http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-senators-caught-out-over-israel/story-fn59niix-1226034974787

TWO Greens senators have publicly supported calls for Australian sanctions against Israel over the Middle East conflict, putting them at odds with party policy and their leader Bob Brown.

West Australian senator Scott Ludlam last year demanded an arms embargo on Israel, which he described as "a rogue state", while South Australian colleague Sarah Hanson-Young addressed a rally where protesters called on Australia to sever ties with the Jewish state.

The stance by the two senators conflicts with Senator Brown's assurance last week that his federal party was not anti-Israel and did not support the NSW branch of the party advocating sanctions against Israel.

The Coalition last night labelled the Greens "reds", while the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council called on Senator Hanson-Young to visit Israel before jumping to conclusions.

Senator Brown yesterday refused to comment on the activities of his senators and directed The Australian to his party's policy on Israel, which clearly advocated a peaceful two-state solution.

if Brown doesnt get them under control their vote will plunge. Australia is very pro-israel and has a very low opinion of anti-semitism. bye bye Greens!!!

they are really just starting to show their political colours dont you think?... its always been about whales and trees very safe...lol..just goes to show what a smiggin of POWER can do to anyone.

Hanson-thingy I can well believe it of (to end with a preposition).
But I better say no more about the Greens & anti-semitism. I have made myself a pariah by linking the Greens with anti-semitism, in spite of the fact that these reports keep coming out which point to more & more of the Greens having distinctly anti-semitic points of view.
Is it OK if I say the Greens are god-fearing then?

Andrew Bolt equated the Greens with cancer on ABC TV's Insiders last Sunday

Tony Bradshaw wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:13am:

Andrew Bolt equated the Greens with cancer on ABC TV's Insiders last Sunday

Hmmmm I know you're new and all, but I'd make the point that it never helps you in any argument when quoting Bolt.  

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 10:20am:

Hanson-thingy I can well believe it of (to end with a preposition). But I better say no more about the Greens & anti-semitism. I have made myself a pariah by linking the Greens with anti-semitism, in spite of the fact that these reports keep coming out which point to more & more of the Greens having distinctly anti-semitic points of view. Is it OK if I say the Greens are god-fearing then?

Being anti-Israel is NOT being anti-semitic, unless one is intent on maintaining a persecution complex.

Just to remind you, christians have persecuted the jewry quite a lot, too.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:15am:

Tony Bradshaw wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:13am: Andrew Bolt equated the Greens with cancer on ABC TV's Insiders last Sunday Hmmmm I know you're new and all, but I'd make the point that it never helps you in any argument when quoting Bolt.

I agree. I just thought it a really extreme thing to say even for Bolt

I haven't read all the propaganda rubbish in our wonderful newspapers, but I don't understand how being anti-israel means you are an anti-Semite?  

Israel is a democratic state that has time and time again broken international law. It's as simple as that, and it is normal left-leaning thinking that states who break international law and  cause harm to millions of people should be condemned.  I have no problem condemning Israeli governments over the past 40 years , just like I have no problem condemning the Libyan government, Hamas, Mugabi, etc,  because all have cause atrocities and broken international law.

Of course the right wing nuts don't see it this way because according to them in the end Palestinians are arabs and as such should be exterminated because no doubt they are jihadist terrorists who are itching at getting on a boat to come to australia to spread their culture and bomb everything, and ruin society.

Tony Bradshaw wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:13am:

Andrew Bolt equated the Greens with cancer on ABC TV's Insiders last Sunday

Well bugger me it must be true if our lord Bolt says so.
Let me just premiss my next statement, no bugger it you guys push your agendas & only see what you want anyway.
Criticizing Israel as a nation for it's actions is NOT antisemitic
Criticizing a person of Jewish faith for wrongdoing is NOT antisemitic
Abusing,demonizing or ostracising someone or a whole nation BECAUSE OF THEIR JEWISH faith IS antisemitic.


Quote:

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, and/or religion. In its extreme form, it "attributes to the Jews an exceptional position among all other civilizations, defames them as an inferior group and denies their being part of the nation[s]" in which they reside.[1] A person who holds such views is called an "antisemite".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
But don't let the true meaning & understanding of a word get in your way of making your political point.

Hmmmm I know you're new and all, but I'd make the point that it never helps you in any argument when quoting Bolt. >

You on the other hand are not new but bugger all seems to help you in any argument.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:44am:

Hmmmm I know you're new and all, but I'd make the point that it never helps you in any argument when quoting Bolt. > You on the other hand are not new but bugger all seems to help you in any argument.

aha, please forgive me I usually do more than post an article from a newspaper and then put a 2 liner in saying, " I agree with this."  and then put in some completley useless garbage attacking the person rather than the point, and go hide.  

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Tony Bradshaw wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:21am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:15am: Tony Bradshaw wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:13am: Andrew Bolt equated the Greens with cancer on ABC TV's Insiders last Sunday Hmmmm I know you're new and all, but I'd make the point that it never helps you in any argument when quoting Bolt.   I agree. I just thought it a really extreme thing to say even for Bolt

He also compared our democracy to, I quote:
"1933 Germany"
His nothing more than a media harlot who will say & do anything for attention.

You mightn't like Bolt,  but I reckon Martin Luther King is worth quoting:



Lieberman: Anti-Israel views are anti-Semitism
Thursday, December 17, 2009 | Israel Today Staff

Most people would agree that anti-Semitism is a bad thing, even those who are actually anti-Semitic. They would also accuse Jews of being too sensitive on the topic, even as they unleash unprecedented criticism of Israel.

But Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Wednesday said he and many others are not fooled - today's anti-Israel sentiments are actually age-old anti-Semitism in a new disguise.

"Modern anti-Semitism has taken on the form of being anti-Israel... Instead of saying 'throw the Jews into the sea,' they talk of a world without Zionism, and without Israel," Lieberman said at the Foreign Ministry's third annual Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism.

