MedVision ad

UN envoy hits Israel 'apartheid' (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

onebytwo

Recession '08
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
823
Location
inner west
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
JayB said:
HAMAS is in a position where they could end the conflict in a second if they halted armed warfare.
and how is that going to end israeli occupation
JayB said:
its not resistance, its aggression.
you forgot to mention with minimal success, a pretty crap organisation which not only cant set the right goals but cant achieve any either.
so when israel pounded, lebanon was that resistance or aggression?
JayB said:
to quote something ive heard for a while, "if HAMAS put down their weapons, there would be no war. if israel put down their weapons, there would be no israel".
i think norman finkelstein describes israels security threats quite well, positing an interesting question, "what does israel, the worlds fourth ranking military power, have to fear from a state that would be one fifth the size of albania and one half the population of kuwait"?
and "israel has as much to fear from a palestinian state as the USSR does from luxembourg"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2-8aTGnjHnI
JayB said:
HAMAS has the previous track record of killing people bloodthirstily, they need to make some show of faith that entering into a peace deal with them wont just be as collosal a waste.
compare the IDF's civilian killing record against HAMAS. do you agree hamas has moral justification, no matter how crude, to seek some (any) form of retaliation.
i was taught a lot of things operated in equilibrium (le chatel lol) and when thrown out of this equality will seek to restore, so wouldnt hamas be correct in equating israeli death tolls with that of palestinians?
 

nathan71088

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
184
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
onebytwo said:
compare the IDF's civilian killing record against HAMAS

so wouldnt hamas be correct in equating israeli death tolls with that of palestinians?
"compare the IDF's civilian killing record against HAMAS" there is no comparison. The fact is, IDF target miltary, militant or terrorist groups, as with all wars throughout history, civllians have made up a percentage of casualties. Sometimes it is a large percentage. While Hamas, and other terrorist organisations, on the other hand, they target civillians, and if not civillians...well, they must have some pretty bad aim.

"so wouldnt hamas be correct in equating israeli death tolls with that of palestinians?"

....hmmm...are you asking for an answer?
 

Jordan.J

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
412
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
nathan71088 said:
there is no comparison. The fact is, IDF target miltary, militant or terrorist groups, as with all wars throughout history, civllians have made up a percentage of casualties. Sometimes it is a large percentage. While Hamas, and other terrorist organisations, on the other hand, they target civillians, and if not civillians...well, they must have some pretty bad aim.


Israel has killed more Palestinians than Hamas has killed Israelis in the last 7 years.

So your bad aim comment should be directed at Israel. There very incompetant if they're not targeting civilians
 

Captain Gh3y

Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
4,153
Location
falling from grace with god
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Jordan.J said:
Israel has killed more Palestinians than Hamas has killed Israelis in the last 7 years.

So your bad aim comment should be directed at Israel. There very incompetant if they're not targeting civilians
But Hamas has killed more Palestinians than Israel :D
 

Jordan.J

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
412
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Captain Gh3y said:
But Hamas has killed more Palestinians than Israel

Firstly, you must be very sick to laugh at something like that

But whats your source?


At least 4,057 Palestinians and 1,020 Israelis
have been killed since September 29, 2000.

These numbers include civilians and combattants killed by members of the opposing nationality (and therefore, do not include Palestinians killed by an explosive device that they set or was on their person). The numbers also do not include Palestinian civilians who died as a result of inability to reach medical care due to Israeli road closures, curfews, etc.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
 

JayB

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
169
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
onebytwo,

what israeli occupation? israel has offered this land in return for peace constantly, posted previously are examples. always refused by the palestinians. somehow i dont think this is as much about land as it is about jews living in israel at all.

mm, what does israel have to fear, except homicide bombers on busses, and 1209196 people who want to destroy it and kill its inhabitants. what indeed?

