Ok, setting up a police force in Gaza or letting the UN to police...?
They could then use whatever tactics we used against the IRA with intelligence being used to weed out the assholes trying to mess it up for everyone, then the innocent wont take such a pounding, compared to the hiding they are getting off of those missle attacks..
Maybe the UN will be compelled to act with a bit of urgency, now that their sites are being bombed (by Israel.)
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
So if a terrorist group is literally hiding itself among the populace and using it as a shield, how do you take out the insurgency without harming the civilians? The, supposedly, greatest country in the world, can't do it. Is there any actual solution to, or counter to such tactics? Not nescesarilly defending Israel's tactics, but no country has ever actually gotten past this before...
They could try the former U.S.S.R./Russian approach and just kill everyone?
Originally posted by shiv
I also made reference to uses of "wasteland"I'll make it clear so you don't accuse me of telling you things again.
No I don't believe The locals were wasting land in 47' the fact that they were non-dead and had an economy and material possessions shows they were successfully utilising the resources available to them.
Actually, I asked a question, as my response had a question mark at the end, I'll ask it again, for a third time.
I edited your response as it didn't follow what I asked. HOW MUCH of the land that was "green" (Palestinian) on that map, that turned "white" (Jew), was being used, of value, inhabited etc.? 100%? 85%? 6%????
Because one thing Israel is acknowledged for, they did turn a desert into a thriving metropolis.
Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, I asked a question, as my response had a question mark at the end, I'll ask it again, for a third time.I edited your response as it didn't follow what I asked. HOW MUCH of the land that was "green" (Palestinian) on that map, that turned "white" (Jew), was being used, of value, inhabited etc.? 100%? 85%? 6%????
Because one thing Israel is acknowledged for, they did turn a desert into a thriving metropolis.
write to this address:
ARMS FF-109
United Nations
New York, NY
USA 10017
You have a screw loose if you think Im going to declare a percentage before I've worked it to three decimal points.
Go on see if you can beat me to it.
Originally posted by shiv
write to this address:ARMS FF-109
United Nations
New York, NY
USA 10017You have a screw loose if you think Im going to declare a percentage before I've worked it to three decimal points.
Go on see if you can beat me to it.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
While I agree with the fact that Israel does have to defend herself against the militants who have moved aginst her, no arguement there what so ever, she doesn't have carte blanche to just kill the innocents there left right and center.What'd have happened for example if we (Britain) just nuked Ireland's innocent populous just because of the IRA blowing the shit out of us...? Rightly, we'd have been condemned...!
The response has to be proportionate.You'll need international backing on this one.
If other enemies decide that "Our enemy's enemy is our friend" and all pile in, then thats when some even-more-serious shit may go down.A murderous, indiscriminate borderline-genocidal approach will just piss away the sympathy that Israel can rightly have after the broken ceasefire and creates more martyrs on both sides..
When you've got every major nation in the western world going "Hang on a minute!!!" at you, Its best to listen to what they have to say.
Well, I must say that this situation is incredibly hard to job. There's no clear, definite answer that happens to be the 'right' one.
On one hand, Hamas has kept its barrage of missiles coming, thereby ruining the lives of the population of an entire cities. This is despite Israel threatening to attack them with military action; the Hamas maintained provocation and non-stop attacking, breaking the ceasefire in the course of it. Therefore, I think we deserve some credit for keeping the inevitable attack at bay and giving them a chance to stop. If they stopped firing missiles, we would never have attacked them. Also, Hamas was proven to have constructed an underground city of tunnels, intended for the purpose of smuggling more and more advanced weaponry. Therefore, they would have been able to stock up on the general amount of weaponry and launch an offensive of an even greater degree than before. It's only logical that their plans would be cut short.
That, and they're using the civilians as human shields. The fact that they aren't getting international heart for it is flat-out absurd.
On the other hand, Israel is by far and away the more powerful and advanced land. Therefore, we should act with more restraint and considering the Hamas' general lack of reason, be the 'bigger man', so to speak. The human shields is a tried-and-true tactic Israel would know was going to take place; therefore, Israel went in bombing with the knowledge that hundreds of civilians will die. Look at my farm analogy; if a man hides behind an innocent woman, and another dude snipes the woman in order to kill the man, who is to blame? The human shield guy or the killer? In my opinion, they're both to blame for their actions. Regardless, knowing the Hamas' plan of defense, Israel should have acted with more caution in their offensive and reduced civilian bombings.
That's why the ground attack is a good idea; it creates a more focused and controlled offensive, with the ability to regulate deaths more carefully and target Hamas' leaders specifically.
All in all, it's a very complicated situation. UN Police is a bad idea; Hamas is vehemently opposed to everything Western, so they would have struggled against the police; which would trap Gaza itself in yet another war. It doesn't work. If anything, knowing Obama's popularity with the Palestinians, we should have awaited until he took office and used him as the 'middle-man' in further, more extensive negotiations with Hamas.