This new form of anti-Semitism is actually far more dangerous, suggested Lieberman. Instead of lowest elements lashing out at Jews in vile hatred, anti-Israelism is spearheaded by society's elite academics, power brokers and human rights groups that are viewed as inherently good and is couched in eloquent language. But the goal is the same, warned Lieberman. These people "seek to destroy Israel piece by piece."

Lieberman is by no means the first public figure to equate modern anti-Israel or anti-Zionist sentiment to anti-Semitism.

The most famous progenitor of this way of thinking was Dr. Martin Luther King, who upon being approached at a fund-raising event by a student attacking Israel and the Zionists responded thus:

"When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."

Maeve wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:55am:

You mightn't like Bolt,  but I reckon Martin Luther King is worth quoting: Lieberman: Anti-Israel views are anti-Semitism Thursday, December 17, 2009 | Israel Today Staff Most people would agree that anti-Semitism is a bad thing, even those who are actually anti-Semitic. They would also accuse Jews of being too sensitive on the topic, even as they unleash unprecedented criticism of Israel. But Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Wednesday said he and many others are not fooled - today's anti-Israel sentiments are actually age-old anti-Semitism in a new disguise. "Modern anti-Semitism has taken on the form of being anti-Israel... Instead of saying 'throw the Jews into the sea,' they talk of a world without Zionism, and without Israel," Lieberman said at the Foreign Ministry's third annual Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism. This new form of anti-Semitism is actually far more dangerous, suggested Lieberman. Instead of lowest elements lashing out at Jews in vile hatred, anti-Israelism is spearheaded by society's elite academics, power brokers and human rights groups that are viewed as inherently good and is couched in eloquent language. But the goal is the same, warned Lieberman. These people "seek to destroy Israel piece by piece." Lieberman is by no means the first public figure to equate modern anti-Israel or anti-Zionist sentiment to anti-Semitism. The most famous progenitor of this way of thinking was Dr. Martin Luther King, who upon being approached at a fund-raising event by a student attacking Israel and the Zionists responded thus: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."

Zionists aren't all jews.  It's a political movement.  Hence not anti-semitic.

Maeve wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:55am:

You mightn't like Bolt,  but I reckon Martin Luther King is worth quoting: Lieberman: Anti-Israel views are anti-Semitism Thursday, December 17, 2009 | Israel Today Staff Most people would agree that anti-Semitism is a bad thing, even those who are actually anti-Semitic. They would also accuse Jews of being too sensitive on the topic, even as they unleash unprecedented criticism of Israel. But Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Wednesday said he and many others are not fooled - today's anti-Israel sentiments are actually age-old anti-Semitism in a new disguise. "Modern anti-Semitism has taken on the form of being anti-Israel... Instead of saying 'throw the Jews into the sea,' they talk of a world without Zionism, and without Israel," Lieberman said at the Foreign Ministry's third annual Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism. This new form of anti-Semitism is actually far more dangerous, suggested Lieberman. Instead of lowest elements lashing out at Jews in vile hatred, anti-Israelism is spearheaded by society's elite academics, power brokers and human rights groups that are viewed as inherently good and is couched in eloquent language. But the goal is the same, warned Lieberman. These people "seek to destroy Israel piece by piece." Lieberman is by no means the first public figure to equate modern anti-Israel or anti-Zionist sentiment to anti-Semitism. The most famous progenitor of this way of thinking was Dr. Martin Luther King, who upon being approached at a fund-raising event by a student attacking Israel and the Zionists responded thus: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."

Care to put some historical context to that statement??????
Nah, we'll just put it out there as if 1960's Israel is exactly the same as 2011 Israel, no settlement expansion,no wall,Arab NATIONS still attacking with armies of tanks etc.
You take us for fools but it is you who looks foolish >:(

As I said, Lieberman sounds like someone who desires to maintain a persecution complex.

If the Israelis, the settlers who are stealing Palestinian farms, who are building settlements against all accords, wanted to get on with their neighbours, they sure have a funny way of showing it.

If the rabid dogs of Islam stopped shooting rockets at them things might be different. But the rabid dogs of Islam are like the Real IRA, they never ever want a peaceful solution.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:08pm:

If the rabid dogs of Islam stopped shooting rockets at them things might be different. But the rabid dogs of Islam are like the Real IRA, they never ever want a peaceful solution.

last time I checked, the last cease fire was broken by who again?

The point is, both parties don't have clean hands in this war, and in the end it is widely documented and even admitted by the Israeli government that their attacks in 09 were illegal under international law.  This is the extent they are willing to go; people have every right to stand up and say "I don't like this and as Australians we shouldn't stand for this," without being reprimanded as "anti-semitic."  Especially when it isn't anti-semitic to speak out against a government.  The Israeli government needs to stop hiding behind words, and act as a proper democratic nation; a nation that doesn't go out and blatantly attack its enemies in an unwarranted way.

With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action.
But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:

With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens.

It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.  

It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational.

Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government.

There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted.

It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted.



EXACTLY

the greens have disembowelled themselves here


Quote:

TWO Greens senators have publicly supported calls for Australian sanctions against Israel over the Middle East conflict, putting them at odds with party policy and their leader Bob Brown. West Australian senator Scott Ludlam last year demanded an arms embargo on Israel, which he described as "a rogue state", while South Australian colleague Sarah Hanson-Young addressed a rally where protesters called on Australia to sever ties with the Jewish state. The stance by the two senators conflicts with Senator Brown's assurance last week that his federal party was not anti-Israel and did not support the NSW branch of the party advocating sanctions against Israel. The Coalition last night labelled the Greens "reds", while the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council called on Senator Hanson-Young to visit Israel before jumping to conclusions. Senator Brown yesterday refused to comment on the activities of his senators and directed The Australian to his party's policy on Israel, which clearly advocated a peaceful two-state solution...........

