Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Anonymous vs. Israel
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's Palestinians who have the right to defend themselves

Quote:
The way western politicians and media have pontificated about Israel's onslaught on Gaza, you'd think it was facing an unprovoked attack from a well-armed foreign power. Israel had every "right to defend itself", Barack Obama declared. "No country on earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders."

He was echoed by Britain's foreign secretary, William Hague, who declared that the Palestinian Islamists of Hamas bore "principal responsibility" for Israel's bombardment of the open-air prison that is the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, most western media have echoed Israel's claim that its assault is in retaliation for Hamas rocket attacks; the BBC speaks wearisomely of a conflict of "ancient hatreds".

In fact, an examination of the sequence of events over the last month shows that Israel played the decisive role in the military escalation: from its attack on a Khartoum arms factory reportedly supplying arms to Hamas and the killing of 15 Palestinian fighters in late October, to the shooting of a mentally disabled Palestinian in early November, the killing of a 13 year-old in an Israeli incursion and, crucially, the assassination of the Hamas commander Ahmed Jabari last Wednesday during negotiations over a temporary truce.

Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, had plenty of motivation to unleash a new round of bloodletting. There was the imminence of Israeli elections (military attacks on the Palestinians are par for the course before Israeli polls); the need to test Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi, and pressure Hamas to bring other Palestinian guerrilla groups to heel; and the chance to destroy missile caches before any confrontation with Iran, and test Israel's new Iron Dome anti-missile system.

So after six days of sustained assault by the world's fourth largest military power on one of its most wretched and overcrowded territories, at least 130 Palestinians had been killed, an estimated half of them civilians, along with five Israelis. The goal, Israel's interior minister, Eli Yeshai, insisted, had been to "send Gaza back to the middle ages".

more...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pigeon768
l33t
l33t


Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 669

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any nation has the right to start a fight. This includes Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, the insurgent forces in Iraq, Al Qaeda, whoever. They have that right. Any nation can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want. The trouble is that they don't have the right to win that fight. They are obliged to deal with the consequences, whatever those consequences might be. The consequences for Gaza of a military confrontation with Israel will be profound loss of life. The consequences for Israel for a military confrontation with Gaza without casus belli would be profound loss of support on the world stage.

The agitators in Gaza have conveniently provided Israel with casus belli. By serving Israel casus belli on a silver platter, the agitators in Gaza have signed the death warrants of potentially any number of innocent arabs. That blood is on the agitators' hands, not Israels'.
_________________
My political bias.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
blah blah blah

It's one big truckload of bullshit propaganda. If they'd stop attacking Israel, they'd have peace, but they never will do so, because that's not what they want.

The unvarnished truth is that the so-called "Palestinians" don't want peace, and they won't stop killing Israelis until they themselves are dead or Israel has been wiped off the map.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ratmonkey
n00b
n00b


Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
It's Palestinians who have the right to defend themselves


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2012
_________________
dmitchell wrote:
Note: I am also a tax feeder
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16090
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In fact, what you are about to read is a bunch of derp. You can tell because I began with the phrase in fact.


I wouldn't be shocked to see an article in the Tel Aviv Telegraph which counters the claims of the article. It takes two to tango.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ratmonkey wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
It's Palestinians who have the right to defend themselves


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2012

You don't think he's actually going to look at that, do you? Too much risk of cognitive dissonance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't get it. Everyone has the right to defend himself. What are we arguing over?
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who is defending and who is attacking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's two tribes throwing shit at each other, it reminds me of the opening third of 2001 actually.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Who is defending and who is attacking.

I am of the opinion that all Palestinians have the right to take up arms against the Israeli military for the purpose of repelling attacks. Do you agree?
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Who is defending and who is attacking.

I am of the opinion that all Palestinians have the right to take up arms against the Israeli military for the purpose of repelling attacks. Do you agree?

Of course, but the devil in the details.

