We're not talking about 'the war' enough

[power_word_wedgie]

All the same, Frank, you are still considered military reserve. In fact, you actively signed up for Selective Service and I'm sure you rationalized it so that you can get possible government benefits in the future. I know I did. I know I did all sorts of ways to rationalize my actions. Guess what? There are those serving their one year service in the Israeli army saying to themselves, "Man, let this year go by fast so I can get out of here and back to the rest of my life."

As for percentages, they're really not as accurate as you can be since, frankly, you have no idea what the future portends. Today looks like regional wars, but tomorrow could be WWIII or some other massive incursion requiring the draft. Vietnam wasn't a world war, but it still had the draft. Heck, up until five years ago, the big selling point for the military reserves was it was a foolproof way to have Uncle Sam pay for your college. All you have to do is cool your heels for a few years and the college fund magically appears. Guess what - the chickens came back to roost and many who thought that there was no chance of seeing combat got to spend some time in Iraq. You never know.

Also, you don't know who is going to actively join, so in essence it is best to take out all the children - boys and girls. Yeah, women aren't usually in front lines for the US army, but they definitely serve in supply lines - sometimes more critical of a target than the combat unit themselves. It's amazing how effective a howitzer is without any shells.

Finally, just because there's a lot of a target doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to tak out the target - it just means that you need to lob more missiles to take out more of the target. If you're going to try to take out the military reserve, got for it all. It just means that you have to be more creative in doing it.

Frank, unless you're bypassing the laws of the US, to actively signed up to be military reserve by signing up for Selective Service. You can rationalize your chances of seeing combat to your heart's content (heck, I'm sure hat there are Israeli soldiers that do this on a daily basis - saying to themselves that there's no way they're going to see combat), but the fact remains that you are military reserve. Thus, by your own definition, you're should be considered a legitimate military target.

[Username17]

PWW, if you can't tell the difference between a country that could conscript anyone and a county that does conscript everyone, then I think we have no basis for rational discussion.

Rest assured, the Palestinians can and do.

Most nations have an active or inactive draft of some sort. Israel is distinct in that it applies to everyone. Since the nation of Israel does not discriminate, there is little reason to ask the enemies of Israel to discriminate.

The natural consequence of the statement "We will mobilize our entire populace to fight our enemies!" is that your enemies are therefore legitimately fighting your entire populace.

-Username17

[power_word_wedgie]

1154444765[/unixtime]]PWW, if you can't tell the difference between a country that could conscript anyone and a county that does conscript everyone, then I think we have no basis for rational discussion.

Oh, there's a difference - however, at the end of it all, they're both military targets.

Let's look at it this way: the US military/government actively get all of their young men ages 18 to 35 to sign up for Selective Service. In fact, they make it so there are penalties if you don't. They spend a fair amount of time and money registering all of these young men to put them in a database and give them cards so that they can keep track of their registration. Why do they do this? Because, as a reservoir of potential soldiers, you're a military asset. The key to war is destroying out your opponent's military assets. By signing up to say that you enter the military if Uncle Sam calls, you are a military reserve and thus become a military target.

Now, are you as valuable of a military target as a US tank? Maybe not. But, neither is the Israeli kid. And actually, I'll take this one step further. By signing up to be in Selective Service, you are actively stating that you are a military reserve if your nation calls. The Israeli kid is none of these.

The problem with your suppostion is that it assumes the following:

1) The kid will be in Israel when they come of age. There's no guarantee that this will happen.

2) The kid won't be a conscientious objecter. Hey, the guy may rather spend the time in jail than join the military.

3) The kid may try to become a medic or like MOS because the last thing they want to do is hurt another person - in fact, they want to help all.

4) The country will have required service when the kid comes of age.

5) The country will still be an opponent to others in the area. The one thing that I've learned in my life is that the only thing constant is change. Hey, in high school, I would have sworn that my fate was to die in the Fulda Gap before my 30th birthday. Things looked pretty bleak, with one nation being the definite opponent. Things change.

The thought process requires that you become the judge, jury, and executioner with no chance of the kid to live their life accordingly because of a potenial future, and it's wrong. It would be the same as if I organized death squads to kill inner city African-Americans because their odds of committing a violent crime is high once they become adults. That's wrong.

Finally, the problem becomes one becomes engrossed in the populace's reward due to the forefathers actions in another country being "Crime against Humanity", but they have no problem resting in their own house when their own forefathers committed worse actions. Hey, the Native Americans:

1) Were considered a second class citizen, thus allowed to have all sorts of persecution submitted against them.

2) Had all of their land stolen so that you (and I) can rest in luxury.

3) Were victims of germ warfare - overtly (by being exposed to Europeans) and covertly (by the government giving them blankets that were known to have virus strains in them so that they can kill the village)

4) Were victims of religious fanaticism. (Can we say Manifest Destiny)

5) Had their land stolen by those that had no claim to the land. Hey, at least the Israelis can claim that they have the old Testament to say that it was their religion's land. Europeans have no claim like this to the new world.

6) Like the Palestineans, live in barely livable conditions. I like to go down to the Southwest because I used to live in Albuquerque when I was a child. My wife wanted to get some pottery, so we decided to go to a local Indian reservation and make a trip of it. Rest assured, one of the most poorest areas I have ever been (and I lived in some pretty lousy sections of towns) was on that reservtion. It was depressing.

So, with all that has been stated, the natural conclusion is that these conquerors should be driven into the sea and their land given back and they should get reparations. Crimes against humanity should be dealt with.

But you see, it doesn't stop there. Hey, the British have been in Scotland and Northern Ireland - let's invade there and have them driven away. The Russians are in Chechyna - let's drive them out of there. The Chinese are in Tibet - let's drive them out of there.