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-senators-caught-out-over-israel/story-fn59niix-1226034974787

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:37pm:

the greens have disembowelled themselves here Quote: TWO Greens senators have publicly supported calls for Australian sanctions against Israel over the Middle East conflict, putting them at odds with party policy and their leader Bob Brown. West Australian senator Scott Ludlam last year demanded an arms embargo on Israel, which he described as "a rogue state", while South Australian colleague Sarah Hanson-Young addressed a rally where protesters called on Australia to sever ties with the Jewish state. The stance by the two senators conflicts with Senator Brown's assurance last week that his federal party was not anti-Israel and did not support the NSW branch of the party advocating sanctions against Israel. The Coalition last night labelled the Greens "reds", while the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council called on Senator Hanson-Young to visit Israel before jumping to conclusions. Senator Brown yesterday refused to comment on the activities of his senators and directed The Australian to his party's policy on Israel, which clearly advocated a peaceful two-state solution........... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-senators-caught-out-over-israel/story-fn59niix-1226034974787

So whats your problem, the GREENS not sheeple like you Libs hey sprint? I could have told you that already if you'd asked.
the GREENS are not a dictatorship like Abbotts lot.

Those of you who are anti-Israel should remember that for the most part Israel has had Labor govts.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:42pm:

Those of you who are anti-Israel should remember that for the most part Israel has had Labor govts.

OH that makes all the difference. ;D

Though let it be said, Netanyahu is a cold blooded murderer.Him and his govs are the ones who have caused the most sh it.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:42pm:

Those of you who are anti-Israel should remember that for the most part Israel has had Labor govts.

Have they? Can you please provide some more information?

Please delete wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:47pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:42pm: Those of you who are anti-Israel should remember that for the most part Israel has had Labor govts. Have they? Can you please provide some more information?

bogarde: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2009 , and go backwards.  You'll find for the most part Israel has been governed by the rabid RIGHT.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:42pm:

Those of you who are anti-Israel should remember that for the most part Israel has had Labor govts.

You do realise different countries have different meanings for words.
Look up LIBERAL in the American context, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want that context of the word running our country.
In fact the word Liberal is used as an insult over there.

Just common sense here -


A party of ignorant extremists
Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor From: The Australian April 07, 2011 12:00AM

THE depth and longstanding nature of the Greens' visceral hostility to Israel reveals something very unpleasant about the nature of the Greens themselves.

They are essentially a party of extremists. Like most extremists operating in a democratic space, they try to garner support on broadly populist issues while still servicing their extremist activist base with extremist positions and campaigns.

The language of a number of the Greens senators about Israel - rogue state, apartheid, should be boycotted - is the language of political sectarianism and prejudice.

It is, of course, too much to expect that the Greens should actually display any knowledge of this subject, but are they aware of the rapid economic growth in the Palestinian West Bank territories?

Do they think this could be maintained in the face of widespread boycott of Israel?

Would the Greens wish to boycott the Israeli power station which provides electricity for Gaza?Would the Greens like to boycott the Israeli hospitals that routinely treat patients from the West Bank?

Would the Greens like to boycott Israeli-funded schools in East Jerusalem?

Would the Greens like to boycott the Peres peace centre Aussie rules team that brings together Jewish Israelis and Palestinians to play Aussie rules in a single team?

Do the Greens propose that the government should ban the annual Israeli film festival in Australia?

Do the Greens support dialogue with every government in the world except the Israeli government?

The madness of the boycott policy is not an aberration by the NSW Greens. It reflects the political culture of the Greens.

The astonishing thing this time is that someone has actually called the Greens to account for that political culture.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 11:27am:

I haven't read all the propaganda rubbish in our wonderful newspapers, but I don't understand how being anti-israel means you are an anti-Semite?   Israel is a democratic state that has time and time again broken international law. It's as simple as that, and it is normal left-leaning thinking that states who break international law and  cause harm to millions of people should be condemned.  I have no problem condemning Israeli governments over the past 40 years , just like I have no problem condemning the Libyan government, Hamas, Mugabi, etc,  because all have cause atrocities and broken international law. Of course the right wing nuts don't see it this way because according to them in the end Palestinians are arabs and as such should be exterminated because no doubt they are jihadist terrorists who are itching at getting on a boat to come to australia to spread their culture and bomb everything, and ruin society.

I see your point.
However for Israel to follow those non binding UN Resolutions would place that country at serious risk again.
And after four wars fought to the knife fighting for it's survival with the UN sitting pat, the Israeli's quite possibly don't believe they should place themselves in harms way by obeying Resolutions that the perfidious Arab League has hammered through.
After all, it was the Arab League attacking Israel prior, so perhaps they should have made war better?
You think they would have ever created a 'Palestine' if they wiped Israel off the map in one of their four wars of aggression.
Of course not, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Egypt would have kept the spoils of war and the UN would have redrawn the map.
And that could well be the reason why Europe and the US haven't ever been jumping up and down over Israel's non compliance.
Or made a fuss over Israel's supposed nuclear capability.
Lets be honest here, no-one gives a crap about Israel and the UN isn't prepared to guarantee Israel's security, so Israel must do it for themselves.
What's the UN doing about Hezbollah's refusal to disarm despite Resolution 1701.
Well, nothing of course as it's what they do.
Their quite happy for Hezbollah to re-arm right under the nose of those thumbsuckers in UNIFIL, right up till the day they attack Israel again just like in 2006.
And then they will berate Israel for responding.
Israel has danced this two step before, so it's nothing new.
Was it the UN that stopped and searched that Iranian ship in the Med with long range missiles onboard bound for Gaza two weeks ago?
No, that was the Israeli's that seized that ship and armaments, and they make no apology for doing so.
You might like to see what Mr Goldstone has to say nowadays about his one eyed report on Israel's response to Hamas ongoing aggression in 2008.
It's as close to admitting he was wrong in his assessment as we are ever going to see, and Israel is now rightfully demanding a retraction of the report.
The world doesn't condemn the thirty other countries which have or had walls put up for security reasons, and the days are gone where an army marches in and massacres the inhabitants as what would have happened in the past.
So a wall is the next best thing when dealing with people who even after all these decades are still seeking your death, don't you think.
I'm afraid the days are gone where the jews shuffled naked and silently in the snow on their way to the shower block, only to end up in the chimney smoke.
Nowadays  they carry a very big stick and are not afraid to use it.
It's been 63 years, the genie is out of the bottle and I'm afraid it won't go back in.

