BF2S Forums Is Retaliation the Solution?

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

It was a joke m8.  You know you are one of my favorite DSTers. 
If you read the whole thread, you'll find I never said Israel should not defend themselves.  I just said they should not act so heavy-handed.  They should not respond to a failed attack and kill 6 people.

On the issue of heavy handedness just look at what Britain did on Bloody Sunday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

What followed was the biggest recruiting drive the IRA ever witnessed and the most violent and painful period of the troubles as a whole. Britain drew huge international criticism and lost a lot of any sympathy they would have had at the time.

Worth it?

Maybe not. I however, do not look at the Jews as the aggressors, they have had the shit kicked out of them for centuries. As soon as they show a weakness, some asshole country is there to exploit it and kick them again. My whole stance is that Isarel is the underdog, surrounded by everyone that wants them destroyed.

I really think you all are pissed that they are actually surviving the constant bombardments and will bite back.

You are wrong, I don't want Israel to be destroyed.  I just want them to stop with the oppression and the heavy-handedness.  Besides, what have the Palestinians to do with the suffering the Jews had in the past?

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

Maybe not. I however, do not look at the Jews as the aggressors, they have had the shit kicked out of them for centuries. As soon as they show a weakness, some asshole country is there to exploit it and kick them again. My whole stance is that Israel is the underdog, surrounded by everyone that wants them destroyed.

I really think you all are pissed that they are actually surviving the constant bombardments and will bite back.

You are wrong, I don't want Israel to be destroyed.  I just want them to stop with the oppression and the heavy-handedness.  Besides, what have the Palestinians to do with the suffering the Jews had in the past?

I know YOU don't want Israel destroyed Serge, however, YOU are not the one surrounding it lobbing rockets at her 24/7.

I dunno I thought lobbing rockets into Israel indiscriminately would cause some suffering.

Lowing, the facts show that the one suffering the most here is Palestine.

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

I know YOU don't want Israel destroyed Serge, however, YOU are not the one surrounding it lobbing rockets at her 24/7.

I dunno I thought lobbing rockets into Israel indiscriminately would cause some suffering.

Lowing, the facts show that the one suffering the most here is Palestine.

You are going to blame Israel for getting the upper hand against its aggressors? There is a lesson in there somewhere.

Yes, treat other people as you'd like to be treated.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

On the issue of heavy handedness just look at what Britain did on Bloody Sunday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

What followed was the biggest recruiting drive the IRA ever witnessed and the most violent and painful period of the troubles as a whole. Britain drew huge international criticism and lost a lot of any sympathy they would have had at the time.

Worth it?

Maybe not. I however, do not look at the Jews as the aggressors, they have had the shit kicked out of them for centuries. As soon as they show a weakness, some asshole country is there to exploit it and kick them again. My whole stance is that Isarel is the underdog, surrounded by everyone that wants them destroyed.

I really think you all are pissed that they are actually surviving the constant bombardments and will bite back.

Not many underdogs have 400 nukes in their arsenal but that's beside the point. I know you see Israel as the victim but surely you can see how the Palestinians view the Israelis as an invading force that swept in on the wave the world's holocaust-guilt and robbed them of large areas of land that had hitherto been theirs.

How would you explain your views to a young Palestinian child that has been forced to live in a refugee camp or has lost brothers, sisters or parents to Israeli collective punishment? Do you think your views would resonate with them? More balance is needed on both sides, Israel needs to accept that a two state solution is the only solution and both sides need to work hard to control extremists at the grass roots level.

Israel's hard line approach also does them no favours on the world stage.

I beleive Israel would relax the second the entire surrounding countries stop posing to destroy them, Iran for example. As it is for Israel to let their gaurd down would be foolish give recent history.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Don't you guys EVER get sick of arguing this? I mean, come on...it's the same crap every time and you guys never reach a resolution. Israel this, Palestine that. You are preaching to the deaf.

Here's a thought: If you're worried about Palestine suffering, maybe they should consider not lobbing rockets into a country that can kick their ass. This is why the Liberal mindset utterly amazes me.

Look who's back. This is D&ST Pollux - we can debate what we want here. If you don't like it, don't bother chiming in. I'm sure you'd be on full ceasefire if Mexico declared an independent mini-Mexico in CA & AZ...

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Don't you guys EVER get sick of arguing this? I mean, come on...it's the same crap every time and you guys never reach a resolution. Israel this, Palestine that. You are preaching to the deaf.

Here's a thought: If you're worried about Palestine suffering, maybe they should consider not lobbing rockets into a country that can kick their ass. This is why the Liberal mindset utterly amazes me.

A new guy, great.  What's your solution again?

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-04-24 06:10:01)

As far as I'm concerned, California and Arizona are Mexico.

sergeriver wrote:

You are right.  Those few Palestinians throwing rockets into Israel aren't the best for Palestine.  Despite that fact, Israel should consider the lives of innocent people before responding an attack.  If they kill people they are as bad as the extremists who are thorwing the rockets.

