The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Racist bastard. I'm an anomaly among my peers; a genius of epic proportions. If I was prime minister of Israel, we'd all have peace. Hell, Hamas would start hugging gays while dancing in flowers. THAT'S how smart I am. Don't you diss my intellect, noob.

By the way, wtf is up with your profile? It somehow says you have over 6,000 posts despite joining a bunch of days ago. Are you that lifeless? Seriously? And what the hell's up with your 'previous usernames' thing? It says you used to be called Faunus. Someone should check on that bullshit. As silly as Faunus is, you're even worse.

Peace. Right. Hamas wants peace. Palestinians want peace. What fantasy world do you live in?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Peace. Right. Hamas wants peace. Palestinians want peace. What fantasy world do you live in?

Please. At least pretend you can think objectively.

Originally posted by Publius II
Hamas? No. The schoolchildren who were blown to pieces by Israel's attacks on "terrorists"? Their friends, their families? The people who will grow up in a warzone being punished for what two equally stupid governments have done to each other?

Please. At least pretend you can think objectively.

I was speaking of Hamas and the majority of Palestinians. While I don't condone killing children, where is your sympathy for the Jews of the Mumai attacks? Where is your sympathy for the various suicide bombings in Iraq/Iran/Israel? I can be objective and be a Jew at the same time. My only hope was that Israel would complete their destruction of Hamas, but that doesn't seem like a realistic goal at this point, due to Hamas' power and support in the region.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I was speaking of Hamas and the majority of Palestinians. While I don't condone killing children, where is your sympathy for the Jews of the Mumai attacks? Where is your sympathy for the various suicide bombings in Iraq/Iran/Israel?

I can be objective and be a Jew at the same time.

My only hope was that Israel would complete their destruction of Hamas, but that doesn't seem like a realistic goal at this point, due to Hamas' power and support in the region.

Originally posted by Publius II
I don't condone civilian deaths, period. I'm not supporting Hamas or the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, if God forbid you got that message. But bombing the shit out of everything and everyone because we can't figure out what else to do is pretty ****ing stupid.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Destroying Hamas the way that they're going about it now is going to result in an outright slaughter, if that hasn't started already.

Honestly and I'm trying to be as objective as I can in saying this, but it has been a long time coming. While there have been various mistakes when you bomb the shit out of everything, I think Israel feels this is the most efficient way to at least weaken hamas.

Then Israel fully deserves the global derision. I'm not excusing Hamas, not remotely, but frankly I'm no longer convinced that Israeli leadership is any better

I just hope that there is a resolution to that soon. I could see it getting out of control (and I mean on a greater, global scale).

Originally posted by Publius II
Then Israel fully deserves the global derision. I'm not excusing Hamas, not remotely, but frankly I'm no longer convinced that Israeli leadership is any better

So retaliation is bad? Because that's what Israel does. Or is retaliation bad if there are terrible consequences such as children dying? It's very easy to involve yourself in monday morning quarterbacking.

If the child pokes the dog with a stick enough times (or in this case, with about 6,000 missiles over three years) eventually that dog is gonna bite back. And when it does, everyone decries the dog for being "vicious" or being "overly-aggressive."

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If the child pokes the dog with a stick enough times (or in this case, with about 6,000 missiles over three years) eventually that dog is gonna bite back. And when it does, everyone decries the dog for being "vicious" or being "overly-aggressive."

Thank you for having common sense and not resorting to this ridiculous liberal rhetoric that's become popular.

No problem. I'm sick of people pointing the blame at the side which retaliates, not initiates. If Hamas doesn't want to see Palestinians die (which they do, it's a propagandist's dream) then don't kill Israelis. There, simple.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No problem. I'm sick of people pointing the blame at the side which retaliates, not initiates. If Hamas doesn't want to see Palestinians die (which they do, it's a propagandist's dream) then don't kill Israelis. There, simple.

Hell, the son of a Hamas leader spoke up against the movement itself. That should tell you something.

Sexy, don't you start with the idea that all liberals are unreasonably against this war. I'm a liberal and I think that launching the assault was a good idea.

In fact, if liberal war philosophy says that "War is an absolutely positively last resort", then our handling of the Hamas situation has been absolutely left-wing styled. I mean, come on. We haven't done anything but apply relatively peaceful military pressure (the Gaza blockade) and attempt- countless times- to call for international intervention and negotiation, including several large-scale compensations. Yeah, by giving Hamas Gaza back and attempting to make a motion towards peace, they simply took advantage of the situation in order to fire even more rockets at us. They weren't willing to reason.