skippy. wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:33pm:

It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. EXACTLY

Do it NOW skippy, your pc and software has more than likely been made in Israel.
Throw it out.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 1:38pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:33pm: It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. EXACTLY Do it NOW skippy, your pc and software has more than likely been made in Israel. Throw it out.

wrong again, chicken lips.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 12:26pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted.

And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people???
Of course their military response was legal and justified.
They had no choice but to respond.
You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team?
Or 6000 for the team.
And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified.
It's war.
And war's are fought to be won.
If you want fair, play scrabble.
But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified.
And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza.
Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians.
Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes.

There is a long history of jew hatred from muslims this goes back to the time of Mohammad and this Arab -Jew problem is based on dusty old books from the dark ages that are riddled with absurd superstitions its really a religious conflict.

Its funny how muslims will deny that Israel ever existed yet the simple fact is the Quran even mentions Israel,muslims say the Quran was written by Allah therefore we can say Allah even recognises Israel.
This verse is usually taken out of context by muslims Lestat did it today to promote propaganda about Islam somehow being about peace yet they tend to leave the first part of the Sura out because it applies to jews and not muslims.
Quran 5:32 -" We have decreed upon the children of Israel" -How does this verse apply to muslims are they called children of Israel?
www.quran.com/5/32

This cleric from Egypt says muslims will still hate the Jews even if they give Palestine back and do not occupy anything.
It is very clear in the Quran and hadiths that muslims will always hate the Jews.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X8dhrzQCHY

This is the list of rocket attacks on Israel so far this year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2011

Here is a video of Hezbollah firing rockets from an apartment building.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMIi7L1fbUU

Lots of videos on youtube showing ham-ass and Hezbollah firing rockets at Israel.

Much of what you say there makes sense chicken_lips.

Is their beligerent defensive posture working? Are the crude missiles still coming in? Are Israelis and Palestinians still dying? Is the barrier still denying palestinians basic rights? Are religious fanatics still building illegal settlements in disputed lands? Are palestinian farmers still being evicted?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 1:35pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:27am: I haven't read all the propaganda rubbish in our wonderful newspapers, but I don't understand how being anti-israel means you are an anti-Semite?   Israel is a democratic state that has time and time again broken international law. It's as simple as that, and it is normal left-leaning thinking that states who break international law and  cause harm to millions of people should be condemned.  I have no problem condemning Israeli governments over the past 40 years , just like I have no problem condemning the Libyan government, Hamas, Mugabi, etc,  because all have cause atrocities and broken international law. Of course the right wing nuts don't see it this way because according to them in the end Palestinians are arabs and as such should be exterminated because no doubt they are jihadist terrorists who are itching at getting on a boat to come to australia to spread their culture and bomb everything, and ruin society. I see your point. However for Israel to follow those non binding UN Resolutions would place that country at serious risk again. And after four wars fought to the knife fighting for it's survival with the UN sitting pat, the Israeli's quite possibly don't believe they should place themselves in harms way by obeying Resolutions that the perfidious Arab League has hammered through. After all, it was the Arab League attacking Israel prior, so perhaps they should have made war better? You think they would have ever created a 'Palestine' if they wiped Israel off the map in one of their four wars of aggression. Of course not, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Egypt would have kept the spoils of war and the UN would have redrawn the map. And that could well be the reason why Europe and the US haven't ever been jumping up and down over Israel's non compliance. Or made a fuss over Israel's supposed nuclear capability. Lets be honest here, no-one gives a crap about Israel and the UN isn't prepared to guarantee Israel's security, so Israel must do it for themselves. What's the UN doing about Hezbollah's refusal to disarm despite Resolution 1701. Well, nothing of course as it's what they do. Their quite happy for Hezbollah to re-arm right under the nose of those thumbsuckers in UNIFIL, right up till the day they attack Israel again just like in 2006. And then they will berate Israel for responding. Israel has danced this two step before, so it's nothing new. Was it the UN that stopped and searched that Iranian ship in the Med with long range missiles onboard bound for Gaza two weeks ago? No, that was the Israeli's that seized that ship and armaments, and they make no apology for doing so. You might like to see what Mr Goldstone has to say nowadays about his one eyed report on Israel's response to Hamas ongoing aggression in 2008. It's as close to admitting he was wrong in his assessment as we are ever going to see, and Israel is now rightfully demanding a retraction of the report. The world doesn't condemn the thirty other countries which have or had walls put up for security reasons, and the days are gone where an army marches in and massacres the inhabitants as what would have happened in the past. So a wall is the next best thing when dealing with people who even after all these decades are still seeking your death, don't you think. I'm afraid the days are gone where the jews shuffled naked and silently in the snow on their way to the shower block, only to end up in the chimney smoke. Nowadays  they carry a very big stick and are not afraid to use it. It's been 63 years, the genie is out of the bottle and I'm afraid it won't go back in.

What complete jibberish.  When in war you must have some level of duty of care.  None of this excuses that fact that Israel killed thousands of civilians and in return had a few injured soldiers.  That is not warfare; it's a massacre.  

Not to mention that the events you describe happened in the past.  I would've thought that we can move on and stop feeling so vulnerable, especially considering Israel is the only state in the middle east regarded as a western democracy. trust me when I say the US can threaten all they want, but they'll always be Israel's ally, and the middle east is still way too weak to even consider trying to destroy the state.