Hey, if we're going to do this - I suggest a huge army - they're going to be pretty tired afterwards.

edit: And to sumarize a little more, that's why I was trying to keep to just what was happening (ie Democrats action, etc.) and not really whether it validated any good of evil intent. It goes back to the silly alignment debate justifications that permeate D&D boards. The problem is that, as you mentioned, it requires a base of reference often which are based on our subjective opinions. As you noted, you think the Palestinians do make some differentiation here. Personally, I'm thinking that if I walked up to a Hamas individual (and I'm not in the military) and announced that I was American, I really don't like my chances. Personally, I think that they're probably using a pretty universal justification rather than split hairs on whether somebody could be in the military versus somebody that will be in the military. However, that's just a subjective opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Strangely enough, I always thought it was hypocritical of us to support Israeli Zionism unquestioningly for that very reason. If you're going to say that land belongs to people who lived there thousands of years ago, then we have to return the Americas to the Native Americans.

[User3]

Oh, I'll agree to that as well. The thing is that however anyone phrases the argument, it's a double edged sword. For example, to take on the below, then you're saying that (a) Israel belong to the Jewish community and always have and (b) we should be helping the Palestinians just because we have an "morally wrong" background. If you're trying to argue on the moral background, then it doesn't make sense that two wrongs doesn't make it right. That's why I hate the whole "this government is good/evil" in moral logic. It makes it sould like one is some sort of Lorenzo Llamas for the international community raising either the sign "Hot" sign or "Not" sign over the country in question. And yes, you're becoming equal to Bush when he proclaims, "The axis of evil," one of the dumbest things out there.

And that's been the perspective that I've been taking, and I believe Josh has been taking as well: when it comes to the issue at hand, what is the issue with respect the country's interest. Hey, I'll freely admit that my interest is only the US interest, and hence over the last few days my opinion has shifted somewhat. Though I understand why Israel shells for their own interests, I think that now the US is starting (a) to lose the support of the moderate arab country allies and (b) weaken a Lebanese government that is the best that we can hope for there. Thus we should get Israel to ceasefire due to that. It's not whether someone is good or evil rating of civilian casualties. Personally, I think Israel and Hizbollah deserve each other. However, I also understand that at home the politics of the situation (for both the Republican and Democratic parties) probably won't lead to a ceasefire.

1154514270[/unixtime]]Strangely enough, I always thought it was hypocritical of us to support Israeli Zionism unquestioningly for that very reason. If you're going to say that land belongs to people who lived there thousands of years ago, then we have to return the Americas to the Native Americans.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I guess I should clarify that I agree that there really aren't any good guys in this situation. I don't think anybody in the whole Middle East (at least in terms of leadership and military forces) wears anything close to a white hat.

[PhoneLobster]

What no white hats?

How sad, I guess its OK for a major organized government to continue to randomly murder and destroy as they see fit.

See, I can empathise with the arabs, these dudes come along with unrelenting military fire power, killed their family members, destroyed their economies, and demolished their homes leaving many of them mourning, pennyless, homeless and starving. Then they keep on doing it again and again basically forever.

Of course they fight.

But can you empathise with the Israelis? I mean they just do it because they can. Because they want the land and they figure killing the people already there is totally cool.

One side has at least my understanding of why they feel that way. The other side I have nothing for but utter disgust and condemnation.

The palestinians and other resisting types may have grey hats but the Israeli hats are VERY black.

Its straight forward. In any long running conflict you cannot let the fact that both sides have blood on their hands distract you from the understanding that one of those sides is at fault. Otherwise you not only can't have justice but you can't defuse the underlying cause of the conflict.

There will be peace in the region the moment Israel stops being a total dick. And that makes them the bad guys.

[Xander77]

Right.

First things first.

This is probably the last thread I'll participate in on the bboy boards.

It has taken me an unusually long amount of time to decide to reply. Usually, I practice the "a samurai must make a decision within 7 breaths" style of decision making – going with what appears right, or, if no moral decisions function into it, fun or convenient.

In this case however, I'm dealing with something extremely unpleasant. It reminds me of posting on stormfront, or, to use a less offensive example the black isle politics board (which is where the link to stormwatch, along with the suggestion to bash the people there came from. Some people have no grasp of irony).


I fear that I will lose my temper. I fear I will not be able to make my points simple and understandable. I'm already perturbed and slightly afraid upon discovering that people I've interacted with on daily basis react to "Hitler killed the wrong 6 million Jews" with nothing more than an "eh" and I'm ill at ease at the prospect of discovering their further reacting to this argument.


After all, this post is going to be very long. Still, if you believe… actually, you might want to read this post regardless of what you believe. It will contain, for the most part, facts. Not "facts according to" – facts that both sides are willing to accept, or even proclaim, more or less loudly. There will be no conspiracy theories, insane troll logic, or statements that would be an invitation to commit violence IRL. All debatable opinions will be noted with the appropriate tag.


(The above comes from a political forum I frequent. At certain times, people grow tired of having to ascertain that the sky is blue [except during the night time, when clouded, and when viewed by a colour blind person] and the grass is green [except when it's dead, painted a different colour or genetically improved]) at the beginning (as well as every few pages) of an argument). At the risk of offending someone, most of the items below are the basic "sky and grass" facts, that you'd probably accept in order to start the discussion. They are blindingly obvious, and if you don't accept them (IMO and IME) you're probably uninformed, naive, stupid and/or fanatical.)


I'd like to thank Frank for making my last posts on bboy about something. Or another. While the above regarding violence IRL stands true, as well as my… very poor opinion of anyone who believes I, my family and friends should be dead, based on us belonging to an ethnic/religious/national group rather because of personal knowledge of who we are. I also appreciate the easily disproved… claims… that the argument is full of. I even wondered briefly whether the above is some sort of very subtle parody, then I remembered what I remember about the poster.


I'd also like to thank Maj. For the link. For her relatively courageous behavior. And for making my worldview simpler. After all, we all enjoy simpler worlds, and one in which anyone tentatively pro-Muslim believes that Israel should be destroyed deep down inside, and is simply to cowardly to say so is fairly black and white.