If you shot your rifle through the window of my house from the hedge between our property yesterday, and I see you out there with your rifle pointed at my house, and I grab my rifle and I shoot you, am I defending myself or attacking you? What if I fucked your daughter and took a shit in your Thanksgiving turkey while it was thawing on the back porch; does that make any difference?


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
If you shot your rifle through the window of my house from the hedge between our property, and I go over to the hedge and yank your rifle out of your hands and knock you down, are you being attacked, or am I defending myself?

You are defending yourself. But suppose you respond in a way that is going to blow up my neighbor's house, and he intervenes by shooting at you?
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would tend to agree with you about the situation I described, but I think either case is arguable. Also, what if, before you shot your rifle through the window of my house, I had thrown a rock through the window of yours, and before that you had taken a shit in my Thanksgiving turkey while it was thawing on the back porch, and before that I had called your wife a slut, and before that you had kicked my dog for shitting on your lawn?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 234
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would tend to believe Anonymous might have bit off more than they can chew by screwing with the Israelis.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
dmitchell wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Who is defending and who is attacking.

I am of the opinion that all Palestinians have the right to take up arms against the Israeli military for the purpose of repelling attacks. Do you agree?

Of course, but the devil in the details.

If you shot your rifle through the window of my house from the hedge between our property yesterday, and I see you out there with your rifle pointed at my house, and I grab my rifle and I shoot you, am I defending myself or attacking you? What if I fucked your daughter and took a shit in your Thanksgiving turkey while it was thawing on the back porch; does that make any difference?


Mhhmm. It's moral logic with expiry date. What if both you and your thanksgiving, turkey-gobbling neighbor are both immoral for living on land stolen from indians? Is morality relative or absolute? If it's absolute then we are fucked. If it's relative, we're fucked, unless we got biggest guns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The expiry date stuff has to do with what is reasonable in terms of perception of an imminent threat of grave bodily harm. When that perception is reasonable, then one may use lethal violence to prevent it. But, what if the perception is that of one's land being stolen? Is theft of land an imminent threat of grave bodily harm? If not, then as law generally applies to individuals, it does not justify lethal violence.

However, we are talking about populations, societies, and nations. So, what justifies war? The civilized nations generally espouse the "Just War Doctrine" articulated decades ago by the U.S. Catholics Bishops. It says military force should only be used in response to violence, and that only a "proportional response" is moral. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that nations protect their territory, sovereignty, and interests (what might be considered analogous to the individual's land, liberty, money, and livelihood) with military force, and consider violations thereof to be "acts of war" akin to a military attack. In other words, such acts cause harm to a society of a magnitude and nature not unlike killing members of it.

The problem we have here is that the Arabs view all of what is now Israel as Arab land, and they view and refer to the Israelis as "occupiers". From this perspective, it is moral to wage war against them. However, the United Nations and the rest of the world, except Arabs and most Muslims, consider Israel to be a legitimate, sovereign state.

On top of that, throw the "they started it" perception and the "eye for an eye" ethic of retributive justice, which is fomented by Arab and Muslim populist demagogues to rally the common men who really don't give a rat's ass about Arab nationalism but DO respond to the perception of an imminent threat of violence, of un-revenged killings, and of being dishonored in the eyes of Allah.

Peace won't come until the "Palestinians" stop wanting to kill the Israelis. That won't happen until the Mullahs and political leaders recognize Israel as a legitimate, sovereign state, and stop their murderous populist rabble-rousing. Until then, Israel should be able to exclude these people from its land (to prevent them detonating themselves in markets and buses), secure its borders with military force, and destroy weapons being used against it from outside, while avoiding collateral damage as best they can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Exactly. 20% of the Arab population of Isreal is able to get along with their Jewish brethren just fine. Israel doesn't have a problem with Arabs, just foreign non-citizens trying to exterminate them, understandably.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Food for thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IE_RzOEU9M&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ratmonkey
n00b
n00b


Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
The problem we have here is that the Arabs view all of what is now Israel as Arab land, and they view and refer to the Israelis as "occupiers". From this perspective, it is moral to wage war against them. However, the United Nations and the rest of the world, except Arabs and most Muslims, consider Israel to be a legitimate, sovereign state.


