BF2S Forums Israel Wants Peace

PureFodder wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

But, the point you miss is that the only evidence that anyone was firing rockets from that place was an Israeli press statement. Why the fuck would anyone believe that without some compelling proof?

so we believe the palestinian sources over israeli.   makes sense.  not really. 

no matter what israel does, you are going to view them as the "bad guy" 

do you really think your post is worth addressing once we have established this fact.

Why? we know that Palestinians were killed, we don't know if any rockets were being fired. If Israel was attacking a rocket firing positon, then surely they'd be able to release some form of proof of that.

It seems reasonable that when you blow people up, the burden of proving that there was a genuine military target rests on your shoulders, not on the target proving that there wasn't.

talk about reason, you would rather take the word of an organization that sanctions teenage girls to wear C4 laden vests over a recognized government. 


Who's the one that sounds unreasonable?

Last week:
Hamas (a bunch of wacko extremists who don't give a shit for civilians from both sides) sends rockets into Israel.  A rocket kills one Israeli civilian.  Measures should be taken against those nutjobs.  There's no doubt of it.
Israel (a country with a democratic government) strikes Gaza in retaliation for over a week killing more than 100 Palestinians, including about 13 militants.  Two Israeli soldiers die in the attack. 

Casualties:
Israel:
Soldiers: 2
Civilians: 1
Palestine:
Militants: 13-20
Civilians: almost 100

Israel has the right to protect its land.  Israel hasn't the right to kill innocent civilians.  The US army can fight in Iraq and take care of innocent civilians avoiding collateral damage the most they can.  I know you can't avoid 100% collateral damage, but Israel kills 100 innocent people to get 10-20 militants.  Something is wrong there.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

They should also sort it themselves. But apparently they can't do anything about it so...

It's pretty hard to sort out meaningfull changes in society when you're struggling to survive. Finding food for your kids is a more significant day-to-day priority.

One way to help sort the problem out is to send some of the billions of dollars of aid that Israel gets into funding red cross or other neutral aid agencies to start to seriously rebuild Palestine. When Hamas or others fire rockets at Israel, dramatically cut the funding for a while. See how popular Hamas becomes then. Blowing up people's kids isn't exactly going to drive people into welcoming Israel with open arms.

Palestine has received the most aid from the US.

http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/

Seriously?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … le5964.htm
Israel recieves more each year than the cumulative amount that Palestine has ever recieved, they just don't get it though USAID.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

The US army can fight in Iraq and take care of innocent civilians avoiding collateral damage the most they can.

if you think thats the case...

Do you say that the US respects innocent civilians as much as Israel.  I don't buy it.  I know collateral damage is not 100% avoidable, but I also know the US tries to be very effective when it strikes, trying to avoid collateral damage.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

so we believe the palestinian sources over israeli.   makes sense.  not really. 

no matter what israel does, you are going to view them as the "bad guy" 

do you really think your post is worth addressing once we have established this fact.

Why? we know that Palestinians were killed, we don't know if any rockets were being fired. If Israel was attacking a rocket firing positon, then surely they'd be able to release some form of proof of that.

It seems reasonable that when you blow people up, the burden of proving that there was a genuine military target rests on your shoulders, not on the target proving that there wasn't.

talk about reason, you would rather take the word of an organization that sanctions teenage girls to wear C4 laden vests over a recognized government. 


Who's the one that sounds unreasonable?

Your deciding to take the word of a governemnt that has had 100 UN resolutions against it.
I'm saying not to believe either unless you have a compelling reason. If Hamas say they are firing rockets at military targets but they happen to land on a school I won't believe them unless they offer some very substantial proof. If Israel say there is a rocket launcher then they must have had proof that there was a rocket launcher there. Palestine cannot possibly prove that there was not rocket there, hence the burden of proof is on the attacker.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

if you think thats the case...

Do you say that the US respects innocent civilians as much as Israel.  I don't buy it.  I know collateral damage is not 100% avoidable, but I also know the US tries to be very effective when it strikes, trying to avoid collateral damage.

you can only be so effective.

put it this way, most the worlds population lives in urban environments.  most modern battles and battles of the future are going to be in urban environments.  you could only avoid civilian casualties for so long before that aversion will hurt the mission more than you are prepared for.

Ok, that's true.  But you can't deny the US spends a lot of money to make more efficient missiles to minimize collateral damage.  And I'm sure most of the people killed by the US in Iraq are militants or insurgents.  And that's not the case with Israel.  Nobody is asking Israel not to retaliate, just go and get the bad guys.  The problem is to identify those bad guys.  That requires good intel and I'm sure Israel has that.

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Do you say that the US respects innocent civilians as much as Israel.  I don't buy it.  I know collateral damage is not 100% avoidable, but I also know the US tries to be very effective when it strikes, trying to avoid collateral damage.

you can only be so effective.

put it this way, most the worlds population lives in urban environments.  most modern battles and battles of the future are going to be in urban environments.  you could only avoid civilian casualties for so long before that aversion will hurt the mission more than you are prepared for.

Ok, that's true.  But you can't deny the US spends a lot of money to make more efficient missiles to minimize collateral damage.  And I'm sure most of the people killed by the US in Iraq are militants or insurgents.  And that's not the case with Israel.  Nobody is asking Israel not to retaliate, just go and get the bad guys.  The problem is to identify those bad guys.  That requires good intel and I'm sure Israel has that.

Israel are just doing the old 'don't fuck with us or we'll fuck with you even worse' approach. I'd say they're being deliberately brutal to try and make a point.