This post will have a lot of Nazi/Holocaust comparisons. I've read "Adam, son of a dog" the other day, Frank has been nice enough to bring them up, and I'm a Jew in the land of Israel, so…



Now, on to the facts proper?

Not quite. This is a slightly off-topicish psycho-analysis. Or "ruminations on the how's and why's". I enjoy trying to comprehend the various motives of people who do things that baffle me. At times, I even go as far as asking them (which rarely goes well. The prevailing answer is "I don't know, because." * Shrug* ). And, with time, I've managed to learn to arrive at something that sounds like it makes sense and doesn't fall apart after further interaction after having a relatively brief, but information filled exchange with the subject.

In any case, this refers to the age old "why is he picking on ME?". Or, more specifically, why Israel? Or even more specifically, what's with the "Nazis, South Africans and Israelis" string? It's a distinguishing thread that goers through a lot of similar rants as the worst atrocities commit ed in the last 50 years. That's… interesting. In case anyone forgot, in that time period we've had Rwanda Sri-Lanka (Tamil's Cambodia, not to mention Russia and China and and so forth. Few people are actively insane enough to claim that the above aren't many, many, many, many times worse that what even the Arabs claim Israel to be. And yet… the lack of interest is incomparable. The reasons?

Well, nobody could claim that Israel being populated by Jews has anything to do with it. After all, identifying being Anti-Israel with being an Anti-Semite has long been announced a straw man, an ad-hominiem attack upon the Anti-Israelis, etc. Just because the Arab/Muslim rhetoric mixes anti-Israeli and anti-Semite feeling freely, as does Neo-Nazi rhetoric, doesn't mean I should insult the person who thinks that Hitler killed the wrong 6 million Jews by assuming s/he/it is an Anti-Semite. (Yes, I am using "Frank" and "People who think like him" more or less interchangeably. Some are more forward about their feelings, some are less, but at their core, they're quite similar)

What else could it possibly be? America supporting Israel? That's an interesting subject for a discussion – the way countries supported by America are are viewed by the western world and certain parts of the American left – but it's quite long, and doesn't tie quite as neatly with South-Africa.

It's white vs brown/black (natch, most Israelis are actually brown, and quite a few are black. But you wouldn't know it if you didn't live here). Very simple, if presented properly. Captures the undeveloped mind and heart. Brown people may slaughter brown people by the millions, and black people may slaughter black people by the hundreds of thousands, but… it doesn't film well. It's hard to tell them all apart, and you have to work in order to turn it into a simple "right and wrong", oppressor and oppressed issue. And who needs to work to understand or care about a situation?

Hey, if you have an alternative hypothesis that doesn't echo my thought back at me, and isn't completely insane, share it. I've been wondering about the issue myself, for quite some time.


…


And, to deconstructing the posts proper.


Jews, Arabs and Britt's during WW2.

I dislike… nay, I loathe the excuse of "other people have/would have done worse". I would hate to use something as stupid as "other countries ruled by the British used the opportunity of WW2 to attempt to free themselves. Some of them actively co-operated with the Axis to do so." No. That's pointless.

Instead, I will talk about Ben-Guiron's promise to "Struggle with the British oppression as if there is no Nazi enemy, and help fight the Nazi enemy as if there was no British oppression" (recently adapted into "Make peace as if there are no terrorists, and fight terrorists as if we're not making peace" proving how much more retarded our politicians have grown over the last 50 years. Battalions of Israeli volunteers have enlisted to fight the Nazi enemy, paratroopers (yes, it's stupid but true) have been landed in Europe to help the local partisans (resistance fighters) and agents have been sent to attempt to help the local Jewish population. Not nearly enough was done, but that's… Simultaneously,they undermined the local British rule in Israel. Which:

A) Hasn't exactly hampered the forces actually fighting the Germans.

B) If anyone needs an explanations to the why's of it, have been capturing and sending ship-fulls of Jewish refugees right back into the ovens. Naturally, that would have been improper during the war, so they sent them into… detainment… camps on local islands. Etc, etc, fairly boring stuff really.

But… what about the Arabs, presumably the good guys, because they weren't working against the local British rule (mostly because the local British rule was pro-Arab through and through)? Why, their leaders were meeting Hitler and enlisting troops into the Waffen SS. (Again… these are the facts. The Arabs in no way deny them, the Mufti is Arafat's hero.)

Honestly, when I read that particular "working against the British" bit, I wondered (for the first, but not the last time) whether it is a subtle parody, an attempt to build an argument that anyone with the barest hints of historical knowledge could tear apart…


Regarding the "Israelis are Nazis" in general. This is another moment that fascinates me. The why's an how's of it. Maybe the Arabs/Palestinians are masters of propaganda. Maybe they're pretty good at shouting down the opponent with a witty "No, YOU'RE stupid" rejoinder. Or maybe the world is just anxious to believe certain untruths. In any case… Arab leaders have cooperated with Nazi officials. Arab leaders (both those in the 1940's and those that came latter) talked admiringly of the Nazis long after the war. Arabs have served in the Waffen SS. Arab rhetoric borrows freely from the Nazis (again, facts. Also, see below re – Arab speeches) . Arab caricatures re: Israel and the Jews might as well have been traced from Der Spigel circa 1936. "Mein Kampff" is a bigger seller in the Arab world today than it ever was in Germany (this amusing fact brought to you by the Egypt, Jordan and Lebanese governments). And yet…

[opinion]And yet, the Israelis, who have trivialized the Holocaust so in their home land. The same Israelis who (popular satirical bit, not quite as funny without the context) are willing to compare parking regulations to the Nirenberg laws, and the parking maid writing them a ticket to Hitler, are shocked into a stupor when they run into actually anti-Semites.Israelis are unwilling and somewhat unable to believe that the people who constantly proclaim their desire to kill all Jews are similar to the Nazis, and are much less than willing to enter a shouting competition to proclaim "No, actually you're the one that's similar to a Nazi, and it's ironic that you're accusing us of the same".[/opinion]



[opinion]People on the right wing often sees things through a spectacle of some colour. "He's doing this because he's from ethnicity X/religion /Y and has secret plans Z". But… people on the left wing often just see pain a picture of the way things should be from within their mind, and place it right over the reality. A white man has a "racist pig" cut-out in front of him at all times, black people walk around with "poor victims" cut-outs blocking them. Same thing with what people say.

