Israel civ

[Zero]

Originally posted by XarXo
"believe, believe"

The truth appear when you UNDERSTAND, not when you "believe". This discuss is sterile and doesn't match with the topic.

on the contrary you have to have faith in science in order for science to work. I mean do you truly beleive in your senses and human logics to give you the truth?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes


Well, In WW2 it was common practice to bomb large cities, on both sides. They wanted the colateral damage, less people making bombs to do the same thing to them. And there wasn't a huge public outcry either. If you have ever played games such as Warcraft or Starcraft, you know that the best way to win is to cripple their infrastructue (peons or SCVs) It's the same way in Civ. What would you do, run five bombers over a city and then attack, or just attack?
Hiroshima was acceptable, it ended the war quickly, saving huge numbers of Japanese and Allied lives that would have been lost in an assault on Japan. It also showed the world the power of nukes, which has in effect prevented anyone from using them. Imagine if we had not nuked Hiroshima, but after the war had war with Russia, and first used nukes there? Mass destruction everywhere.

I would have to disagree on hiroshima part, mainly due to my Russian(? he was eastern european but not sure if he was slavic) WW2 History 250 Professor, who insisted so much of russian effort in WW2. Maybe his opinion finally rubbed off on me, but Japan would have surrendered even without the bomb, since surreder was decided AFTER they learned of Russian invasion on Mainland Japan's empire. They probably could have taken another dozen of bombs before they surrendered if it wasn't for Russian front. At least so my professor would say

I agree on the whole collateral damage. Best effective way is to attack civilians. This was how war has been fought recently sadly. The chivary ideal of civilian neutrality doesn't exist when they are busy makig gunpowder and boots for the very people who are shooting your people. In that way, terrorism is just simply military sabotage phrased in the victim's propaganda. So, as sad as it is to see Isareli's gunning down innocents and arabs bombing supermarkets... They are doing what works. Now whether or not that is right is another question. And whether those palestinians are really harboring terrorist and israeli is doing their version of "witch hunt" is also another story.

[Solomyr]

to question the actions and the benefit of said actions by Israel is a natural thing, especially in a functioning DEMOCRACY, something the Palestinians have yet to really grasp (but they are a hell of a lot closer than other Arab gov't). now, suggesting Israel is on a witch hunt is a pretty ignorant statment (notice the statment, not you Calc, is ignorant). if buses weren't blowing up, and suicide bombers not caught everyday (just casue you don't hear about them on CNN doesn't mean they ain't there) and israel was still going into gaza and the terriories, then it could seem more like a witch hunt, a la John Ashcroft. however, almost everyday on mainstream israeli news sites, there is a headline about how the IDF caught another suicide bomber at a checkpoint. i knew there was a reason for those, those, oh, borders. israel is doing anything but a witch hunt. well almost anything. some accusations are pretty crazy.

so, how about that Israeli national football (soccer) team beating some other little med country that i can't recall right now?

[gsmoove23]

I think the fire bombing of Dresden did create controversy at the time but the fact that a practise is commonplace doesn't make it acceptable. Hitler introduced the bombing of civilian targets and everyone quickly followed suit. The effect of the bombings however is questionable. In England it created as much resolve as it created despair, and it has been described as an awful waste of hardware that could have been used against military targets. Many historians consider the widespread use of civilian bombing to have been largely ineffectual.
As for Hiroshima I am certain that while the use of the bomb might have been necessary, it was not at all necessary to use it on a large civilian population and certainly not two. Strictly military targets would have sufficed in getting the point across yet the use of civilian bombing was so commonplace that we don't seem to question these actions even today.

[gsmoove23]

Solomyr,
I don't live in Israel certainly but I do hit various news sites everyday, Haaretzdaily being one of them and it seems to me that just recently there had been more then a month of ceasefire on the Palestinian side or at least no bombings and the IDF continued its actions on the same level as before, including incursions into towns, curfews, checkpoint closures and assassination. At one point Peres actually spoke up again.
I won't argue if you say Arafat isn't a 'partner for peace' if you don't argue when I say Sharon isn't either.