Until now. I've heard they're already begging for a ceasefire; therefore, it's reallly time to stop right now. I'm of the opinion that the Israeli attack was somewhat mismanaged, but I think it damaged Hamas with enough force to both stop them from firing missiles, and to, potentially, think a bit more reasonably regarding potential negotiations. I'm personally willing to make any compensations necessary to make peace (including giving them the entirety of Jerusalem). We've already done a huge amount of human damage; why do more and when it is completely unnecessary? Especially with Obama becoming prez soon. Apparently, Palestinians love him. So he could act as an effective middle-man for any potential negotiations.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If the child pokes the dog with a stick enough times (or in this case, with about 6,000 missiles over three years) eventually that dog is gonna bite back. And when it does, everyone decries the dog for being "vicious" or being "overly-aggressive."

I'm not attacking Israel for retaliating, I'm attacking it for the nature of its retaliation. I don't know what it expects to achieve by killing innocent civilians; that's only ever a tactically sound decision when the target government actually cares. As you said, Hamas is simply going to use these deaths as propaganda, and its very clear which side the media - and therefore the public - is on, so Israel really needs to think up another strategy if it doesn't want to be looked at in disgust. If you think its acceptable for children to suffer and die because the patch of dirt they live in is ruled by men who don't give a shit about them, then this discussion should end, now.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Thank you for having common sense and not resorting to this ridiculous liberal rhetoric that's become popular.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Sexy, don't you start with the idea that all liberals are unreasonably against this war. I'm a liberal and I think that launching the assault was a good idea.

]quote]Until now. I've heard they're already begging for a ceasefire; therefore, it's reallly time to stop right now. I'm of the opinion that the Israeli attack was somewhat mismanaged, but I think it damaged Hamas with enough force to both stop them from firing missiles, and to, potentially, think a bit more reasonably regarding potential negotiations. I'm personally willing to make any compensations necessary to make peace (including giving them the entirety of Jerusalem). We've already done a huge amount of human damage; why do more and when it is completely unnecessary? Especially with Obama becoming prez soon. Apparently, Palestinians love him. So he could act as an effective middle-man for any potential negotiations. [/QUOTE]
Israel should finish the job. although realistically this won't stop..

And Faunus, don't give me any of your bullshit. I don't see you debating this objectively either. Let me guess, "there's two sides to everything lolz!" Come up with a reasonable argument for the other side, then tell me I'm being biased, otherwise shut up.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I do generalize a lot but the majority of liberals peddle their peace bullshit in this regard, while keeping silent while Hamas was attacking Israel.

No. Stop with the stereotypes. Liberals aren't all pacifist pussies, just like all conservatives aren't idiotic, bigoted rednecks. I hope.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Are you referring to classical liberalism or modern liberalism, because they are of two different things. War being an absolutely last resort is different than what the liberals say nowadays.

I think every liberal with half a brain can agree that war is, on occasions, necessary. Hell, Obama, a pretty hardcore liberal, has repeatedly stated that he does not cancel out the possibility of military action in several cases.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
When an aggressor attacks somebody, they are silent. When that somebody retaliates, they *****. It's hilarious. And what people fail to understand that "peaceful military pressure" has not and is not going to work in the middle east, so I don't know why that's an option anymore. Negotion? UN? Useless.

Simply writing off these possibilities when they weren't fully explored in all possible circumstances (including post-Gaza war. I'm sure Hamas will be more willing to listen to reason with their organization in ruins and a good amount of their leading officials dead) is, to put it simply, bullshit. Also, you need to see things from a less black and white perspective. The Arabs aren't 'the bad guys' and Israel isn't 'the good guy'. It's infinitely more complicated than that.

Look at this possibility. Hundreds of Palestinians are dead, Hamas is in ruins, and, supposedly, they're begging for a ceasefire. They aren't invincible; they're eventually going to cave. After this idea, if they stop firing rockets at Israel, it is possible to call for UN or US-regulated negotiations in order to reach a fair deal of sorts. Somehow. It's a lot better than simply wiping out the entirety of Gaza's population, which you seem to be implying is the suitable course of action.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Israel should finish the job. although realistically this won't stop..

If by finish the job you mean pull the **** out and attempt negotiations in the new 'field', so to speak, then I agree. If you mean to destroy Gaza, then you need to see things a bit differently.

By the way, Faunus, I'm just wondering as to what type of retaliation is the best. Because we've pretty much exhausted all of our options; this war should be used to open new methods of negotiation, not as the 'absolute' solution.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
No. Stop with the stereotypes. Liberals aren't all pacifist pussies, just like all conservatives aren't idiotic, bigoted rednecks. I hope.

