1 hour ago, ilross2003 said:

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/terry-glavin-by-using-human-shields-hamas-doubles-down-on-its-war-crimes/wcm/45cb8db1-2721-47e7-a99e-d67a151ac566

Of course the facts like those that are being mentioned in this article may very well confuse people like Mr. Sami Zayn. For him and for the people like him, the Palestinian victims are much more precious than ours. Most likely, they are trying at all costs to avoid those facts, because it doesn't fit their agenda very well. Those people are constantly adjusting the data to serve their agenda, while using on us false concepts as "genocide", "racism" and so on, without knowing even the basic facts about the conflict, and without making any kind of attempt to learn about it.  

So, they will always tell us how we are oppressing and killing innocent Palestinians. They will not be able to understand that those innocent Palestinians are intentionally firing their rockets from the places which are located close to their schools and hospitals,  in order to maximize victims on their own side, because they want people like  Mr. Sami Zayn to support them. They want their own civilians to be be killed, because every killed Palestinian child will draw a lot of sympathy from the people like  Mr. Sami Zayn. That's why we earn nothing from killing Palestinian civilians. If we wouldn't try to avoid causalities between them, while constantly bombing the terrorist sites - there would have been thousands of people killed.

On the contrary, the innocent Palestinians are firing their rockets totally blindly in order to hit as many our civilians as they can. Can Mr. Sami Zayn and people like him understand that? Or at least to make any kind of attempt?  I don't think so.

By the way, this have happened previous night because of the innocent Palestinians, just a couple of blocks from my house:
But then again, I am just an ordinary Israeli citizen, not a guy like Mr. Sami Zayn, that has the largest of all the souls in this world, so what do I know?

P.S. Oh, and who is Andrew Yang? He's a good guy!

thanks for your input. i'm definitely not an expert on what's going on over there so it's very helpful to hear from people like yourself who are living it. 

and andrew yang is running for mayor of nyc. 

Israel isn’t an ally of the U.S.

the fact that both major political parties in the U.S. support them unconditionally allows them to do whatever they want though.

13 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Israel isn’t an ally of the U.S.

the fact that both major political parties in the U.S. support them unconditionally allows them to do whatever they want though.

curious how you figure they aren't an ally. should be a real hoot.

4 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

curious how you figure they aren't an ally. should be a real hoot.

It's technically a "partner," not an ally, because they are not parties to a defense treaty. But yes, for all intents and purposes, they are allies.

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

curious how you figure they aren't an ally. should be a real hoot.

Because they just create more troubles and animosity in the middle east for the U.S., not less.

 

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Because they just create more troubles and animosity in the middle east for the U.S., not less.

 

pissing in the ocean

we have many common interests, including little things like their right to exist as a sovereign state.

6 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

pissing in the ocean

we have many common interests, including little things like their right to exist as a sovereign state.

If Israel wants to exist inside its pre-1967 borders, I’m fine with it

 

3 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I'll paint the picture more accurately: Palestinians throw rocks, IDF fires rockets and missiles in return and topple entire Palestinian apartment buildings. Moral equivalency? Thuggery? Some people need to look in the mirror.

 

 

 

1. Does the picture that I have posted look like as as result of throwing a rock?

2. So, following your logic, after they started throwing rocks on us, we should collect some rocks as well, and throw it back? Seriously? I'll paint some other picture: the Palestinians fire rockets, if you haven't paid attention. Their rockets are being fired in the general direction towards our civilians. They are not exactly directing them strictly to our military bases or trying to avoid killing our civilians.  Which means, they just want to hit as many civilians as they can. Are we clear here? 

So, again, following your logic, we should do the same: to fire our rockets in general direction of Gaza, without trying to hit their military objects with pinpoint accuracy? Do you actually realize, where your logic would lead to? With your logic there would be no civilians in Gaza any more.

4 minutes ago, ilross2003 said:

1. Does the picture that I have posted look like as as result of throwing a rock?

2. So, following your logic, after they started throwing rocks on us, we should collect some rocks as well, and throw it back? Seriously? I'll paint some other picture: the Palestinians fire rockets, if you haven't paid attention. Their rockets are being fired in the general direction towards our civilians. They are not exactly directing them strictly to our military bases or trying to avoid killing our civilians.  Which means, they just want to hit as many civilians as they can. Are we clear here? 

 

I am talking about civilians when I refer to "rock-throwers." The Arabs launching missiles are terrorists. The IDF is supposed to be the military wing of a democratic state. Are you suggesting that a democratic state respond to terrorists with terroristic acts of its own?

2 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

If Israel wants to exist inside its pre-1967 borders, I’m fine with it

 

should russia be forced to return Crimea as well?

5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I am talking about civilians when I refer to "rock-throwers." The Arabs launching missiles are terrorists. The IDF is supposed to be the military wing of a democratic state. Are you suggesting that a democratic state respond to terrorists with terroristic acts of its own?

strawman - of course he isnt

but collateral damage will always exist and a military has to decide what level is tolerable

22 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

strawman - of course he isnt

but collateral damage will always exist and a military has to decide what level is tolerable

 

You can hunt them down without leveling entire buildings. Isn't that what intelligence is for? These aren't some caves tucked away in the mountains where you basically know that everyone inside somehow connected to terrorism. These are crowded residences located in urban centers. If you're killing two civilians for every terrorist, the outcome is likely to be a net negative. Collateral damage is to be expected, but it also must be weighed against the likelihood that it will further enflame the situation. Is Israel attempting to diffuse or exacerbate it? It's hard to tell. I can accept a degree of collateral damage, but this is beyond excessive at this point. Engaging in the tactics of total war from the outset of a confrontation is unlikely to do anything but deepen the conflict and cause allies to distance themselves. Regardless, I don't have much hope for the situation. There is an inevitable race war brewing in the Middle East, and we'd be wise to not get caught in the middle.