jordan, i've said it before. they bring it upon themselves through their words, actions and beliefs. they declare war every day, and then whinge when they lose. israel has always held open the offer for peace if they will accept her right to exist. they never do, and would rather die than live in a country with jews as equal citizens.
 

onebytwo

Recession '08
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
823
Location
inner west
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
JayB said:
onebytwo,what israeli occupation? israel has offered this land in return for peace constantly, posted previously are examples. always refused by the palestinians.
sorry, but the most recent disengagement plan only offers a small part of the west bank
JayB said:
mm, what does israel have to fear, except homicide bombers on busses, and 1209196 people who want to destroy it and kill its inhabitants. what indeed?
im pretty sure the hatred is mutual. lets not speculate on what palestinians want to do to israelis but what has actually happened...a few nut cases have gotten through to israel and killed a few people, while israeli gov unleashes its military might, killing scores more, against a people defending themselves with fire crackers.
 

JayB

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
169
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
the most recent disengagement plan is not a peace agreement, its a disengagement plan. the most recent peace offer was to arafat, and was for 97% of the so called "occupied" territories. which really are the territories that were lost because they kept starting wars and kept losing them, but apparantly that means you get land back these days.

a dynamite belt is hardly a fire cracker, and twenty innocent people on a bus is hardly just a few. neither are the synagogues packed with people being preached to by a genocidal nutjob calling for the destruction of the muslim nation. however, in the mosques in the region this and worse is the norm. not speculation, the charter of the govt, the quotes from the sermons, and the sentiment on the street. and a perfect case in point is the ramallah lynching.

"http://inhonor.net/ramlah/"
just ordinary palestinians being bloodthirsty, cannibalistic, homicidal people. what they want to do?
 

onebytwo

Recession '08
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
823
Location
inner west
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
JayB said:
the most recent disengagement plan is not a peace agreement, its a disengagement plan.
no....its, according to the israeli gov., an attempt at peace and reduced friction with the palestinians, a feeble attempt, but an attempt nonetheless.


JayB said:
a dynamite belt is hardly a fire cracker, and twenty innocent people on a bus is hardly just a few.
relative to israels military supremacy and number of killings to its name it is
JayB said:
neither are the synagogues packed with people being preached to by a genocidal nutjob calling for the destruction of the muslim nation.
you see, the jews already have a much more superior group, a little group called the IDF, doing that for them. but if you pay close attention, back when there wasnt a big army(IDF) supported by the biggest army (US), you will notice that jewish nutjobs who preached muslim genocide in synagogues did in fact exist
JayB said:
however, in the mosques in the region this and worse is the norm. not speculation, the charter of the govt, the quotes from the sermons, and the sentiment on the street. and a perfect case in point is the ramallah lynching.
its speculation because they say they wish it to happen, with a level of uncertainty. as i said lets not focus on what may but what has actually happened.
"justice before peace"
 
Last edited:

JayB

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
169
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
oh you misunderstand, at no stage have i claimed that jewish nutjobs dont exist. of course they do. but the israeli govt condemns and otlaws them, re: kach. the palestinian govt glorifies them, as do the majority of islamic institutions both secular and religious in the country.

the idf dont preach the death of every muslim. they dont glorify their jobs. and they never have. thats a big difference.

i showed you what has happened in the past, not what may. those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. besides, wishing it to happen is almost as bad as commiting it, hence the charge for sonspiracy to commit. to say we cant act until they commit is ridiculous.
 

onebytwo

Recession '08
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
823
Location
inner west
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
JayB said:
oh you misunderstand, at no stage have i claimed that jewish nutjobs dont exist. of course they do. but the israeli govt condemns and otlaws them, re: kach. the palestinian govt glorifies them, as do the majority of islamic institutions both secular and religious in the country.
they condemn them because in this day and age where they possess military superiority, such organisations would be a discredit to them. the idf is doing no different to what the jewish extremists were doing 50 years ago. so, considering the palestinians have nobody else to look to nor anybody else to correct past and present injustices on the israeli side, the nuts have no other means