By the way, Faunus, I'm just wondering as to what type of retaliation is the best. Because we've pretty much exhausted all of our options; this war should be used to open new methods of negotiation, not as the 'absolute' solution. [/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Well, I expect to find the extremes on internet forums, and I have for the most part.

I don't think anyone on this forum is part of what you consider an 'extreme' philosophy. At least not anybody with a brain.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I agree, when Hamas is in complete ruins they hopefully will negotiate. However, the same thing will happen once they get their strength back. We'll be running in circles until they are completely wiped out.

It's impossible to wipe them out without wiping out innocent people with them, so that's out of the question. The degree of harm Israel has caused to Gaza in this war is evil, and it's the absolute max of the civilian damage we can, in my opinion, inflict in this type of war.

Also, I see scenarios a bit differently. Hamas now understands Israel's general power. They're more scared than ever, you understand; which is why the current course of action must be to take advantage of Hamas' current situation and engage in further negotiations with 'em. They aren't just going to keep bombing after we pull out of Gaza.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I'm not saying that every Arab is bad and every Israeli is good, but we can't sit there and nitpick about which one is good or bad. On a large scale, what the Palestinians have been doing for decades is wrong and must be stopped. That IS the objective side. Now granted I don't approve of blowing up schools and children, but I'm in no position to sit back and support Israel, then criticize them because they should have bombed ANOTHER area.

No. That's what keeps us human in war; this nitpicking between good and evil. We have to do it. Just because the leadership of a certain country is evil, does it mean the entirety of the country is evil? Do they deserve a collective punishment for the actions of their irrational, fundamentalist leaders? That's why you can't say a country is 'on a whole', evil, and therefore worthy of destruction. Hell, even Nazi Germany wasn't entirely 'evil'. Which is really why war can't be the total destruction of the opposing country.

In my opinion, no. Now, Hamas is largely responsible for the civilian deaths in Gaza, with their constant lack of reason and provocation, but that doesn't mean we should ignore civilian casualties and do everything to destroy Hamas for our own benefit. I think civilian casualties have to be accepted in this war, but to a point. And we have to do absolutely everything within our power to minimize the amount of schools and kids that get blown up. Which includes using my general negotiations plan.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I don't think anyone on this forum is part of what you consider an 'extreme' philosophy. At least not anybody with a brain.

It's impossible to wipe them out without wiping out innocent people with them, so that's out of the question. The degree of harm Israel has caused to Gaza in this war is evil, and it's the absolute max of the civilian damage we can, in my opinion, inflict in this type of war.

Also, I see scenarios a bit differently. Hamas now understands Israel's general power. They're more scared than ever, you understand; which is why the current course of action must be to take advantage of Hamas' current situation and engage in further negotiations with 'em. They aren't just going to keep bombing after we pull out of Gaza.

No. That's what keeps us human in war; this nitpicking between good and evil. We have to do it. Just because the leadership of a certain country is evil, does it mean the entirety of the country is evil? Do they deserve a collective punishment for the actions of their irrational, fundamentalist leaders? That's why you can't say a country is 'on a whole', evil, and therefore worthy of destruction. Hell, even Nazi Germany wasn't entirely 'evil'. Which is really why war can't be the total destruction of the opposing country.

In my opinion, no. Now, Hamas is largely responsible for the civilian deaths in Gaza, with their constant lack of reason and provocation, but that doesn't mean we should ignore civilian casualties and do everything to destroy Hamas for our own benefit. I think civilian casualties have to be accepted in this war, but to a point. And we have to do absolutely everything within our power to minimize the amount of schools and kids that get blown up. Which includes using my general negotiations plan.

Using the World War II example, I take it you didn't agree with the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and you wouldn't agree the march on, and total destruction of berlin because we have to nitpick between who's good and who's evil? In war that's precisely something you cannot do.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Using the World War II example, I take it you didn't agree with the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and you wouldn't agree the march on, and total destruction of berlin because we have to nitpick between who's good and who's evil? In war that's precisely something you cannot do.

No, I don't agree with the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and don't agree with the utter destruction of Berlin. I believe that both of these acts were completely unnecessary towards bringing the ultimate surrender of Germany and Japan, and history supports my point of view.

I suppose that's what distinguishes our philosophy of war. You feel that every country led by 'evil' rulers deserves to be destroyed, while I feel that collective punishments are unfair and, in themselves, evil.