Back in 1995, I participated in a "meeting of cultures, facilitate a friendly exchange" with a group of Palestinians. And the young liberals who came along (and, let's face it, myself) were quite surprised at just how much they hated us. The peace process was in full swing, as far as we were concerned a peaceful resolution to the conflict was in sight. They… thought otherwise. They wanted us driven across the sea as the "realistic" option, and into it as the ideal one. Students hand-picked as the less radical elements. Some of my friends managed to ignore the above and return to their "all anyone wants is peace" habits. Some became rabid right-wingists. And I… I started actually listening to what the Palestinians leaders are saying. It's amazing how few people actually bother to do that, instead "knowing" what the Palestinians want based on pretty little pictures inside their own heads.

Another interesting point is the radically different interpretation of the texts. This is an interesting point… The Palestinians don't bother to lie. I mean, people don't actually listen to what they're saying, so why not come out and say what they think, want and what their aims are? They're saying absolutely out loud, that the final goal of any and all negotiations is the destruction of Israel. The radically tolerant part, the one that it took Palestinian leaders 40 years to actually accept without killing anyone who suggested it, is the willingness not to destroy it all at once. The willingness to accept arms, money and control of territory for the promise of being willing to talk to Israel about a peace process at some point in the future (this, btw, is what happened between 1990 to 1995). The willingness to entertain the idea of accepting more money, guns, and permanent control of most "conquered territories" for a 5 year cease-fire (the most radically tolerant idea yet).

Back to radically different interpretations of the text… let's keep it simple. When the Israelis talk (and talk, and talk) of their burning, urgent desire to actually have a permanent peace with anyone and everyone, at any cost, that's dismissed as lies. Nefarious intentions. And yet when Arabs and Palestinians openly declare that they have no ultimate goal other than the destruction of Israel, it's dismissed… in reality, they're exaggerating, trying to intimidate someone are really fluffy bunnies all around… (yes, lame text, the point is still clear I hope)[/opinion]



A small aside, that I couldn't figure out where else to place (I do hope you'll forgive me for wandering a little. I'm certain this post is fascinating enough that you're jumping with glee at the thought of additional bits of information).

Israeli Arabs aren't denied the right of serving in the IDF. They posses the right not to serve there, if they wish. The Druz serve, and relatively speaking a larger percentage of the Druz serve in combat units than of the Jews. Quite a few Bedouins serve. Some Arabs serve, but they ostracized, beaten, and occasionally murdered. This is not surprising, after all, the Palestinians execute "cooperators with the Zionist enemy" on live television (now, in the middle of the peace process, whenever)(again, facts).



Another departure – re: the countries that America supports.

Ignoring the fact that the list presented is a bit less than full, how about we make another one? Countries that are frie… at pea… are willing not actively engage in hostile acts against Israel. Want to know what they have in common? Political, economical, publicity and even (relatively speaking) stability benefits. It's actually fairly simple – relatively sane, semi-western style democratic, econfiltered= peace with Israel. Or is it vice-versa? At the same time, more third-world, more insane, unstable, theocratic = rabidly attacking Israel. I wonder if there's some sort of lesson to be found here. [opinion]Egypt receives the better share of what's formally "money going to Israel" + modern arms for the army. Which is odd, seeing how a part the peace treaty with a country that's extremely unlikely to go to war with anyone other than Israel is better arms for that countries army.[/opinion]



The Genocide that the Israelis are currently conducting against the Palestianins.

Did I mention how annoying it is to argue "the grass is green, the sky is blue, learn the meaning of the word before you use it?" It is, mind. A war isn't a genocide. A war where innocent people get killed isn't a genocide. Hell, up until 1939, what was happening in Europe wasn't a genocide. A genocide is the systematical eradication of an ethnicity. If slightly stretched, it might include a religion and, possibly, attempting to exterminate everyone in a nation. When two nations or more are in a state of war for over a century/50 years, and the population of one (X) grows in the order of several magnitudes, and does so much faster than the other's (Y) , that's a pretty big hint that Y isn't committing genocide on X.

Naturally, the usual response to that we're unwilling or unable to do so. International pressure, America's unwillingness to cooperate, whatever. That's… interesting. Since 1976, the Likud (of which Kadima isn't actually a continuation. It's more of a Progressive Party to Likud's GOP) has been in power on several occasions. And yet… the Palestinians are still around. Nothing in the in the party programme talks about genocide, and in fact, it was during one of their terms that Israel's most right-wing party who's party platform included the Forcefull Transfer of the Palestinians/Disloyal Arabs was declared illegal. Presumably,the forces that be didn't allow it to exist because killing all of them would be so much easier. In fact, in the last 50 years, the Arabs themselves admit to having killed more Palestinians than they Israel has ever killed (see below), but we'll ignore that, because Arabs? The good guys.

So. It's a genocide that isn't actually happening at the moment. A genocide that we've been preparing for for the last 100 years. A genocide that we're not talking about, have no plans for, and in fact, is only revealed to Frank and his ilk, in prophetic dreams. Man, I bet the people in Rwanda Sri-Lanka (Tamil's Cambodia etc would have been happy to be the victims of such a genocide.

The Palestinians would't be but their "genocides" are a gamble, anyway. Whenever the friendly host discovers that armed terrorists are less than polite house guests, and are really quite anxious to take power, it all becomes a matter of "which side is better armed and more ruthless". Syria and Jordan in one case. Most factions other than the Palestinians in Lebanon in another.



