Pretty much all the "stan's" and "ia's" annoy me.
California, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia...
hmmm...was speaking about countries. but ya, those fit also.

Namibia?

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2008-11-12 16:05:15

#194

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6457|what

Surely you don't also mean Kazakhstan? Greatest country in the world. All other countries are run by little girls.

Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-11-12 16:07:47)

2008-11-12 20:24:27

#195

Schittloaf: not fulla schit; +23|6207|MN

lol is phukastan a neighbor of kazakhstan

2008-11-13 07:56:00

#196

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6595|Éire

FatherTed wrote:
usmarine wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:

California, Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia...
hmmm...was speaking about countries. but ya, those fit also.
Namibia?

Colombia, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Liberia, Macedonia, Austria?

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Who Are The Rest Of The World Going To Hate Now Bush Is Gone?

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Who Are The Rest Of The World Going To Hate Now Bush Is Gone?

Poll

M.O.A.B wrote:

Braddock wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

imortal wrote:

Braddock wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

usmarine wrote:

usmarine wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine wrote:

usmarine wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine wrote:

usmarine wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

usmarine wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Board footer