And finding missiles in the boat is not the UN responsibility considering that the current embargo on the Gaza strip is an Israeli initiative.

As the bigger party in this, Israel needs to stop aggression and drive the dialogue; not continuously try and remind the world of the holocaust and use it as justification for their current actions.  

If anything, the holocaust was a tragic event that caused significant pain to many families, including my own.  And for me, knowing that it had impacted on my family, its continued use as justification for the slaughter of thousands of innocent Palestinians, and continual outcry of antisemitism whenever the issue is raised, is an insult.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes.

Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance.

And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way.

One more thing: For all the right wing nutjobs on this forum who celebrate Israel's aggression on the Palestinians just remember how you feel about refugees coming into this country.  

You don't like it that people come and "take our resources and use them up" yet you have absolutely no problem with Israelis settling Palestinian land, and then pushing Palestinians out because of Zionism.  

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:37pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 1:35pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:27am: I haven't read all the propaganda rubbish in our wonderful newspapers, but I don't understand how being anti-israel means you are an anti-Semite?   Israel is a democratic state that has time and time again broken international law. It's as simple as that, and it is normal left-leaning thinking that states who break international law and  cause harm to millions of people should be condemned.  I have no problem condemning Israeli governments over the past 40 years , just like I have no problem condemning the Libyan government, Hamas, Mugabi, etc,  because all have cause atrocities and broken international law. Of course the right wing nuts don't see it this way because according to them in the end Palestinians are arabs and as such should be exterminated because no doubt they are jihadist terrorists who are itching at getting on a boat to come to australia to spread their culture and bomb everything, and ruin society. I see your point. However for Israel to follow those non binding UN Resolutions would place that country at serious risk again. And after four wars fought to the knife fighting for it's survival with the UN sitting pat, the Israeli's quite possibly don't believe they should place themselves in harms way by obeying Resolutions that the perfidious Arab League has hammered through. After all, it was the Arab League attacking Israel prior, so perhaps they should have made war better? What complete jibberish.  When in war you must have some level of duty of care.  None of this excuses that fact that Israel killed thousands of civilians and in return had a few injured soldiers.  That is not warfare; it's a massacre.   Not to mention that the events you describe happened in the past.  I would've thought that we can move on and stop feeling so vulnerable, especially considering Israel is the only state in the middle east regarded as a western democracy. trust me when I say the US can threaten all they want, but they'll always be Israel's ally, and the middle east is still way too weak to even consider trying to destroy the state. And finding missiles in the boat is not the UN responsibility considering that the current embargo on the Gaza strip is an Israeli initiative. As the bigger party in this, Israel needs to stop aggression and drive the dialogue; not continuously try and remind the world of the holocaust and use it as justification for their current actions.   If anything, the holocaust was a tragic event that caused significant pain to many families, including my own.  And for me, knowing that it had impacted on my family, its continued use as justification for the slaughter of thousands of innocent Palestinians, and continual outcry of antisemitism whenever the issue is raised, is an insult.

The past, Israeli kids are still being conscripted today to serve after all these decades.
There is no moving on whilst missiles and mortar shells are landing in Sderot today.
Not forty years ago, but today.
And what's this duty of care crap?
What war was that ever done in.
Name it.
Did the US show 'Duty of Care' during Operation Shock & Awe when Baghdad was bombed day after day and the people were vaporised.
Wake up.
Whatever the Israeli/ terrorist scorecard is you can rest assured that the Jordanians have massacred more than the Israeli's ever have in this life or in the next.
But of course they are not Jews.
It's not Israel's fault that her opponents can't shoot for crap and couldn't hit the side of a kibbutz with a katyusha rocket.
You seem to think that war has to be 'fair'.
Wars are fought to win, not be fair.
Stick to Monopoly or Scrabble.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way.

Proven illegal by ???
Left wing sites don't count, and Goldstone is backing away from his one sided report.
What democracy or nation on the planet is not going to repond to 6000 missiles and mortar rounds landing in their streets.
You need to get real here.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 3:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:37pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 1:35pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:27am: I haven't read all the propaganda rubbish in our wonderful newspapers, but I don't understand how being anti-israel means you are an anti-Semite?   Israel is a democratic state that has time and time again broken international law. It's as simple as that, and it is normal left-leaning thinking that states who break international law and  cause harm to millions of people should be condemned.  I have no problem condemning Israeli governments over the past 40 years , just like I have no problem condemning the Libyan government, Hamas, Mugabi, etc,  because all have cause atrocities and broken international law. Of course the right wing nuts don't see it this way because according to them in the end Palestinians are arabs and as such should be exterminated because no doubt they are jihadist terrorists who are itching at getting on a boat to come to australia to spread their culture and bomb everything, and ruin society. I see your point. However for Israel to follow those non binding UN Resolutions would place that country at serious risk again. And after four wars fought to the knife fighting for it's survival with the UN sitting pat, the Israeli's quite possibly don't believe they should place themselves in harms way by obeying Resolutions that the perfidious Arab League has hammered through. After all, it was the Arab League attacking Israel prior, so perhaps they should have made war better? What complete jibberish.  When in war you must have some level of duty of care.  None of this excuses that fact that Israel killed thousands of civilians and in return had a few injured soldiers.  That is not warfare; it's a massacre.   Not to mention that the events you describe happened in the past.  I would've thought that we can move on and stop feeling so vulnerable, especially considering Israel is the only state in the middle east regarded as a western democracy. trust me when I say the US can threaten all they want, but they'll always be Israel's ally, and the middle east is still way too weak to even consider trying to destroy the state. And finding missiles in the boat is not the UN responsibility considering that the current embargo on the Gaza strip is an Israeli initiative. As the bigger party in this, Israel needs to stop aggression and drive the dialogue; not continuously try and remind the world of the holocaust and use it as justification for their current actions.   If anything, the holocaust was a tragic event that caused significant pain to many families, including my own.  And for me, knowing that it had impacted on my family, its continued use as justification for the slaughter of thousands of innocent Palestinians, and continual outcry of antisemitism whenever the issue is raised, is an insult. The past, Israeli kids are still being conscripted today to serve after all these decades. There is no moving on whilst missiles and mortar shells are landing in Sderot today. Not forty years ago, but today. And what's this duty of care crap? What war was that ever done in. Name it. Did the US show 'Duty of Care' during Operation Shock & Awe when Baghdad was bombed day after day and the people were vaporised. Wake up. Whatever the Israeli/ terrorist scorecard is you can rest assured that the Jordanians have massacred more than the Israeli's ever have in this life or in the next. But of course they are not Jews. It's not Israel's fault that her opponents can't shoot for crap and couldn't hit the side of a kibbutz with a katyusha rocket. You seem to think that war has to be 'fair'. Wars are fought to win, not be fair. Stick to Monopoly or Scrabble.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html