UN Resolutions.

[opinion]Do you remember the Rwanda etc part from the beginning of the post? Maybe you should go back and re-read. Does the conclusion still make sense?

Let's play a little game.

It's called "gooogle for UN resolutions against Israel. Now google for UN resolutions against the USSR, USA, China, Sri-Lanka, Cambodia, Anything in Africa".

The UN is a biased body that is hostile to Israel.[/opinion]


Last, but not least. "Both sides are just as bad." "I don't delude myself to believe that the Israelis are the good guys." And other phrases that make me throw up a little in my mouth, from people who are otherwise sane and intelligent.

To which… I could go into comparsions, analogies, etc, but… Dresden. Roosevelt's Internment Camps for Japanese-Americans. These aren't local fuck-ups. Or isolated incidents. These are bad, bad things, done as a result of government policy (and I didn't even mention the USSR). By the good guys in what's arguably the last war where the difference between the good guys and the bad guys was clear. And yet… where are the people claiming that the bombing of Dresden and the Blitz cancelled each other out, and both sides were equally at fault? Where are the people claiming that "both sides had concentration camps, and both sides are equally fucked up"?

Make no mistake, such people exist. But their rants are discounted as the crazy ravings that they are. For obvious reasons. At best, "Both sides are equally messed up" is the equivalent of the lazy and apathetic "I don't vote because all those bastards are alike". At worst…

This world doesn't have any saintly exalted heroes. The best amongst them are of a slightly less tarnished grey. It does have villains.

Roosevelt has to manipulate the living hell out of everyone to get the USA into the war. And he did so both for reasons both LG and personal/political and due to simple foresight and an instinct of preservation. He chose a monster nearly as evil as Hitler as his ally, and did a lot to pacify him, including betraying a nation into his hands. And yet… he was fighting monster. And he won.

You don't get people who don't fuck up. Make mistakes, on whatever level, have people do stupid, cruel, evil things in times of war. And yet.

We want to live. Live, like normal people, like everyone. (this is from an old movie with Christopher Walken. Cheesy, but I like it. True to life).

Does anyone actually doubt that Israel would jump all over an offer from everyone to leave us the fuck alone? That this isn't our main desire?

We want to keep on existing. They don't want us to exist. It may be a strawman, but it sure is a durable one, having survived 50 years and several wars.

And, yes… the people who want would wish to be left in peace are the good guys. Stupid and flawed though they are. And the peple who wish to kill them all,the people who collaborated with the Nazis, the people who killed more Arabs in the last 50 years than the Jews ever did, etc… they are the bad guys.

PS - Why didn't I make any comparsions to the things the US did recently or less than recently? Because I didn't really go into specifics anyways, and because I presume that Frank advocates the destruction of the US. If that's not the case, then it's another hurrah for hypocracy.

[Username17]

We want to live. Live, like normal people, like everyone.

Then you could have gone to America, like the rest of us.

Sure, the US is falling apart, it's losing its Empire and its thrashing around like a dying tyranosaur all over the world and it's taking a lot of good people with it.

But the United States doesn't have to be that way. THere have been times in its history when it wasn't and those times will come again. The Jews in the US can live their lives. Really, we do fine.

See, Israel is the Final Solution. NOt just for he Palestinians, but for the Jews. It's the biggest concentration camp ever, and there is nothing for anyone there but inevitable destruction.

You've been fighting for a piece of land for 60 years, but you don't have to. You didn't have to fight for those lands in the first place, and you could jolly well live in peace over here right now.

THe sane Jews are over here, where you don't have to blockade food shipments to Arab neighborhoods. That means that the insane Jews are over there.

I am a sane Jew. YOu are an insane Jew. And it really is that simple.

-Username17

[Xander77]

1154627662[/unixtime]]
I am a sane Jew. YOu are an insane Jew. And it really is that simple.

-Username17

...

..

.

I can give you several hours to come up with something that might sound like an argument. Some way to claim some of the things you said weren't really lies, but innocent mistakes, or could be interpeted either way, or something.

Because this... this is just too sad for words.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Right. The 'Sane Jew' is the one who advocates killing children based on the accident of where they were born.

Right.

Frank, I don't know whose shit is in your mouth, but the fact you seem to love to eat it is disturbing.

-Desdan

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Last warning for EVERYONE to play nice.
[/TGFBS]

[Username17]

Dude, if a 12 year old and a 9 year old are fighting, who do you blame?

It is that simple. The Israelis have the helicopters, and the bulldozers, and the howitzers. They, no you have the power. The power to continue the war. The power to stop.

Here's the "Uncle Bob" theory of terrorism:

Terrorism happens when uncle Bob feels that for whatever reason he can't handle it any more and goes off into his garage and improvises an explosive device and takes something down.

So, since virtyally everyone actually has, or even is an "Uncle Bob" to one degree or another, the only way to stop terrorism is to kill or incarcerate virtually everyone. And ironically, even attempting to do that is a form of terrorism.

And when you come down and kill some people to take out Uncle Bob, you just killed "some people" and there are a lot of family members who have a little more they can't take...

You'd think you'd have fvcking learned when your policy of attacking neighborhoods you said you thought terrorists might have hidden in resulted in the Uncle Bobs of the world blowing themselves up to prevent that from happening. You can't win this by intimidation or howitzer fire. It's literally impossible, since every civilian you kill increases world-wide sympathy for those against you and no matter how far you push the border you still have a fvcking border.

This isn't rocket science, and the conclusions are obvious. And the people in power of your country aren't idiots (I wish I could say the same about mine), they know that their policies are guaranteed to create a war without end. And that's the point. That's the goal.

Congratulations, your nation is the schoolyard bully. The kind that doesn't even take lunch money any more. Just starts fights to prove it can.