From a purely historical perspective, I don't get this. There's been a Jewish population in the region since antiquity. It's not like they just showed up out of nowhere when the Zionist movement started in the 1800's. And the large waves of immigration of foreign Jews into the area started when the area was still controlled by the Ottoman Empire under perfectly legal means. The Arabs where more than happy to sell their land to rich foreign Jewish immigrants. And now they're 'occupiers'? Sounds like the Palestinians should be upset with their grandfathers for being so eager to sell their shitty little chunk of the desert to the Zionists.

If the Arabs are going to be pissed at anyone for not being in control of the area, they should be angry with the British. They're the ones that made such a fucking mess of the area waffling back and forth on what they wanted to do with it after they took control of the area after the first World War when the Ottoman Empire fell. Then at different times promised control to both groups with the primary effect of just increasing the animosity between the groups during the whole mandate period. They made the situation sooooo much worse. But, oh how tidy it was for them to wipe their hands of it and walk away. Now you've got your common British anti-Semite bitching about how evil the Israelis are, completely oblivious to the cluster-fuck that their own country left behind.
_________________
dmitchell wrote:
Note: I am also a tax feeder
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pigeon768
l33t
l33t


Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 669

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
Mhhmm. It's moral logic with expiry date. What if both you and your thanksgiving, turkey-gobbling neighbor are both immoral for living on land stolen from indians? Is morality relative or absolute? If it's absolute then we are fucked. If it's relative, we're fucked, unless we got biggest guns.
And Israel has bigger guns than Gaza.

Morality is a social construct. It makes more sense to ask how any given group of people construct their morality absolutely or relative, or more commonly, whether they construct it absolutely or relatively on a situational basis, using whichever construction suits them best for any given situation.
dmitechell wrote:
I am of the opinion that all Palestinians have the right to take up arms against the Israeli military for the purpose of repelling attacks. Do you agree?
I, for one, agree. If they take up arms, they should not be subject to a war crimes tribunal, and should not necessarily be held responsible for the rocket attacks. If they wear a uniform, they have all the rights afforded to them under the various .... actually, that's a pretty good idea.

If they were smart, all 1.7 million residents of the Gaza Strip should put on an identifiable uniform. It doesn't have to be much: a red armband will do. They should also carry with them at all times a large white piece of cloth. At the first sign of Israeli soldiers, they should wave that white flag like their lives depended on it. (note: it does) If an Israeli soldier kills them while obviously waving a white flag, it's a cut and dry war crime. If they take them prisoner, Israel is required to treat them with the full rights of a POW: food of a similar quality and quantity to that of Israel's soldiers, water and medical care, intellectual diversions and sporting facilities, etc. Israel simply does not have the resources to maintain its responsibilities as a belligerent if Palestinian "soldiers" surrender en masse. The US can't stand by Israel if they're committing actual war crimes.

Note: usually, when people accuse the US or Israel of committing a war crime, they have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. If the US drops a cluster bomb on a crowded city block in Sadr City full of civilians and with a insurgent firing a mortar, it's not a war crime. Firing white phosphorus shells may or may not be a war crime, and if the commander who ordered the WP fired claims (note: the claim needn't be believable) that it was for illumination or obscuration purposes, it's not a war crime. When the US killed a bunch of gunmen walking down the street who had a cameraman with them, that was not a war crime. Not feeding or giving medical care to a POW is a black and white, no questions asked war crime.

But they aren't smart. They're just assholes with guns and rockets and Korans. This shit is just going to get thousands of people killed, for no benefit whatsoever.
_________________
My political bias.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pigeon768 wrote:
... all 1.7 million residents of the Gaza Strip should put on an identifiable uniform. It doesn't have to be much: a red armband will do. They should also carry with them at all times a large white piece of cloth. At the first sign of Israeli soldiers, they should wave that white flag like their lives depended on it. (note: it does) If an Israeli soldier kills them while obviously waving a white flag, it's a cut and dry war crime.