Enjoy - just a few summaries for u to read through and hopefully understand. And by hopefully I mean I am trully hopeful it's easy enough for you to understand.... :o :o :o

PS: No one is saying that US's actions in Baghdad were just, and there is a reason why the country wishes to no longer speak about it.

I also restate that if you don't know, it's better to stay quiet or at least find out. Call up an international lawyer; ask them.  Then you come back here and actually debate rather than pretend Israel is under severe danger and that's why they conscript their men and women to serve for a few years. Go check up why countries have national service.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 3:07pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:39pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way. Proven illegal by ??? Left wing sites don't count, and Goldstone is backing away from his one sided report. What democracy or nation on the planet is not going to repond to 6000 missiles and mortar rounds landing in their streets. You need to get real here.

Noone is saying don't respond.  Respond, but make it a justified response.  THAT'S the actual argument. Counter-aggression doesn't help noone, and in this case was illegal.

Glad to see you once again misunderstood.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 3:34pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 3:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:37pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 1:35pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 11:27am: I haven't read all the propaganda rubbish in our wonderful newspapers, but I don't understand how being anti-israel means you are an anti-Semite?   Israel is a democratic state that has time and time again broken international law. It's as simple as that, and it is normal left-leaning thinking that states who break international law and  cause harm to millions of people should be condemned.  I have no problem condemning Israeli governments over the past 40 years , just like I have no problem condemning the Libyan government, Hamas, Mugabi, etc,  because all have cause atrocities and broken international law. Of course the right wing nuts don't see it this way because according to them in the end Palestinians are arabs and as such should be exterminated because no doubt they are jihadist terrorists who are itching at getting on a boat to come to australia to spread their culture and bomb everything, and ruin society. I see your point. However for Israel to follow those non binding UN Resolutions would place that country at serious risk again. And after four wars fought to the knife fighting for it's survival with the UN sitting pat, the Israeli's quite possibly don't believe they should place themselves in harms way by obeying Resolutions that the perfidious Arab League has hammered through. After all, it was the Arab League attacking Israel prior, so perhaps they should have made war better? What complete jibberish.  When in war you must have some level of duty of care.  None of this excuses that fact that Israel killed thousands of civilians and in return had a few injured soldiers.  That is not warfare; it's a massacre.   Not to mention that the events you describe happened in the past.  I would've thought that we can move on and stop feeling so vulnerable, especially considering Israel is the only state in the middle east regarded as a western democracy. trust me when I say the US can threaten all they want, but they'll always be Israel's ally, and the middle east is still way too weak to even consider trying to destroy the state. And finding missiles in the boat is not the UN responsibility considering that the current embargo on the Gaza strip is an Israeli initiative. As the bigger party in this, Israel needs to stop aggression and drive the dialogue; not continuously try and remind the world of the holocaust and use it as justification for their current actions.   If anything, the holocaust was a tragic event that caused significant pain to many families, including my own.  And for me, knowing that it had impacted on my family, its continued use as justification for the slaughter of thousands of innocent Palestinians, and continual outcry of antisemitism whenever the issue is raised, is an insult. The past, Israeli kids are still being conscripted today to serve after all these decades. There is no moving on whilst missiles and mortar shells are landing in Sderot today. Not forty years ago, but today. And what's this duty of care crap? What war was that ever done in. Name it. Did the US show 'Duty of Care' during Operation Shock & Awe when Baghdad was bombed day after day and the people were vaporised. Wake up. Whatever the Israeli/ terrorist scorecard is you can rest assured that the Jordanians have massacred more than the Israeli's ever have in this life or in the next. But of course they are not Jews. It's not Israel's fault that her opponents can't shoot for crap and couldn't hit the side of a kibbutz with a katyusha rocket. You seem to think that war has to be 'fair'. Wars are fought to win, not be fair. Stick to Monopoly or Scrabble. http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html Enjoy - just a few summaries for u to read through and hopefully understand. And by hopefully I mean I am trully hopeful it's easy enough for you to understand.... :o :o :o PS: No one is saying that US's actions in Baghdad were just, and there is a reason why the country wishes to no longer speak about it. I also restate that if you don't know, it's better to stay quiet or at least find out. Call up an international lawyer; ask them.  Then you come back here and actually debate rather than pretend Israel is under severe danger and that's why they conscript their men and women to serve for a few years. Go check up why countries have national service.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

I don't need to phone a bloody lawyer to work out that a country is under severe danger when terrorist missiles and mortars are landing in the street.
And the last time I looked, your much vaunted international lawyers have never set foot in Israel.
That's the real problem here.
You left wingers actually can't see an issue with 6000+ missiles and mortar rounds landing in Israeli residential areas.
You think it's all a bit of a giggle.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 3:35pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 3:07pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:39pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way. Proven illegal by ??? Left wing sites don't count, and Goldstone is backing away from his one sided report. What democracy or nation on the planet is not going to repond to 6000 missiles and mortar rounds landing in their streets. You need to get real here. Noone is saying don't respond.  Respond, but make it a justified response.  THAT'S the actual argument. Counter-aggression doesn't help noone, and in this case was illegal. Glad to see you once again misunderstood.