You have the weapons, and the military, and the training. You could stop it. Not with a bullet, but with not using a bullet. Really, just make a peace and stick to it even in the face of criminals monkeying around. It's not even complicated.

You have the power. So really, it's your fault. That's something you have to live with. Or die trying.

-Username17

[Xander77]

1154629142[/unixtime]]
You have the weapons, and the military, and the training. You could stop it. Not with a bullet, but with not using a bullet. Really, just make a peace and stick to it even in the face of criminals monkeying around. It's not even complicated.

First of all:

This is not 12 years old vs 9 year old. This used to be a 12 year old karate kid vs several 16 year olds, and is currently a 12 year old kid with martial arts weapons vs a fat and mildly retarded 15 year old with sticks and stones that the 16 year olds from before keep giving him. To push an analogy.

Second:

So. Reading comperhension.

Not a strong point?

The moment. The very moment. Anyone actually jumps up and says "hey, Israelis, I, as a repersantative of the Palestinian people am willing to negotiate a peace treaty that doesn't involve the destruction of Israel" Israel is going to get down on the knees and suck his dick.

Except... nobody wants that.

We left south Lebanon (that attempt to "extend our border) 5 years ago, tolerated endless provocations and... and... and...

That's the interesting part. The person who started the thread wondered why the Hizbollah started the whole thing. Many others are wondering the same thing.

This is understandable. After all, in order to understand why the Hizbollah did what it did, you would actually have to listen to Nassralah make one of his speeches, and believe him when he says that the Hizbollah's ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel, and it's a goal it's going to pursue regardless of what Israel does.

[opinion]When we don't respond, they increase their attacks. When we respond, pummel them for a while until we achieve our goals and/or back off due to internationla pressure, they back off, recuperate, and start the dance again.[/opinion]

BTW, this is already slightly less insane and slightly more similar to an actual argument, the sort I'm used to from elsewhere. Good job.

Let's go back to the schoolyard analogy. Did your mother used to tell you "ignore them, and they'll go away?"

Remember how that didn't work? Eventually, you have to fight, run, or be beaten and humiliated. Or, in this case, have citizens killed, and killed, and killed. We know that you advocate running...

Also, I forgot to mention quite in these terms in my long post:

We want to keep on existing. Arabs and Palestinians don't want us to exist. These are the simple reasons behind the situation. And the situation is going to endure, as it is right now, until one of the sides changes their opinion.

[Xander77]

1154634228[/unixtime]]Finally.
You have been in a good position to educate those people who do not have the daily experience of living and working (and being part of the military) in Israel. Most of the time, you've squandered that ability by posting short, nasty quips that help no one. It's about time that you finally posted something meaningful - even if disagreed with.

Insert short nasty quip at your expense here.

Also, just how was my "daily experience" relevant here? I posted what should be common knowledge to any individual who decides to form an opinion on the matter.

I posted what I did on Nifty to encourage people to continue to post on the subject of Israel now that you've been banned. Your rude comments have done everything possible to keep people from speaking what's on their minds for fear that you will just come along and be a rude jerk. Congratulations. You won. No one will post on the subject anymore for fear that Xander will go postal and degrade them, calling them imbeciles for thinking differently.

Yes, the same way it stopped them from posting on the subjects of religion, books and American politics (man, I wish Nifty has a semi-decent search system, so I could include links). Also, I don't call people imbeciles for thinking differently. I call them imbeciles (well, you know the rest)

But, I do admire your civic minded conduct in the matter.

So, I'll ask my question here...

Why should Israel exist? If I accept that it has to exist, why does it have to exist where it is?

...

Georgians are better than Armenians.

Why?

Because they are.

But, in what way (also what are they better than, in Russian) are they better?

Than Armenians.

...

This has been your Zen moment of the day. Please return to share any enlightenment you might have found in it.

PS - Just wondering. How (in what way ) do you believe that the area going to get an increase in peace with Israel destroyed?

[User3]

I don't think anyone is pro-Hezbollah here. Nassralah Is an absolute asshole, who can apparently sleep at night knowing that he uses innocents as his personal shield.

Does that make killing the innocents shielding him OK?

Would it be morally defensible for a suicide bomber to kill Ehud Olmert as he was speaking at an elementry school?

A lot of Israelis seem to have a serious blind spot when it comes to 'justification.' If invading Lebanon because a terrorist organization funded by another country trying to ransom two soldiers is defensible, why isn't trying to ransom two soldiers for a number of your civilians [defensible]?

The evil comes from two fundamentalist religious organizations (as usual), and is being taken out on two largely innocent civilian populations. And, as usual, fear is leading to hate, and now a bunch of kids are going to go to the dark side because they were bombed.

[power_word_wedgie]

1154607532[/unixtime]]What no white hats?

How sad, I guess its OK for a major organized government to continue to randomly murder and destroy as they see fit.

See, I can empathise with the arabs, these dudes come along with unrelenting military fire power, killed their family members, destroyed their economies, and demolished their homes leaving many of them mourning, pennyless, homeless and starving. Then they keep on doing it again and again basically forever.

Of course they fight.

But can you empathise with the Israelis? I mean they just do it because they can. Because they want the land and they figure killing the people already there is totally cool.

One side has at least my understanding of why they feel that way. The other side I have nothing for but utter disgust and condemnation.

The palestinians and other resisting types may have grey hats but the Israeli hats are VERY black.

Its straight forward. In any long running conflict you cannot let the fact that both sides have blood on their hands distract you from the understanding that one of those sides is at fault. Otherwise you not only can't have justice but you can't defuse the underlying cause of the conflict.

There will be peace in the region the moment Israel stops being a total dick. And that makes them the bad guys.