JayB said:
the idf dont preach the death of every muslim. they dont glorify their jobs. and they never have. thats a big difference.
thats the opinion of you, but as someone said in this, or another, thread, actions speak louder than words. and given the idf's seemingly endless social and humanitarian suffocation of palestinians, i find this statement incredible and saturated with bias

JayB said:
to say we cant act until they commit is ridiculous.
thats the thing, you can never be certain anyones going to commit anything. you cant throw someone in jail because they may commit murder, they may commit rape, the may commit armed robbery. an even better example, the iraq war. to say we can act before they commit is ridiculous
 

JayB

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
169
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
onebytwo said:
they condemn them because in this day and age where they possess military superiority, such organisations would be a discredit to them. the idf is doing no different to what the jewish extremists were doing 50 years ago. so, considering the palestinians have nobody else to look to nor anybody else to correct past and present injustices on the israeli side, the nuts have no other means
actually, David Ben Gurion, had a long history of condemning Menachem Begin as an extremist, long before israel had military superiority. its just a difference in cultures at the moment. jews are safe to speak out, because the liklihood of a jew being killed by jews for criticism is virtually nil.


onebytwo said:
thats the opinion of you, but as someone said in this, or another, thread, actions speak louder than words. and given the idf's seemingly endless social and humanitarian suffocation of palestinians, i find this statement incredible and saturated with bias
i know i'm biased, so are you, so is everyone with an opion. but i see the idf as responding, not attacking. they defend. their actions are in response the actions on the part of the palestinians. social and humanitarian suffocation? as i've said earlier, brought on by their leader's inability to stop waging a war they are destined to lose. the blame lies with them.


onebytwo said:
thats the thing, you can never be certain anyones going to commit anything. you cant throw someone in jail because they may commit murder, they may commit rape, the may commit armed robbery. an even better example, the iraq war. to say we can act before they commit is ridiculous
perhaps i should qualify my statement more. its not so much what they may do as what they intend to do. intent is very important when it comes to crimes. their past actions, their beliefs and their current actions all point towards an intent to commit genocide. personally, if a guy is coming at me with a knife or a gun, and i have a way to deal with him, i wouldnt wait around n find out if he was gonna shoot or stab or what. when it is beyond reasonable doubt, which i feel that i have shown, that the hatred exists, then action is not only acceptable, but necessary.
 

jenzipoo

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
262
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
onebytwo said:
they condemn them because in this day and age where they possess military superiority, such organisations would be a discredit to them. the idf is doing no different to what the jewish extremists were doing 50 years ago. so, considering the palestinians have nobody else to look to nor anybody else to correct past and present injustices on the israeli side, the nuts have no other means
i dont really follow your logic. youre trying to play the blame game in a sense saying "o lets say israel has the upper hand coz they have an army and the poor palestinians only have their small weapons (and themselves)." Jews have worked long and hard for a state of israel and millions of dollars have been spent building the army up to what it is today. your whole argument is based on the fact that israel appears to be the aggressor merely because it is a country that has been independent for 59 and has an army...like any other country.

how can you create a generalisation that the IDF has the same idelogies as the extremists. you may have a few soldiers that have these opinions - im just guessing - but if you truly knew the ideologies of the israeli army, which is based on jewish ethics and principles, that crap wouldnt not have fallen out your mouth.


thats the opinion of you, but as someone said in this, or another, thread, actions speak louder than words. and given the idf's seemingly endless social and humanitarian suffocation of palestinians, i find this statement incredible and saturated with bias
any statement given by anyone is going to be bias. in my opinion your statements are biased. that is because for me i have witnessed a lot of these things first hand and have formulated my own opinion by experiencing and seeing these things - this is very different to someone like you and others who rely on what they see through news programs, papers and websites.

the means set in place that, in your words, 'suffocate' the palestinians are in my my words a neccesity. these measures such as the FENCE, check points, constant patrols and other methods were slowly put into place by the government and IDF as the suicide bombings and terrorist attacks, in any form of the word, increased and threatened the lives of israeli civilians.
 

nathan71088

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
184
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Jordan.J said:
Israel has killed more Palestinians than Hamas has killed Israelis in the last 7 years.

So your bad aim comment should be directed at Israel. There very incompetant if they're not targeting civilians
What percentage was miltary and what was civillian, for both? And don't send me this long report, just post the percentages cos you seem to have a source for most of these things.
 

nathan71088

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
184
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
onebytwo said:
no....its, according to the israeli gov., an attempt at peace and reduced friction with the palestinians, a feeble attempt, but an attempt nonetheless.
So, becausse it is accrding to the Israeli government, the Palestinians don't agree with it...even though it was beneficial to them? Hmm that actually presents a problem. Most peace agreements are going to have something beneficial for the Palestinians, and further more they will be according to both Palestinian and Israeli governments, but still partly according to Israeli government. Will these be "not agreed to by the Palestinians" again? (And don't say the Palestinian Government had no say in the disengagement, they did, if you wish to disagree, back it up with a source...a reliable one)
 

Jordan.J

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
412
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
nathan71088 said:
What percentage was miltary and what was civillian, for both? And don't send me this long report, just post the percentages cos you seem to have a source for most of these things.


http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

338 Palestinians have been killed because of the course of a targeted killing by Israel

Overall, 4057 Palestinians have been killed, both since September 29, 2000 by Israel.

338/4057 x 100 = 8.33 %. So 8.33% of Palestinian deaths are military

316 Israeli security forces have been killed by Palestinians.

Overall, 1020 Israeli citizins have been killed by Palestinians since September 29, 2000 by Palestinians.

316/1020 x 100 = 30.98 %. So 30.98% of Israeli deaths have been military


Now, tell me again. Who has the better aim?
 
Last edited:

Jordan.J

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
412
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
JayB said:
jordan, i've said it before. they bring it upon themselves through their words, actions and beliefs. they declare war every day, and then whinge when they lose. israel has always held open the offer for peace if they will accept her right to exist. they never do, and would rather die than live in a country with jews as equal citizens.


I already told you. They are willing to recognise Israel. They want to negotiate a peace deal.

Israels track record is far worse than Palestinians, yet they're willing to negotiate.
 

HotShot

-_-
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
3,029
Location
afghan.....n
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Olmert primed for war before a pretext came


Conal Urquhart in Tel Aviv
March 10, 2007

PREPARATIONS for Israel's war in Lebanon last July were drawn up at least four months before two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah in July, the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has admitted.

His submission to a commission of inquiry, leaked on Thursday, contradicted the impression at the time that Israel had been provoked into a battle for which it was ill-prepared.

Mr Olmert told the Winograd commission, a panel of judges investigating Israel's perceived defeat in the 34-day war, that he first discussed the possibility of war in January last year and asked to see military plans in March.

According to the Ha'aretz daily, which obtained details of Mr Olmert's testimony, the Prime Minister chose a strategy of air attacks on Lebanon and a limited ground operation to be implemented in the event of an abduction by Hezbollah, which had made several attempts to capture Israeli soldiers on the border since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000.

Israeli commentators believed that Mr Olmert and his Defence Minister, Amir Peretz, took the opportunity of the kidnapping to show they could manage a war in spite of their limited military experience. But the outcome seemed to highlight their lack of experience, as well as deficiencies in Israel's military planning.

The commission's interim report is expected by the end of the month. Although the commission was appointed by the Government, Mr Olmert's continuation in office would be unlikely if its report criticises him.

One political analyst, Shmuel Sandler, said it seemed that people close to Mr Olmert had leaked his submission, made on February 1, in an attempt to increase his popularity. In an opinion poll published this week, only 3 per cent of Israeli voters said they would vote for Mr Olmert, while 72 per cent said he should resign.