If somebody tried to institute this, here is what would happen. The testosterone-filled 20-somethings (the ones always forming new "Martyrs Brigades" and what-not) would have human shields wearing red armbands and waving white flags, while shooting over their shoulders. Then, when the Israelis shot back, you'd have naive mcruff, Jew-hater energyman76b, and brainwashed what's-his-name the Algerian-Frenchman in here posting youtube videos of some bloody 12-year-old with a red armband still clutching a white flag in his fist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pigeon768
l33t
l33t


Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 669

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

...yeah, that's true. Hadn't thought about that.
_________________
My political bias.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 145

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More Deaths In Gaza

Quote:
By Wednesday afternoon, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) was reporting 31 Palestinians killed in the Israeli assault over the previous 24 hours – 21 of them civilians – in perhaps the worst bloodletting yet of the military campaign against Gaza.

The latest victims included Ibrahim Mahmoud Nasser Abu Nasser, 80, and his 14-year-old grandson, Ameera, who were cropping olive trees in Abassan village to the east of Khan Yunis refugee camp when a missile shot from the sky killed them both.

There were the two 16-year-olds – Mahmoud Khalil al-Arja and Ibrahim Ahmed Hamad – who died in an air strike near the southern Gaza border. Ambulance men could not reach their bodies for hours because of the continuing air assault.

Adding to the tally was 14-year-old Ahmed Awadh Abu Olayan, who died of wounds sustained on the first day of the Israeli attack on Gaza.

The Palestinian health ministry puts the total death toll at more than 150, although officials concede they may not know about all of those killed. The PCHR says at least 90 of those are civilians, including about 30 children.

But as the reports of the killings emerged, there was something more.

The places people died told that the assault by land, sea and air – delivered from tanks, huge naval guns, attack helicopters and fighter jets – had shifted more firmly towards the tightly packed neighbourhoods of Gaza City and small towns and refugee camps.

Those were the very places thousands of Palestinians had fled to after the Israeli military dropped leaflets warning people to get out of border areas to the north and east. In Khan Yunis refugee camp in the south, residents received phone calls with a similar warning to leave or risk harm from the missiles.

The UN Palestinian refugee agency said it was sheltering thousands of people in 13 schools it runs. They arrived by donkey carts and pick-up trucks piled with mattresses.

Dozens of strikes on Gaza City killed nine civilians, including two children. A plane hit two cars with a missile each. Five people died. The PCHR said they were all civilians.

Another missile struck a garden, killing a man and wounding his eight-year-old grandchild.

About 15 minutes later, a plane fired a missile into a busy road, Baghdad Street. Four died, including an 18-year-old woman. Again, all were believed to be civilians.


Then there were the targets. The Israeli army said: "The sites that were targeted were positively identified by precise intelligence over the course of several months." But many seemed to have little military value. A football stadium blown to bits. The house of a bank director flattened. Media offices wrecked.

more...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 234
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many of these deaths are caused from Hamas missiles dropping short.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pigeon768
l33t
l33t


Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 669

PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Then there were the targets. The Israeli army said: "The sites that were targeted were positively identified by precise intelligence over the course of several months." But many seemed to have little military value. A football stadium blown to bits. The house of a bank director flattened. Media offices wrecked.
Hear that? That's the sound of my eyes rolling.

Because no one would ever want to launch rockets from a wide open, smooth, flat, grassy area. Because a bank director has no access to funds he might be using to purchase weapons with. Because a media office couldn't possibly be a command and control hub for a network of militants.

Stories this fucking stupid only fool people who are stupid as the stories are.

You launch rockets into Israel, you and your neighbors are going to get killed. Many of them are going to be innocent. That's just the way it is. Innocent civilians are dying, that's a fact no one is denying. Israel is morally innocent in those deaths: the blame for those deaths lay at the feet of the rocket launching militants in Gaza, and the people that fund and support them.
_________________
My political bias.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum