Lefties: Want to get rid of my Reagan avatar?

[Az]

what we call terrorism is political violence by the weak- if Hamas had Tanks, Apaches, F-16 and divisions, they could afford to fight like the Israelis- they could even afford to play by the rules. Of course, they lack all of those things, and having chosen violence as their method for political change, well, that does not leave them much but to act in ways that have been designed as criminal.

I weep for Hamas.

[GePap]

Didn't know you wre such a softy...

Do you agree that if Hamas had at its disposal the same sort of military equipment that Israel has, that it would no go around sending suicide bombers, yes, or no?

[Az]

I do think that it would use it much more mercilessly, thus still being *******s. They can avoid attacking civilian targets even now, with their current equipment.

I mean, Just imagine Hamas laying their hand on a couple of Howitzers... don't you think they'll use them to shell a village, as "retaliation" for "zionist crimes" ( even when all people killed are combatants, as was shown when their training compound was targetted and no innocent bystanders were killed.

You don't see Israel using it's MLRS or even airforce, really.

[The diplomat]

Imran: why in the world do you want an avatar of a terrorist like Arafat? If you want an avatar of an anti-semitic bloody monster, why not just skip right to the top and use an avatar of Hitler?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
OMG! An actual arguement posted by DD! I thought those days were past!

Lack of sleep and a desire to pwn Aggie does strange things to me.

The question is, can people trully achieve anything in a non-violent manner, or in a violent manner that seeks to play by the state writen rules?

I'm not talking about achieving things in a non-violent manner. As Az suggests it is entirely possible to not make civilians the primary targets even with the equipment available to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. The question at hand as if people who deliberately target a bus load of children for death are truely interested in either freedom or human rights as the cliche Aggie likes to bat around suggests. I would suggest that history puts that question to rest in my favor.

[Az]

why in the world do you want an avatar of a terrorist like Arafat? If you want an avatar of an anti-semitic bloody monster, why not just skip right to the top and use an avatar of Hitler?

Well, to be honest, I have an avatar of Arafat, as well. Mine is just for ****s and giggles, though.

[DinoDoc]

The ****s and giggles Arfatar is the one Loin posted.

[Az]

Well, my pic is less known...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
I do think that it would use it much more mercilessly, thus still being *******s. They can avoid attacking civilian targets even now, with their current equipment.

And do what exactly?

I mean, Just imagine Hamas laying their hand on a couple of Howitzers... don't you think they'll use them to shell a village, as "retaliation" for "zionist crimes" ( even when all people killed are combatants, as was shown when their training compound was targetted and no innocent bystanders were killed.

"A couple of howlitzers" does not equal a real military- yes, if they got "a couple of howlitzers" they could make them effecitve only by doing something like you described before they were taken out. I am talking real military parity.

You don't see Israel using it's MLRS or even airforce, really.

Israel did use its airforce extensively, in bombing PA installations. MOst assasinations are by helicopter, which is an aircraft- if part of the Army, not airforce. Israelis don;t have to use MLRS, and in this situation it would not be particularly effective.

That's the point- the strong can be magananimous- the weak can't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The avatar is having the effect I planned. Notice, we didn't have all of this before the avatar was changed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm not talking about achieving things in a non-violent manner. As Az suggests it is entirely possible to not make civilians the primary targets even with the equipment available to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. The question at hand as if people who deliberately target a bus load of children for death are truely interested in either freedom or human rights as the cliche Aggie likes to bat around suggests. I would suggest that history puts that question to rest in my favor.

Hamas an IJ live in an area in which the only cover is their own population centers- the whole contested region is tiny- lets say Hamas an IJ decided all they would do is attack the IDF and "play by the rules", which you claim they can do. You know what? They would have been destroyed long ago. NO, they don;t have the ability to take on the IDF- they might be able to laucnh small raids, and ambushes of IDF soldiers here or there- but overall they would be seen not as a real threat, but as a nuissence, which is really all they can be againts the IDF.

This is why they carry out attacks against civlians-they are too weak to actually fight the IDF and achieve something- so they work under the (mistaken) assumption that by hitting the population directly, they will force the enemy to the table, even being so much weaker.

[Az]

And do what exactly?

Attack rear army bases with small squads, for example. This is very feasible, yet they never do it. There are softer targets, I guess.

Israel did use its airforce extensively, in bombing PA installations. MOst assasinations are by helicopter, which is an aircraft- if part of the Army, not airforce. Israelis don;t have to use MLRS, and in this situation it would not be particularly effective.

That's the point- the strong can be magananimous- the weak can't.

Israel did NOT use it's airforce extensively, of course. It often didn't use it when it should've. ( Like in Jenin, letting more than a dozen of our soldiers die in the process. )

And as I've shown, the "weak" can attack softer military targets, and sometimes even manage to get of their asses and attack regular military targets. They can do this. There are simply easier targets, the civilians.

On a side note, helicopters are part of the airforce in Israel.

[johncmcleod]

Israel kills with tanks and helicopters, hamas kills with suicide bombers. Both are bad. Except for ever Israeli killed by the fighting there are five Palestinians killed.

[Az]

So every killing is the same?

[DinoDoc]

but overall they would be seen not as a real threat, but as a nuissence, which is really all they can be againts the IDF.

They really aren't a real threat now. Traffic accidents kill more people than terrorism does in Israel. The tactics aren't working, cost the Palestinian cause many would be supporters, and are as bad a thing for the long term interests of the long term interests of the Palestinian people as Irgun and Stern's use of violence were for the Jewish people. They are also neither here nor there when it comes to the question of wether or not people who make a civilian population the primary targets of thier campaign give a damn about freedom which is what my posts are about.