3 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

If Israel wants to exist inside its pre-1967 borders, I’m fine with it

 

War has shaped the world since the beginning of time, may the best man win. 

24 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

should russia be forced to return Crimea as well?

I don’t know. But the Crimea was part of Russia before the existence of the Soviet Union. So I feel like that’s a difficult one to answer.

 

1 minute ago, DaEagles4Life said:

War has shaped the world since the beginning of time, may the best man win. 

Sure. But then ship both sides weapons not just one. Make it a fair fight.

11 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

You can hunt them down without leveling entire buildings. Isn't that what intelligence is for? These aren't some caves tucked away in the mountains where you basically know that everyone inside somehow connected to terrorism. These are crowded residences located in urban centers. If you're killing two civilians for every terrorist, the outcome is likely to be a net negative. Collateral damage is to be expected, but it also must be weighed against the likelihood that it will further enflame the situation. Is Israel attempting to diffuse or exacerbate it? It's hard to tell. I can accept a degree of collateral damage, but this is beyond excessive at this point. Engaging in the tactics of total war from the outset of a confrontation is unlikely to do anything but deepen the conflict and cause allies to distance themselves. Regardless, I don't have much hope for the situation. There is an inevitable race war brewing in the Middle East, and we'd be wise to not get caught in the middle.

not if you are fighting to win. the point isnt to reach a peaceful coexistence in this situation. that hasnt been a reasonable outcome for quite some time, sadly.

play it out - even if you turn people against you - then they are combatants you can rightly kill. or they turn against hamas (very unlikely). or they flee. several ways the war can be won. 

after so much time of Israel being attacked, its not very logical to expect them to exercise consideration. that has worn out.

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Sure. But then ship both sides weapons not just one. Make it a fair fight.

only you could suggest we arm terrorists...

its not like Russia isnt arming them anyway

4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I don’t know. But the Crimea was part of Russia before the existence of the Soviet Union. So I feel like that’s a difficult one to answer.

 

typical cowardly punt b/c you cant be logically consistent. you just fear war.

Based off pictures alone, I am pro Israel. 

 

16 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

not if you are fighting to win. the point isnt to reach a peaceful coexistence in this situation. that hasnt been a reasonable outcome for quite some time, sadly.

play it out - even if you turn people against you - then they are combatants you can rightly kill. or they turn against hamas (very unlikely). or they flee. several ways the war can be won. 

after so much time of Israel being attacked, its not very logical to expect them to exercise consideration. that has worn out.

only you could suggest we arm terrorists...

its not like Russia isnt arming them anyway

I can understand this position in a vacuum, but the problem is the interconnectedness of everything in reality. This is the tinderbox of the 21st century, much like the Balkans were in the 20th. The potential for this regional conflict to quickly become a global one is very real. It would be devastating for everyone, not just the primary actors.

3 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

pissing in the ocean

we have many common interests, including little things like their right to exist as a sovereign state.

Was just about to say something similar. Israel is a democracy in the middle of fanatical dictatorships in a region where significant national security interests for our country reside.  Important strategic partnership. 

4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I can understand this position in a vacuum, but the problem is the interconnectedness of everything in reality. This is the tinderbox of the 21st century, much like the Balkans were in the 20th. The potential for this regional conflict to quickly become a global one is very real. It would be devastating for everyone, not just the primary actors.

i see that as fear mongering. its already a proxy war and has been for quite some time.

conflict avoidance is just wishing for peace. its not an executable plan.

 

4 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

i see that as fear mongering. its already a proxy war and has been for quite some time.

conflict avoidance is just wishing for peace. its not an executable plan.

 

 

You can call it fear-mongering, but the other side of the coin is brinksmanship. It is proxy war of a kind, but it's in our best interests that it be contained. Israel is nuclear-capable. What happens if they decide to exercise that capacity?

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

You can call it fear-mongering, but the other side of the coin is brinksmanship. It is proxy war of a kind, but it's in our best interests that it be contained. Israel is nuclear-capable. What happens if they decide to exercise that capacity?

a nuke? seriously? and you cant grasp all you have is fear mongering?

why would they do something that stupid? they arent going to deploy a nuke close to themselves. or ever, really. it would give their enemies the excuse they are salivating for.

6 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

a nuke? seriously? and you cant grasp all you have is fear mongering?

"Fear-mongering" involves the exploitation of unreasonable fears by amplification of them. Fear of nuclear war is eminently reasonable.
 

 

6 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

why would they do something that stupid? they arent going to deploy a nuke close to themselves. or ever, really. it would give their enemies the excuse they are salivating for.

This is a good take, but I would respond that we can't expect the actors to exercise such logic. You're referring to the MAD doctrine, which is still powerful but possibly outdated as you cannot trust the universality of it anymore, since it involves many more actors than it did in the Cold War. While the position is logical, how much can you trust zealots to adhere to logic? There's also the very real possibility of a terrorist gaining access to some kind of low-grade nuke or "dirty bomb." If one were to be deployed, all bets are off. Fear of the unknown, you may say, but there's a reason that fear is instinctive. It's a mechanism for survival as much as anything else.

at least we have you starting to grasp all you have is fear. fear is not based in rational thought - its from the emotional center of the brain. and yes it is very powerful. but feeling something very strongly doesnt mean its correct. thats just how humans rationalize the emotion to themselves.

even if someone were to dirty bomb Israel...who would they nuke and why? you seem to grasp they wont deploy it anywhere locally. and anything beyond that would basically be an invitation for Russia...or maybe China...to come after them. Something they want no part of.  

none of your hypotheticals make any sense.