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

if you think thats the case...

Do you say that the US respects innocent civilians as much as Israel.  I don't buy it.  I know collateral damage is not 100% avoidable, but I also know the US tries to be very effective when it strikes, trying to avoid collateral damage.

you can only be so effective.

put it this way, most the worlds population lives in urban environments.  most modern battles and battles of the future are going to be in urban environments.  you could only avoid civilian casualties for so long before that aversion will hurt the mission more than you are prepared for.

Ok, that's true.  But you can't deny the US spends a lot of money to make more efficient missiles to minimize collateral damage.  And I'm sure most of the people killed by the US in Iraq are militants or insurgents.  And that's not the case with Israel.  Nobody is asking Israel not to retaliate, just go and get the bad guys.  The problem is to identify those bad guys.  That requires good intel and I'm sure Israel has that.

Ever seen some of the kit Israel develops? Heard of corner-shot? Specifically designed weapons for hostage-rescue (something Hamas would never think of). Man I need to find that vid where the Cobra fires the missile and guides it through the window.

Braddock wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

you can only be so effective.

put it this way, most the worlds population lives in urban environments.  most modern battles and battles of the future are going to be in urban environments.  you could only avoid civilian casualties for so long before that aversion will hurt the mission more than you are prepared for.

Ok, that's true.  But you can't deny the US spends a lot of money to make more efficient missiles to minimize collateral damage.  And I'm sure most of the people killed by the US in Iraq are militants or insurgents.  And that's not the case with Israel.  Nobody is asking Israel not to retaliate, just go and get the bad guys.  The problem is to identify those bad guys.  That requires good intel and I'm sure Israel has that.

Israel are just doing the old 'don't fuck with us or we'll fuck with you even worse' approach. I'd say they're being deliberately brutal to try and make a point.

Aye ok.

sergeriver wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Ever seen some of the kit Israel develops? Heard of corner-shot? Specifically designed weapons for hostage-rescue (something Hamas would never think of). Man I need to find that vid where the Cobra fires the missile and guides it through the window.

Why don't they use those things instead of going happytrigger?

They do, but the media is very selective about what they publish. Ratings often fair better with bad news.

ATG wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

talk about reason, you would rather take the word of an organization that sanctions teenage girls to wear C4 laden vests over a recognized government. 


Who's the one that sounds unreasonable?

Your deciding to take the word of a governemnt that has had 100 UN resolutions against it.
I'm saying not to believe either unless you have a compelling reason. If Hamas say they are firing rockets at military targets but they happen to land on a school I won't believe them unless they offer some very substantial proof. If Israel say there is a rocket launcher then they must have had proof that there was a rocket launcher there. Palestine cannot possibly prove that there was not rocket there, hence the burden of proof is on the attacker.

Watch.

Last bit of text should say 'Terrorist got owned'. But this vid shows exactly what they do and where they do it from.

ATG wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

talk about reason, you would rather take the word of an organization that sanctions teenage girls to wear C4 laden vests over a recognized government. 


Who's the one that sounds unreasonable?

Your deciding to take the word of a governemnt that has had 100 UN resolutions against it.
I'm saying not to believe either unless you have a compelling reason. If Hamas say they are firing rockets at military targets but they happen to land on a school I won't believe them unless they offer some very substantial proof. If Israel say there is a rocket launcher then they must have had proof that there was a rocket launcher there. Palestine cannot possibly prove that there was not rocket there, hence the burden of proof is on the attacker.

Watch.

Erm, I see no beach front or children dying, hence I don't believe this is the same incident for some odd reason. I see no civllians around, so there's every reason to believe that this was fire from an empty building. Show me proof that the there was rocket fire from the beach and I'll believe that incident. Without proof'll assume there wasn't. It seems like a reasonable standpoint.

As we've seen Israelis use human shields too.

a lot of the time they are on timers.  they could be miles away from the launch site by the time it fires.

M.O.A.B wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

ATG wrote:

Watch.

Erm, I see no beach front or children dying, hence I don't believe this is the same incident for some odd reason. I see no civllians around, so there's every reason to believe that this was fire from an empty building. Show me proof that the there was rocket fire from the beach and I'll believe that incident. Without proof'll assume there wasn't. It seems like a reasonable standpoint.

As we've seen Israelis use human shields too.

Here's the major difference, the Hamas launchers often set up and fire and disappear before any cameras arrive. Whenever the Israelis attack, its often media covered and it will be documented and explained by the Israelis themselves. So there's not exactly going to be cold hard footage of the rockets being launched. Its impossible to know where they're going to be in order to film them or take a photo jsut for proof. My neighbours car is on the drive right now, that doesn't mean it wasn't there. They wouldn't just open fire on civilians, they would have had a reason to fire on that beach.

You assume that they wouldn't just open fire on ciillians, even though they are quite clearly willing to inflict all maner of sufferng on them that prompted 100 UN resolutions. If they were firing at a rocket launcher then they must have had reason to believe there is a rocket launcher there in the first place, or why are they firing at it? Clearly if the Israelis believe that they are right, they must have the evidence that prompted them to fire in the first place. What is that evidence? Clearly from the responses so far, simply declaring that there was a rocket launcher is all the proof most people need. Hence they have the option to attack civillians, claim they were millitants or standing next to a rocket launcher and most people would go along with it. That isn't proof that there was no rocket launcher, but Israel simply declaring that there was one isn't proof that there was one either.