No misunderstanding at all here.
I'm not the one who thinks war is a game, you are.
Perhaps the lawyers should be the ones on the front lines in Israel, and they can lecture the troops about fairness, proportionality and the correct use of weapons.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 8:01am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 3:35pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 3:07pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:39pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way. Proven illegal by ??? Left wing sites don't count, and Goldstone is backing away from his one sided report. What democracy or nation on the planet is not going to repond to 6000 missiles and mortar rounds landing in their streets. You need to get real here. Noone is saying don't respond.  Respond, but make it a justified response.  THAT'S the actual argument. Counter-aggression doesn't help noone, and in this case was illegal. Glad to see you once again misunderstood. No misunderstanding at all here. I'm not the one who thinks war is a game, you are. Perhaps the lawyers should be the ones on the front lines in Israel, and they can lecture the troops about fairness, proportionality and the correct use of weapons.

It's not the troops - it's those who make up the decision as to what mission to undertake, and give the orders.  

You need to watch Generation Kill.  It's a mini-series about the Iraq War, but nonetheless gives you good insight.  It's based on articles written by reporter Ewan Wright for Rolling Stone while being part of the missions in the '03 invasion.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 9:52am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 8:01am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 3:35pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 3:07pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:39pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way. Proven illegal by ??? Left wing sites don't count, and Goldstone is backing away from his one sided report. What democracy or nation on the planet is not going to repond to 6000 missiles and mortar rounds landing in their streets. You need to get real here. Noone is saying don't respond.  Respond, but make it a justified response.  THAT'S the actual argument. Counter-aggression doesn't help noone, and in this case was illegal. Glad to see you once again misunderstood. No misunderstanding at all here. I'm not the one who thinks war is a game, you are. Perhaps the lawyers should be the ones on the front lines in Israel, and they can lecture the troops about fairness, proportionality and the correct use of weapons. It's not the troops - it's those who make up the decision as to what mission to undertake, and give the orders.

So then it's not for the Sergeant or the Captain of a platoon then on the front lines then who's actually dodging bullets and putting their life on the line.

Outstanding, because they would have better things to do.

I'm sure the General's commanding the divisions and regiments then would love to have a lawyer come and replace their copy of Sun Tzu, and updated Battle plan with a fresh copy of "An International Lawyers PC Guide to Warfare", and they can all sit around and eat fairy bread and drink Koolaid, whilst the lawyer gives them a training session. :)

Even better, perhaps a regiment of international lawyers to lead the assault could well pave the way to change in the way armies fight.

Then again, it might lead to a lot of dead lawyers.

Better still, I'd suggest that it is time to reconsider the human character flaws that precipitate warmongering in the first instance!

I, for one, cannot fathom why modern man has not evolved beyond the destructive mindset of wanton competition and violent warmongering!

Equitist wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 10:24am:

Better still, I'd suggest that it is time to reconsider the human character flaws that precipitate warmongering in the first instance! I, for one, cannot fathom why modern man has not evolved beyond the destructive mindset of wanton competition and violent warmongering!

I couldn't agree more.
However the reason modern man hasn't evolved beyond that mindset is because we are closer to being primative barbarians than we would ever like to admit.
Rules and technology change all the time, but mankind stays the same.
Boys still like to play with plastic guns and soldiers, and crash their cars together.
Young men still drink too much, drive too fast and fight each other as they always have.
And politicians are too quick to send other mens kids off to fight and die in foreign lands, when other nations won't bend to their will.
I'm afraid that some things will never change.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 10:12am:

So then it's not for the Sergeant or the Captain of a platoon then on the front lines then who's actually dodging bullets and putting their life on the line. Outstanding, because they would have better things to do. I'm sure the General's commanding the divisions and regiments then would love to have a lawyer come and replace their copy of Sun Tzu, and updated Battle plan with a fresh copy of "An International Lawyers PC Guide to Warfare", and they can all sit around and eat fairy bread and drink Koolaid, whilst the lawyer gives them a training session. :) Even better, perhaps a regiment of international lawyers to lead the assault could well pave the way to change in the way armies fight. Then again, it might lead to a lot of dead lawyers.

OMG, I think you've gone completely off the loop here.  

This was a strategic mission, and was a bombing.  It's not like these troops just stormed in and just decided to open fire because there was risk to their life.  THERE WAS NO RISK TO THEIR LIFE BECAUSE IT WASN"T A GROUND MISSION AND A ROCK THROWN BACK HERE AND THERE.  The mission was planned, and determined to be of reasonable force, PRIOR to it occuring.  At this stage, those who planned it and the Israeli government for approving it, acted illegally because quite clearly bombing "strategic" schools, hospitals, apartment buildings and killing off thousands, was NOT reasonable force, when the casualties on the other side were 0.  Especially since those Palestinians killed were NOT military.  And especially because when you are bombing in civilian areas you have a duty of care to ensure you hit the target, but avoid civilian death (meaning if you know there are still thousands in the area you don't keep going and bombing - you send ground troops in, which WAS DONE in IRAQ by the US.  )  

It is always a factor in mission planning to determine a "reasonable" number of civilian casualties - that's a known fact.  In this case I can't understand how thousands would be "reasonable" considering the danger to the Israeli army was, from the evidence, nothing.  Not only that, but this was BOMBINGS - not even ground offensives.  In this case, Israel had a legal obligation to minimise casualties. They didn't. Full stop because it no longer becomes justified but a MASSACRE of innocent people.  And can I say this again: INNOCENT.