Zalman Shoval, of the Likud party, said Mr Olmert's testimony cast his decisions in a worse light than before. "If he had prepared plans, then to any objective commentator, this makes the situation worse," he said.

"Why were the plans not carried out? It all also places a darker complexion on his decision to expand ground operations, which led to the loss of 33 more Israeli lives."

On July 12 Hezbollah fighters abducted Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, Israeli reservists, in an incident on the Israel-Lebanon border. Israel then launched air strikes on southern Lebanon before attacking other areas. Hezbollah fired hundreds of rockets into Israel.

Mr Olmert said at the time that Israel went to war to force the return of the soldiers, eliminate Hezbollah's rocket supplies and push the militia north of the Litani River in southern Lebanon.

Israeli forces launched several ground operations which met strong resistance. It was difficult to move supplies and troops around the battlefield because of Hezbollah's anti-tank weapons.

After a final offensive in which Israel lost 33 soldiers, the Government agreed on a ceasefire without having achieved its objectives. In the fighting, 1200 Lebanese and 158 Israelis were killed. Of the dead almost 1000 Lebanese and 41 Israelis were civilians.

* Israeli soldiers used an 11-year-old Palestinian girl as a "human shield" during an operation against militants in the West Bank town of Nablus last week, an Israeli human rights group said. The Israeli Army said on Thursday that it was checking the information, from the B'Tselem group, which monitors Israeli actions in the occupied territory. Israeli law bans the military from using human shields.

Guardian News & Media, Reuters
As I was saying on the Credibility of Israel and its similarities to a terrorist organisation.

Using a 11-year-old Girl as a human shield? - fuck thats low.

And at @ Aryanbeauty - you came up with those ridiculous figures AT Hezbollah causalities - it was only 200!!. And 1000 lebanese civilians.

And Israel did lose the war.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ol...-a-pretext-came/2007/03/09/1173166991661.html
 

JayB

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
169
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
that whole not being able to access the site didnt just happen to me right?

so anyway, hotshot, having a contingency plan incase your people get kidnapped is not an incredible thing to do. every govt everywhere has them.

and it says that it is alleged that they used a girl, not that they did. low if they did, but still a hypothetical. id say its on par with blowing yourself up on a bus, but hey, you don't judge all the palestinians by that, so why would you judge all the israelis by this? a slight showing of hypocricy.
 

onebytwo

Recession '08
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
823
Location
inner west
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
JayB said:
actually, David Ben Gurion, had a long history of condemning Menachem Begin as an extremist, long before israel had military superiority.
actually gurion supported the Begin bombing of the king david hotel.....nice form of condemnation

JayB said:
but i see the idf as responding, not attacking. they defend. their actions are in response the actions on the part of the palestinians.
so the idf has been carrying out an illegal occupation for the last few decades in "response" to palestinians. that means palestinians must be commiting atrocious acys every millisecond
JayB said:
social and humanitarian suffocation? as i've said earlier, brought on by their leader's inability to stop waging a war they are destined to lose. the blame lies with them.
palestinian leaders dont warrant the israeli tanks that roll on the streets for weeks and often months on end, holding palestinians captive in their own homes.
JayB said:
personally, if a guy is coming at me with a knife or a gun, and i have a way to deal with him, i wouldnt wait around n find out if he was gonna shoot or stab or what. when it is beyond reasonable doubt, which i feel that i have shown, that the hatred exists, then action is not only acceptable, but necessary.
two things:-
- first, for arguments sake, how does the idf seek "self-defense" in another persons country. the metaphor you proposed presents an imminent threat, not like one facing the arab israeli conflict.
- second, what if by chance, in "self-defense", you accidentally kill an innocent by stander (which btw seems to be a common occurence in this conflict. let me tell you that the innocent man/womans death is not going to be taken lightly by that persons family. how would you react if one of your family members were killed, because someone else was so uptight. that they wanted to feel secure at your own families expense. thats pure arrogance
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top