So, my verdict; the attack was necessary. To put a dent in Hamas, stop the Sderot bombings, and instill fear in them, hopefully in order to make the conflict reach something of an end. I do, however, feel that the original bombings were somewhat mismanaged and excessive. The ground attack, however, is a just idea. IMO.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
If the ceasefire was agreed upon by both sides, then why the hell did Hamas continue to fire rockets at us? If one side breaks the ceasefire, why should the other do the same?You seem to ignore the facts; Gaza was bombing Israel since eight years ago and we haven't done jackshit. It's about time to react to it. Even if the reaction may have been over the top and mismanaged.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Hamas tried to honor to the truce but since Israel failed to end the blockade, there wasn't much point to them keeping their end of the bargain. And anyway, all throughout the period the ceasefire lasted, the number of rockets fired by Hamas reduced considerably.
One rocket is one too many.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Well, I must say that this situation is incredibly hard to job. There's no clear, definite answer that happens to be the 'right' one.On one hand, Hamas has kept its barrage of missiles coming, thereby ruining the lives of the population of an entire cities. This is despite Israel threatening to attack them with military action; the Hamas maintained provocation and non-stop attacking, breaking the ceasefire in the course of it. Therefore, I think we deserve some credit for keeping the inevitable attack at bay and giving them a chance to stop. If they stopped firing missiles, we would never have attacked them. Also, Hamas was proven to have constructed an underground city of tunnels, intended for the purpose of smuggling more and more advanced weaponry. Therefore, they would have been able to stock up on the general amount of weaponry and launch an offensive of an even greater degree than before. It's only logical that their plans would be cut short.
That, and they're using the civilians as human shields. The fact that they aren't getting international heart for it is flat-out absurd.
On the other hand, Israel is by far and away the more powerful and advanced land. Therefore, we should act with more restraint and considering the Hamas' general lack of reason, be the 'bigger man', so to speak. The human shields is a tried-and-true tactic Israel would know was going to take place; therefore, Israel went in bombing with the knowledge that hundreds of civilians will die. Look at my farm analogy; if a man hides behind an innocent woman, and another dude snipes the woman in order to kill the man, who is to blame? The human shield guy or the killer? In my opinion, they're both to blame for their actions. Regardless, knowing the Hamas' plan of defense, Israel should have acted with more caution in their offensive and reduced civilian bombings.
That's why the ground attack is a good idea; it creates a more focused and controlled offensive, with the ability to regulate deaths more carefully and target Hamas' leaders specifically.
All in all, it's a very complicated situation. UN Police is a bad idea; Hamas is vehemently opposed to everything Western, so they would have struggled against the police; which would trap Gaza itself in yet another war. It doesn't work. If anything, knowing Obama's popularity with the Palestinians, we should have awaited until he took office and used him as the 'middle-man' in further, more extensive negotiations with Hamas.
So, my verdict; the attack was necessary. To put a dent in Hamas, stop the Sderot bombings, and instill fear in them, hopefully in order to make the conflict reach something of an end. I do, however, feel that the original bombings were somewhat mismanaged and excessive. The ground attack, however, is a just idea. IMO.
Ok. Hamas might be opposed to anything western, well, thats gonna have to be their thing to be flexible about if they genuinely want progress at all. (Which I bet at Palestinian innocents at least would want, if not Hamas)
If the UN are sent with Obama's backing, wouldnt that then have a bit more clout with the Palestinians at least then, than say if Bush's adminstration had sent 'em in...?
And yes, you're right there, we aren't blind to Hamas methodology and that shits got to stop also if they would want to avoid that UN ass kicking...
Originally posted by backdoorman
Hamas tried to honor to the truce but since Israel failed to end the blockade, there wasn't much point to them keeping their end of the bargain. And anyway, all throughout the period the ceasefire lasted, the number of rockets fired by Hamas reduced considerably.
Check your facts again. Hamas never tried to honor the truce; they bombed away despite any sort of agreements. Also, we attempted to negotiate the stopping of the bombs long before the military strike.
Also, the number of rockets deployed by Hamas has reduced considerably? Try living here and hearing the news. There is no life in Sderot due to the rockets. Since June 2007, more than 800 rockets were fired at Israel. Indeed, Israel's disengagement from Gaza- an attempted motion towards the building of a Palestinian country and peace- only left more room for rockets to be fired. Stop pretending that Hamas gives the smallest **** about political agreements and truces; they're a radical terrorist group, that's all.
I have to say I made a mistake. Sderot's population is only in the 20,000's; another city, Ashkelon contains over hundreds of thousands of people. Sorry about that.
Then letting a middle force either politically defuse or even take out Hamas, maybe your (and the Palestinian innocents'😉 best option..
'Cause its hard for them to want to talk peace with you while you are murdering their families.
And you can understand that principle can't you?
It's the justification you cite for the continued slaughter of their populace, after all.
Its becoming like that like the classic scene in the movie Die Hard:
McClane is telling Gruber after the 1st two crippling rocket strikes against the armoured car: "Youve made your point, now let them fall back".
Dont just stand there killing away whilst merely replying "I'll take that under advisement" before continuing wailing away at your smaller opponent. Cause what happened next was not good for anybody on the lower floors of that building cop or terrorist, but least of all for Han's guys.
I know your lifes not some movie, but you see what I mean, dont you...?