The thing is that the other side does enough to make them wear gray hats as well. They (the Palestinians) send suicide bombers into buses, have been launching missiles before the escalation, kidnapped the soldiers, and such. If you ask me in a moral sense, yeah, I think that those are actions that deserve a black hat. However, I think that they deserve a gray hat, just like the Israelis, and it would be the same shade of gray hat that I wear as an American. Heck, per Midnight Oil, an argument could be made for Australians wearing a grey hat for what happened to the Aboriginal people. As AMW noted, trying to go around and rationalizing other nations on moral perspectives really ends up being hypocritical because of our own nations past. It is like the town drunk berating with others the guy down the street because he has a drinking problem.

Now I do agree with your (it may have been Frank or Crissa's) perspective about the US perception of Israel because of how we handle Jewish criticism. (Note that this is not a criticism of the religion but really a critism of American culture/perspective) He have experienced recently a case study that highlights this fact: Mel Gibson's DWI arrest. Apparently, he said some anti-semitic things during the arrest. For that, now some are saying that he might have thrown away his career in Hollywood. In my opinion, if he had said anti-Christian or anti-Muslim sentiments, his career would have not experienced as much strain as it is now. Why? I don't know - the only thing that I can think of is that it is just that sensitive of a subject. The closest thing that comes to mind is that the party that usually takes on the roll of fighting for people's rights (traditionally that has been the Democratic party) doesn't want to upset a segment of their voting base.

The closest thing that I can relate to it is the Cuban-American opinion of Castro. Hey, were were at was with Vietnam in the late 1960's and we're basically at normal relations with them now. Cuba, of who the last time we were in the country in a military campaign was in the 19th century, we still have an embargo with them. Why? Because they constitute a swing voting block in a swing state that is needed to win the Presidency.

And I do agree with Frank about some of the fundamentalist Christians. My wife and I watched a show that had a segment on religions. Let me preface that my wife went to a Christian college. Now during the show, they were showing a segment where a group of fundamentalist Christians were praying that George Bush would be re-elected. (It must have been during his first term) My wife and I looked at each other and just shook our head. That kind of stuff is nuts. Yeah, I would like certain candidates to win, but not take it to the extreme of hoping God dogs the opponent.

And, as I said before, since my opinion is based on American interest, if I was in charge I'd start forcing the Israelis to cease-fire. We're burning too many bridges with our moderate Arab allies and all the bombing is doing in weakening the best that we could hope for in a Lebanese government. Frankly, time has run out for Israel's offensive. I'll agree now that the bombardment is now against US interests.

[PhoneLobster]

The thing is that the other side does enough to make them wear gray hats as well.... blah blah blah

Look nearly your whole post is that same useless "Look over there its a UFO" strategy again.

Oh dear, every nation ever has done bad things. So we shouldn't understand history, we shouldn't judge nations and most of all we can't do anything to stop more bad things happening.

And thats the point here, not who has done or is doing what the point is who can change it. The Israelis are the ones who get to decide between war and peace and as long as they choose war they are the badest guys on the block.

Because whether the othersides participate in the war or not it isn't within their power to stop it. If it was and they chose war then they would be the badest guys, but they just plain don't have the guns, the money or the international backing, all of that falls to Israel along with all the damning responsibility for the situation.

Of course if you really want to push the who can change it envelope the real enabler of Israel is the US...

Frankly, time has run out for Israel's offensive. I'll agree now that the bombardment is now against US interests.

So there was a time limit? A certain amount of arbitrary destruction and murder that they were allowed in all fairness?

If there was such a stupid eye for an eye tooth for a tooth justification then personally I'd say the limit was capturing two of the enemies soldiers, anything beyond that is certainly unjust.

And lets note I said capture. See cause you don't "kidnap" enemy soldiers, you capture them. They are POWs not kidnapping victims, the kidnap term is just part of Israel's usual venemous spin.

[Draco_Argentum]

1154625925[/unixtime]]
Make no mistake, such people exist. But their rants are discounted as the crazy ravings that they are. For obvious reasons. At best, "Both sides are equally messed up" is the equivalent of the lazy and apathetic "I don't vote because all those bastards are alike". At worst…

I think you missed one very important point and then went to attack the soft target moral sideline.

The bombing of German and Japanese civilians was evil. Now thats morality and can't be proved. The point was that condeming Israel's use of similar tactics is no longer considered an acceptible way of waging war.

I think a better point is one I once posted at Nifty. Forget the moral debate. Its a fact that targeting the civilian population's morale dosen't work. It makes the target more willing to fight. Both sides of the Israel fight should know this but they both don't seem to care.

[Crissa]

The moment. The very moment. Anyone actually jumps up and says "hey, Israelis, I, as a repersantative of the Palestinian people am willing to negotiate a peace treaty that doesn't involve the destruction of Israel" Israel is going to get down on the knees and suck his dick.

If I recall, the last guy to do that was deposed by Isreal with bulldozers and bombing police stations.

Who can speak for a whole people when being a leader of those people means Isreal decides it's okay to bomb you, personally, in your home or office, neighbors be damned.

Yes, the leader of Lebanon says stupid things. But ya know, throwing bombs at him won't make him not says stupid things. Hizbollah wants to destroy Isreal... What does this have to do with Lebanon? Why is Lebanon's seaport and airport and resorts and police stations and UN observation posts valid targets? None of them are Hizbollah.

None of it makes sense. Nor does saying 'Look, Arabs were Nazis!' Which is the ultimate in 'look, a distraction!'

-Crissa

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Your memory of Yasser Arafat is a bit selective. Israel didn't go in with the bulldozers until about a decade after the peace treaty he negotiated, and a few years after he turned down an arguably better deal. Also, during that time he never made any serious efforts to repeal the section of the PLO charter calling for the destruction of Israel (a key provision of the Oslo accords).

[Xander77]

1154642896[/unixtime]]I don't think anyone is pro-Hezbollah here.

Really? I can think of a few guys.

Does that make killing the innocents shielding him OK?

...

I'm not going to get into the "morally defensible debate". It's retarded.

The IDF calls itself "the worlds most humane army". Which... is retarded.