[gsmoove23]

Although, recently I was a little suprised when a bombing wasn't reported on the major sites, though there are literally daily killings of palestinian civilians. Out of curiosity I've been checking this for the last couple of months and I think there has been at least a killing a day and not of terrorists.

[XarXo]

Originally posted by Calc II


on the contrary you have to have faith in science in order for science to work. I mean do you truly beleive in your senses and human logics to give you the truth?

Is not faith, is an inductive process, that could be deducted and posteriorly verifyied with logical treatment.

[Solomyr]

gsmoove23

If you are hitting Haaretz everyday, then you know that the IDF has been imposing curfews and has reoccupied most of the west bank over the last few months. Why do you think there has been almost of month of quite? Hamas had a change of heart? I have never believed that the general Palestinian population really wanted to use violence, but with Hamas and PIJ, and the PA inciting people, there was bound to be violence. The fact is that who has been killed in the territories over the last month? You said not terrorists, but who is a terrorist? Is a man shooting at IDF troops a terrorist? Is man shooting at US marines a terrorist? Odds are both do not have formal military ties, but both can at least be labeled a combatant, and if the IDF has better aim than combatants, that’s what happens with training and the motivation to fight for national survival.

And when it comes to Sharon and Arafat any equating of the two is absurd. Arafat is, was, and always will be a terrorist, in any sense of the word. He speaks out both sides of his mouth, and has blood on his hands. Sharon is a military man, and though people may disagree with his tactics, he has the respect to target combatants. And forget Sharon, if the Palestinians, all (most of) the Palestinians, not just figurehead leaders, were to make and HONEST press for peace, and Sharon didn’t move likewise, the Israeli electorate would throw him out of office in a week, because Sharon is the democratically elected leader, in a democracy that actually works, at least as well as the US version.

[Zero]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I think the fire bombing of Dresden did create controversy at the time but the fact that a practise is commonplace doesn't make it acceptable.

Yes! Yes! Morality question is going somewhere! Just because its commonplace doesnt mean its justifiable! So true! but isn't just as the same to say it is not unjust just because it is commonplace to think otherwise?

Hitler introduced the bombing of civilian targets and everyone quickly followed suit. The effect of the bombings however is questionable. In England it created as much resolve as it created despair, and it has been described as an awful waste of hardware that could have been used against military targets. Many historians consider the widespread use of civilian bombing to have been largely ineffectual.

Yes it is safe to say that bombing of london did have an opposite effect hitler intended.

As for Hiroshima I am certain that while the use of the bomb might have been necessary, it was not at all necessary to use it on a large civilian population and certainly not two. Strictly military targets would have sufficed in getting the point across yet the use of civilian bombing was so commonplace that we don't seem to question these actions even today.

Ok fair enough. history is afterall an opinion.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Solomyr
to question the actions and the benefit of said actions by Israel is a natural thing, especially in a functioning DEMOCRACY,
something the Palestinians have yet to really grasp (but they are a hell of a lot closer than other Arab gov't)

Ooh watch out when you use the word "democracy" To save explanation go to Bloodbath on Gaza on the off topic forum. Maybe later I'll edit in a link.

now, suggesting Israel is on a witch hunt is a pretty ignorant statment (notice the statment, not you Calc, is ignorant). if buses weren't blowing up, and suicide bombers not caught everyday (just casue you don't hear about them on CNN doesn't mean they ain't there) and israel was still going into gaza and the terriories, then it could seem more like a witch hunt, a la John Ashcroft. however, almost everyday on mainstream israeli news sites, there is a headline about how the IDF caught another suicide bomber at a checkpoint. i knew there was a reason for those, those, oh, borders. israel is doing anything but a witch hunt. well almost anything. some accusations are pretty crazy.

Well, I raised a question not a statement nor my opinion. People have problem differentiating between a question, statement and my opinion. I rarely voice my opinion and thanx solomyr for not accusing me of opinionating.

