chops_a_must
Printing My Own Money
- Joined
- 1 November 2006
- Posts
- 4,636
- Reactions
- 3
OK - so you don't know. I'm asking if others do. So why invent "Palestine has always existed" unless you really know?
Not sure what your point is...
Palestine has always "existed". AFAIK it referred to what is now generally the Gaza Strip now, but is now just a generic term for what were many various kingdoms over time.
But yeah, Hadrian did put down hundreds of thousands of Jews after occupation and suppression and their retaliation and murder of many many Romans. The irony is not lost on me.
Anyway, this footage isn't for the faint of heart, i.e. it has footage of a kid dying:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/01/07/ac.nasr.gaza.arab.viewers.cnn
Of course there will be those reading this thread who will argue the obvious that it is Arab propoganda. But the horror of war should be shown as it is.
If my country was the continual target of the rockets fired from a bordering neighbour I would consider this an act of war from my neighbour.
I am not sure I understand why some on here are calling a response to an act of war as 'disproportionate.'
Does Israel need to wait until some Hamas rockets kill mass amounts of Israeli citizens before they can respond with force so that the response is then not labelled 'disproportionate?' That does not make sense to me.
If my country was subject to continual rocket attacks from my neighbour, and my country had the more well trained and better equiped army, I would not expect my country to employ some kind of tit for tat response. That would defeat the purpose of having the stronger army. I would expect a response that ensured that these rocket attacks are stopped. If your country falls under constant attack, you don't sit around waiting until these attacks kill a greater number of your citizens in an attempt to legitimize a heavy handed response. You remove those perpetrating the threat with minimal casualties on your side. If Hamas had such weaponry available to them, I am positive they would be using it.
Are we now punishing the side with greater firepower and ability to strike?
Do people expect Israel to keep a running score card of deaths on each side and only strike Hamas targets after a Hamas rocket attack kills a few more Israeli citizens and levels up the totals? What a silly and unrealistic arguement, and it would kind of defeat the purpose of Israel having such strong military capabilities. I know, should they both resort to only firing rockets and mortars indiscriminately into each others territory and then it would be fair? Very very silly. I don't get why some are beating up on Israel because they have superior firepower as if it is something they should not be using in an armed conflict.
I still don't get this arguement about how Israel is worse because it has killed more people. I keep hearing people add up Israeli casualties and compare them to Palestinian/Hamas casualties and use this figure to determine something? Or legitimise one side of the conflict but attack the other? Are we now punishing the side with greater firepower and ability to strike? Just because Hamas rockets are more inacurate should not mean that they are allowed to fire into Israeli territory indiscriminately and without response. If Israel considers these attacks akin to acts of war then they should respond by mobilising all of their available forces and use them to eliminate the threats. I don't see why any other response but this would be called for. The whole point of having one of the World's most advanced armies is to be able to deploy it when your country comes under attack. What else should be expected as far as a response goes if rockets are fired into their country? It's an act of war and should be treated as such.
I have no objections whatsoever to an army responding to threats to its people with equal or greater force, hence inflicting greater casualties. Like u say, casualty rates should not be a gauge of who is right or wrong. However, if that army with superior firepower and total weapon domination is using its strength to occupy, imprison, brutalize and torment a whole nation of people and then expect no retaliation, and when that brutalized people do retaliate to their unlawful occupation, and have the mightier country smash them into submission - thats what i have a problem with.
Please understand that the stats only show who is mightier and provide a hint of who the oppressors are. In this case it is very clear.
Huh???
You can't make land suddenly exist, you can only change the names. I certainly didn't invent that Palestine has always existed bud
This is what I don't like. Gross Exaggeration
Occupy ...Rubbish it is a search and destroy mission to quell Hamas attacks
Imprison...Members of Hamas yes Citizens of Gaza no
Brutalize... Yeah war is a bit like that which is why it is a last resort for most civilized countries Israel included
Torment... That is not Israels goal at all and they will be out of there as soon as the rocket attacks on them stop
The fact that civilians are dieing should be as much a concern for Hamas as it should be for Israel.
Remember it Hamas has the power to stop this as well !!!!!
I agree.
There are too many here living in a dream world, that don't seem to be aware of what the reality of war is - thinking it is a sanitised, precise display. I don't care for the propaganda. Watching a kid die speaks for itself. It is what it is.
If we had those images on our screens every night, I'd like to see our society's reaction. It is very much like how our news reports were, when it came to the WTC attacks, and Bali.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?