"The USA (based on it's behavior in similar scenarios past and future) would have killed 10 times as many civilians". "Russia (ditto) would have killed 50 times as many" (and most immigrants that have served in the Russian Federation/USSR army wonder why we don't just erase Palestinain/Lebanese villages that give shelter to terrorists off the map).

That may or may not be true. But, nobody cares. The Palestinians don't draw comfort from being killed less than the would be by anyone else. Their supporters don't feel glad that the Palestinians aren't fighting someone else.

It's a war against an enemy that uses civilians for cover. It's a war where a person may fire a katyusha at Israel from his backyard, then go into his house, where he is transformed into a civilian.

It's a war. Civilians get killed.The Israeli public cares less about civilian casualties now than we did 10 years ago, and cared less 10 years ago than we did back 1980. War does that to you (even though the army keeps improving it's abilities not to hurt civilians. Which brings us to the good old "use a million dollar bomb to bring down a 500 dollar building, and still run the risk of killing a pair of kids that are playing nearby).

At this point, the argument is mostly about "what we need to do to stop the attacks upon us, and what the international community will allow us to do". Concern for civilan casualties (while factoring into the international communities concern) isn't even secondary.

A lot of Israelis seem to have a serious blind spot when it comes to 'justification.' If invading Lebanon because a terrorist organization funded by another country trying to ransom two soldiers is defensible, why isn't trying to ransom two soldiers for a number of your civilians [defensible]?

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

The evil comes from two fundamentalist religious organizations (as usual), and is being taken out on two largely innocent civilian populations.

Umm. Ok.

I wish I had a way to describe the above in a way other than "another "both sides are the same" comment that could only be born of pure ignorance of the situation".

First of all, [opinion]Fundamentalist in the sense of "the insane minority of psychoes that want everyone to follow the literal commands of the holy book" only works for Christians. Not for Jews and Muslims, where the situation is entirely different.[/opinion]

Next, the "fundamentalist" or Orthodox, or whatever branch of Judaism, doesn't believe the country of Israel has a right to exist, doesn't allow most of it's represantatives to serve in the IDF, and isn't big on the Zionism thing. They are, however, big on participating in the democratic process in a country they don't acknowledge, and on voting for more money for themselves.

Now, had you said "the evil comes from two radical organisations, one radically against the existanse of Israel, and another radically pro-it, as usual" that would have made some sense.

And, as usual, fear is leading to hate, and now a bunch of kids are going to go to the dark side because they were bombed.

You know... nobody is going to deny that, yes, terrorrists are sometimes created exactly the way you see in a Hollywood movie - living in poverty, a little uncle is killed in a combined US/Israel bombing of a local kids playground, swearing vengeance on the tombstone. But... people in Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Syria that have never seen a live Jew, let alone suffered at the hands of Israel are more than able and willing to join terrorist organizations. Simplistically charming though the "circle of violence" is, that's not the way it happens, and "stop the violence" on one side isn't going to fix it.

[Xander77]

1154664855[/unixtime]]
And thats the point here, not who has done or is doing what the point is who can change it. The Israelis are the ones who get to decide between war and peace and as long as they choose war they are the badest guys on the block.

Because whether the othersides participate in the war or not it isn't within their power to stop it. If it was and they chose war then they would be the badest guys, but they just plain don't have the guns, the money or the international backing, all of that falls to Israel along with all the damning responsibility for the situation.

Again with the reading comperhension. Unfortunate. I've invested a lot of of effort into that lentghy post.

...

Israel has ran the hell away from south Lebanon, leaving it to Hizbollah, Syria, and even (omg) peaceful Lebanese citizens. 5 YEARS AGO. 5 years of sporadic Hizbollah harassment and katyusha's shooting on Israeli homes (which, btw, I don't exactly see a mention of, anywhere. You guys do realize that there are thousands of refugees in Israel right now? Because if you google for it, you'll mostly find descriptions of Iranian plans for the future).

If all our friendly neighbours wanted was peace/ to be left alone, well... they got that.

Naturally, the obvious conclusion here is that...

The people who have started another war with us, after we left them the hell alone, are the people who have no power to stop themselves from attacking us, and are therefore the good guys?

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow the logic here.

[Xander77]

1154674577[/unixtime]][
Yes, the leader of Lebanon says stupid things. But ya know, throwing bombs at him won't make him not says stupid things. Hizbollah wants to destroy Isreal... What does this have to do with Lebanon? Why is Lebanon's seaport and airport and resorts and police stations and UN observation posts valid targets? None of them are Hizbollah.

Well, there's saying stupid things, killing people, and Hizbollah being a fucking part of the Lebanese goverment, for fucks sake! This is not "a bunch of guys" anywhere, it's the Republican party!

None of it makes sense. Nor does saying 'Look, Arabs were Nazis!' Which is the ultimate in 'look, a distraction!'

-Crissa

Umm... no distraction involved. Someone said "the Jews are similar to the Nazis, and are indulging in the genocide of whomever". The obvious answer here is "no, they are not, and if you actually know the facts, the Arabs have quite a few similarities to the Nazis and are quite serious about planning a genocde".

[Xander77]

Here's something that's both a blindingly obvious fact and an ignorant opinion.

During the last decade, Israel has retreated from territories that Arabs claimed. Several times. Each and every time, people on the right wing claimed that the terrorists will accept that as evidence that we are running from them, and that terrorism is working, and that will encourage them to keep on killing us.

People on the left wing claimed that all the terrorists really want is to be left alone, and if we retreat... umm, some insane argument that has no bearing on reality, really (opinion, obviously).

So far... nobody stopped killing us. What's more, except for the peace arrangement with Jordan (always a relatively sane country), every peace/cease-fire / mutual understanding that we should stop killing each other for a while with the Arabs/Palestinians alway came after we spent some time pounding them (as much as we felt was necessary). When we retreated/show restrain/etc, this was recieved as premission to keep on killing us.