To tell you the truth, I don;t know what to say, I don;t know whether to believe Israeli media wholeheartedly and buy the propaganda as well or ignore the evidence they are waving at me. As usual the fact is probably right around the middle. But I am not knowledgeable and You would understand that you don't convince me since I havent been presented a fair counter arguement?

so, how about that Israeli national football (soccer) team beating some other little med country that i can't recall right now?

Are you talking about Korea? I don really follow soccer tho I love the sport. (GASP! Korean not following football? Oh yea Im US citizen )

If your trying to rub something on me its not working cause I have no idea what your talking about!

[Athitis]

Originally posted by Sheik
Kingof the Apes is right. Why should the Palestinians be added? They are terrorists who should never have a country and hopefully never will.

Palestinians are terrorists??? Yeah right. The "Butcher" of Jerusalim is Saron, a fascist that escaped the death penalty thanx to US. He is the only terrorist here. You cannot blame nations for fanatics' actions they do out of desperation.

Regardless, Israel should be in the game.

[Solomyr]

I looked a little at the "Bloodbath in Gaza", but I’m not going to search through 25 odd pages of posts to find them bad mouthing Israeli democracy. And to call the PA a democracy, well, Saddam Hussein also just won an election .

My question is why when the IDF hunts down people who have and are going to plant bombs on buses and in discos does the world cry massacre, but if a bus blows up the world cries about acts of desperation?

Calc, I understand that you are not convinced. I am not convinced that everything Israel does is in the best interests of its citizens. I wonder if some of the steps they take aren't simply knee jerk reactions that don't help them, let alone the situation. But what I am convinced of is that Israel honestly wants peace, and does not want to keep ruling the Palestinians. It’s a matter of historical precedent. Israel has traded away valuable land in the name of peace. Valuable land Israel developed and began to settle that was captured in defensive wars. Yes, there are numerous religious reasons that Israel and the Jewish people would like to have Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as part of Israel. But these pale in significance to the importance of peace. Forget about the fanatic settlers (a very small in population, but currently powerful political block), and forget about the fanatic Islamic elements in the Palestinian society. What you have are two people trying to live their lives. But one has a gov’t that has done nothing but sown hatred for the last 30 years, while the other one has been willing to make peace and build a country for those who want to destroy it.

In the end it comes down to one thing: the Palestinians had a chance to make peace, and they turned to violence. Even after the violence had begun, they got a better deal, almost everything they wanted, in Dec 2000, at Taba, the Clinton plans. And they continued the violence. And whom do they attack? Mothers and children at a pizza parlor. Teenagers at a disco. Families sleeping in their beds. At least the IDF has the respect for human life to target bomb makers and hate mongers, and can search its soul when it kills children on accident. But enough.

As for the soccer game, I don’t think it was Korea. Some small island nation in the Mediterranean I think. But it was a big victory for Israel, which is having trouble breaking into European play.

[Solomyr]

Athitis,

Butcher is a strong word I would only use for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Plot. Even Arafat isn’t a butcher. Quit reading the anti-Semitic news you kids get over in Europe. Sharon is nothing more than another leader of a nation. He will be forgotten in world history unless he pulls something out of his a$$. And I don’t have my money on that. Arafat on the other hand will always be remembered as the terrorist who couldn’t make the jump to statesman.

Yet, thank you for the, to me confusing, statement that Israel should be in the game. After your thrashing of Sharon, I am interesting to help why you made that statement.

[Athitis]

Palestinians are not bad people. The people of Israel aren't bad either. Don't blame nations for the acts of a small number of fanatics from both sides, who believe blowing people up will attract attention and will take revenge for the loss of their own people. I say give Palestinians their own land, and you will see how fast these terrorist attacks will come to an end.

Noone blows himself to pieces just for the fan of it, and both the nations of Palestinians and Isreal have clearly stated they are against these actions.

PS: Palestinians have nothing to do with airplanes and scyscrapers.....

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Solomyr
I am not convinced that everything Israel does is in the best interests of its citizens. I wonder if some of the steps they take aren't simply knee jerk reactions that don't help them, let alone the situation.

