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.
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
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."
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
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.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Gender: Male Location: Bringing forth the apocalypse
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.
I believe I'm correct in stating that Israel's tactical and organizational capabilities are somewhat greater than those of an irked canine.
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.
You're an idiot. If you can't even debate this objectively, shut up and don't.
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.
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. 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.
]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.
Gender: Male Location: Bringing forth the apocalypse
No. Stop with the stereotypes. Liberals aren't all pacifist pussies, just like all conservatives aren't idiotic, bigoted rednecks. I hope.
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.
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.
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.
Well, I expect to find the extremes on internet forums, and I have for the most part.
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.
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.
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. [/QUOTE]
Gender: Male Location: Bringing forth the apocalypse
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.
Gender: Male Location: Bringing forth the apocalypse
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.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 9th, 2009 10:47 PM