Well sort of.  Here's your point of view:

1) It's okay to kill people as long as you aren't as effective in doing it - like using a baseball bat instead of a gun.
2) It doesn't matter who fires first, the only thing that is important is to condemn the side that does the most damage.
3) It's okay to try to kill someone, but it's not okay to actually do it.
4) Unguided rockets fired are only fired on military targets, and that's okay when a peace treaty is in effect.
5) The peace treaty isn't in effect?  Ok, then game on...  Which is it?
6) Unguided rockets are so accurate all you have to do is point them at Israel and they hit military targets everytime, but guided rockets can only hit civilians.
7) Unguided rockets and mortars are the same as rocks.
8) Hamas = your buddies.  Let's not condemn the side that launch the attack which is going to kill more Palestinians because of an Israeli response.
9)  Hamas always plans their mortar and rocket attacks with precision.  Their attacks orginate in areas which are relatively unpopulated to prevent civilian casualties, because after all, they have the best interests of the Palestinian people in mind.  Plus the civilians in the area are doing everything they can to deter the actions of the Hamas by pressuring them to give up power and to leave their country.  When the unguided "ROCK"s are thrown at the Israeli borders can only land in military areas, because they are so accurate.  So accurate they don't kill anyone.  So accurate there is no way a civilian can't be hurt.  Like when the rockets hit Israeli cities during the short invasion - those rockets only killed military personnel that were wearing civilian clothes.

Bullshit Serge - show some anger at the Hamas - assess the blame where its due...

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

You are right.  Those few Palestinians throwing rockets into Israel aren't the best for Palestine.  Despite that fact, Israel should consider the lives of innocent people before responding an attack.  If they kill people they are as bad as the extremists who are thorwing the rockets.

Well sort of.  Here's your point of view:

1) It's okay to kill people as long as you aren't as effective in doing it - like using a baseball bat instead of a gun.
2) It doesn't matter who fires first, the only thing that is important is to condemn the side that does the most damage.
3) It's okay to try to kill someone, but it's not okay to actually do it.
4) Unguided rockets fired are only fired on military targets, and that's okay when a peace treaty is in effect.
5) The peace treaty isn't in effect?  Ok, then game on...  Which is it?
6) Unguided rockets are so accurate all you have to do is point them at Israel and they hit military targets everytime, but guided rockets can only hit civilians.
7) Unguided rockets and mortars are the same as rocks.
8) Hamas = your buddies.  Let's not condemn the side that launch the attack which is going to kill more Palestinians because of an Israeli response.
9)  Hamas always plans their mortar and rocket attacks with precision.  Their attacks orginate in areas which are relatively unpopulated to prevent civilian casualties, because after all, they have the best interests of the Palestinian people in mind.  Plus the civilians in the area are doing everything they can to deter the actions of the Hamas by pressuring them to give up power and to leave their country.  When the unguided "ROCK"s are thrown at the Israeli borders can only land in military areas, because they are so accurate.  So accurate they don't kill anyone.  So accurate there is no way a civilian can't be hurt.  Like when the rockets hit Israeli cities during the short invasion - those rockets only killed military personnel that were wearing civilian clothes.

Bullshit Serge - show some anger at the Hamas - assess the blame where its due...

If you want to put words in my mouth ok, but I never said what you mentioned.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Look who's back. This is D&ST Pollux - we can debate what we want here. If you don't like it, don't bother chiming in. I'm sure you'd be on full ceasefire if Mexico declared an independent mini-Mexico in CA & AZ...

LOL, Cam, I already defeated that analogy

Erm how? You never came up with a plausible reason for why the analogy doesn't hold. You gave a 'poor jews, they're so hard done by' skirt around the issue.

I said we would go to war with them, and I promise you, that war would not be fought using our women and children as shields, nor would we target their's.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Erm how? You never came up with a plausible reason for why the analogy doesn't hold. You gave a 'poor jews, they're so hard done by' skirt around the issue.

I said we would go to war with them, and I promise you, that war would not be fought using our women and children as shields, nor would we target their's.

Thank you again. You confirmed what any normal person would say: you would resist with violence, much like the Palestinians. I don't condone their collateral killing of civilians much as I regard the air bombardment of civilian areas as cowardly.

To reverse a phrase oft-spouted by you guys: if the Israeli civilans know that the bombers are coming then perhaps they should clear the area.... (I don't agree with this however).

Has lowing just compromised his entire argument in that last comment ...mmm? Lowing it would seem you agree with the Palestinians principles but disagree with their ethics (i.e. targeting of civilians etc.)?

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Erm how? You never came up with a plausible reason for why the analogy doesn't hold. You gave a 'poor jews, they're so hard done by' skirt around the issue.

I said we would go to war with them, and I promise you, that war would not be fought using our women and children as shields, nor would we target their's.

Thank you again. You confirmed what any normal person would say: you would resist with violence, much like the Palestinians. I don't condone their collateral killing of civilians much as I regard the air bombardment of civilian areas as cowardly.

To reverse a phrase oft-spouted by you guys: if the Israeli civilans know that the bombers are coming then perhaps they should clear the area.... (I don't agree with this however).

Yes Cam, anyone would fight. Between us however is the fundamental difference is who is the aggressors and who has been backed into a corner. I am not for or against Israel for any other reason than I see them as getting thier asses kicked for centuries and they have finally said enough. I see the Arab states as overly agressive in the region both in their govts. and their religion.