Cool, I was beginning to think that we would just be butting heads over this issue but I see we can agree on at least some things. I believe that most Israeli's want peace too and would rather see a palestinian state and for that matter I find it hard to stomach terrorist attacks as well. I think until recently most Palestinians were against these too, but the situation is getting worse and you can also here more and more Israelis talking about 'transferring' the pals from their homes.

Originally posted by Solomyr
My question is why when the IDF hunts down people who have and are going to plant bombs on buses and in discos does the world cry massacre, but if a bus blows up the world cries about acts of desperation?

The fact is this doesn't happen. Most of the world swallows the line that actions taken by a recognized army cannot be equated with terrorist acts hook line and sinker. This leads people to argue that the Palestinians would get their state if they stopped bombing, which of course is untrue. Israelis have occupied the territories for more then 30 years, continuing to found settlements and expand existing ones to this day. There is no reason to believe that if everything were quiet they would pack their bags and leave.

So people like myself tend to see little difference between terrorist actions that target civilians and IDF actions which claim an inordinate amount of civilian lives even though they have military targets.

Heres my thought, is it possible for a military action to have more then one objective? For instance, whose heard that old line, the victims were unarmed protesters but IDF representatives claim there were gunmen in the crowd. This would certainly make me think twice about protesting and I have heard this line alot. Stop before you say they wouldn't do that, armies have been doing this for centuries, including this one.

My aim isn't to make any claims that I don't have proof for, but to demonstrate how the effect is similar. Terror is terror and can you ask a palestinian to see it any differently?

Originally posted by Solomyr
It’s a matter of historical precedent. Israel has traded away valuable land in the name of peace. Valuable land Israel developed and began to settle that was captured in defensive wars. Yes, there are numerous religious reasons that Israel and the Jewish people would like to have Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as part of Israel. But these pale in significance to the importance of peace. Forget about the fanatic settlers (a very small in population, but currently powerful political block), and forget about the fanatic Islamic elements in the Palestinian society.

Okay, this isn't a game of civ. Those settled lands were stolen. You can't do that, at least not in the last half of the 20thC and Israel attacked in 1967. Claiming a 'defensive war' when its not even on your soil is amazing. Yes, I know there were a number of provocative actions on both sides, but some would say Israel wanted the war because they knew they could win it and it made Jerusalem 'whole'.

Originally posted by Solomyr
What you have are two people trying to live their lives. But one has a gov’t that has done nothing but sown hatred for the last 30 years, while the other one has been willing to make peace and build a country for those who want to destroy it.

Before Oslo Arafat wasn't even in the country. Most of those 30 years Israel's main problem was with its neighbours. Only during the first intifada in the 80s did the actual palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza start to get a real voice of their own. During Oslo in the 90s how much of a terrorist problem was there. Still, while negotiating a peace the settlement population almost doubled and new settlements were founded. Doesn't sound like much in the way of good faith to me.

Originally posted by Solomyr
In the end it comes down to one thing: the Palestinians had a chance to make peace, and they turned to violence. Even after the violence had begun, they got a better deal, almost everything they wanted, in Dec 2000, at Taba, the Clinton plans.

The negotiations at Taba were called off by Barak. Then Sharon, widely known as a butcher in the muslim world, made his visit to the Holy Mount on a Friday, when he knew it would be full, surrounded by a few hundred security guards. Then riots and protests started, rocks were thrown and according to the UN report, the IDF responded with unjustified lethal force. Many civilians were killed, THEN the real violence started. But thats just another viewpoint. The reality as Calc II put it is probably somewhere in between.

Originally posted by Solomyr
And whom do they attack? Mothers and children at a pizza parlor. Teenagers at a disco. Families sleeping in their beds. At least the IDF has the respect for human life to target bomb makers and hate mongers, and can search its soul when it kills children on accident. But enough.

Missile fired from a helicopter was used to assassinate one Hamas leader in a crowded neighbourhood. 14 civilians were killed. Women and children, Mothers, daughters teenagers and all, I wonder if those victims had respect for human life. Probably not. Sharon called it a great success.
Again, I'm not saying one side is worse then the other, but that neither side can lay the blaim entirely on the other.