You really need to get this through your thick head because seriously you are now starting to argue complete and utter waffle.  I can take waffle from some on this forum because that's all they can ever do anyway, but I thought you had some more sense. Stop arguing for arguments sake - what you're saying defies simple logic.

skippy. wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:00pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 1:38pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:33pm: It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. EXACTLY Do it NOW skippy, your pc and software has more than likely been made in Israel. Throw it out. wrong again, chicken lips.

like so many times in the past you are wrong. a LOT of software including MS software was written in Israel. a lot of the technology we use today - the mobile phone - originated there. for a small country its technological abilities are amazing. onthe other side of the border, the dumb-ass arab (redundant I know!0 havent invented anything besides the suicde bomber. ALL of their technology is imported and the last scientific advance made by the arabs occured before Christ.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way.

a study of war would show you to be totally wrong. as one poster wrote, war is played to WIN. it is only in the last few decades that civilian casualities were even considered an issue in war. the enemy was the COUNTRY - not merely its military. look at london in WW2, Dresden and Hiroshima. the target was the COUNTRY.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 3:35pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 3:07pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:39pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way. Proven illegal by ??? Left wing sites don't count, and Goldstone is backing away from his one sided report. What democracy or nation on the planet is not going to repond to 6000 missiles and mortar rounds landing in their streets. You need to get real here. Noone is saying don't respond.  Respond, but make it a justified response.  THAT'S the actual argument. Counter-aggression doesn't help noone, and in this case was illegal. Glad to see you once again misunderstood.

the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response.

Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:09pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:00pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 1:38pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:33pm: It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. EXACTLY Do it NOW skippy, your pc and software has more than likely been made in Israel. Throw it out. wrong again, chicken lips. like so many times in the past you are wrong. a LOT of software including MS software was written in Israel. a lot of the technology we use today - the mobile phone - originated there. for a small country its technological abilities are amazing. onthe other side of the border, the dumb-ass arab (redundant I know!0 havent invented anything besides the suicde bomber. ALL of their technology is imported and the last scientific advance made by the arabs occured before Christ.

Thanks longweekend.
I did not repond prior as I thought skippy might still be using a very old pre-pentium pc, or a cheap Asian one.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:09pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:00pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 1:38pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:33pm: It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. EXACTLY Do it NOW skippy, your pc and software has more than likely been made in Israel. Throw it out. wrong again, chicken lips. like so many times in the past you are wrong. a LOT of software including MS software was written in Israel. a lot of the technology we use today - the mobile phone - originated there. for a small country its technological abilities are amazing. onthe other side of the border, the dumb-ass arab (redundant I know!0 havent invented anything besides the suicde bomber. ALL of their technology is imported and the last scientific advance made by the arabs occured before Christ.

The mobile phone originated from US testings for WW2, and the first generation standard came out of Scandinavian countries.  GSM also didn't originate in Israel.  Nor did 3G.  Seriously mate, stop trying to sell yourself as being smart when each time you try and present something it is utterly wrong.

As for software, the origins are also not from Israel - they may write code like ALL other countries do, but when it comes to the basics of Computer Science, it did not come from Israel.   Once again, WRONG.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:39pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way. a study of war would show you to be totally wrong. as one poster wrote, war is played to WIN. it is only in the last few decades that civilian casualities were even considered an issue in war. the enemy was the COUNTRY - not merely its military. look at london in WW2, Dresden and Hiroshima. the target was the COUNTRY.

When we look at any rules of engagement, these are formed for DUTY OF CARE.  Rules of Engagement in MOST occasions ensure that civilians are avoided.  

In this case, Israel passed their mission with rules of engagement that had no duty of care at all.  They would've won whether they killed 100 or tens of thousand because their mission objectives were met.  For that reason alone this war was unjust, and seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this but then again I should get used to it when dealing with right wing nutjobs who only show any rational thinking when it's only them being affected.  Sad nutjobs.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:09pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:00pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 1:38pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:33pm: It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. EXACTLY Do it NOW skippy, your pc and software has more than likely been made in Israel. Throw it out. wrong again, chicken lips. like so many times in the past you are wrong. a LOT of software including MS software was written in Israel. a lot of the technology we use today - the mobile phone - originated there. for a small country its technological abilities are amazing. onthe other side of the border, the dumb-ass arab (redundant I know!0 havent invented anything besides the suicde bomber. ALL of their technology is imported and the last scientific advance made by the arabs occured before Christ. The mobile phone originated from US testings for WW2, and the first generation standard came out of Scandinavian countries.  GSM also didn't originate in Israel.  Nor did 3G.  Seriously mate, stop trying to sell yourself as being smart when each time you try and present something it is utterly wrong. As for software, the origins are also not from Israel - they may write code like ALL other countries do, but when it comes to the basics of Computer Science, it did not come from Israel.   Once again, WRONG.

you write well. but that isnt a substitute for accuracy. Israels technological acheivements are WELL ABOVE that of a county of its size. no credible technology expert even disputes that. mind you, compared to the arabs, kangaroo island is technologically advanced.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion.

The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states.

I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:14pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:39pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way. a study of war would show you to be totally wrong. as one poster wrote, war is played to WIN. it is only in the last few decades that civilian casualities were even considered an issue in war. the enemy was the COUNTRY - not merely its military. look at london in WW2, Dresden and Hiroshima. the target was the COUNTRY. When we look at any rules of engagement, these are formed for DUTY OF CARE.  Rules of Engagement in MOST occasions ensure that civilians are avoided.   In this case, Israel passed their mission with rules of engagement that had no duty of care at all.  They would've won whether they killed 100 or tens of thousand because their mission objectives were met.  For that reason alone this war was unjust, and seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this but then again I should get used to it when dealing with right wing nutjobs who only show any rational thinking when it's only them being affected.  Sad nutjobs.

do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas.

if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks?

as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:32pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:09pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:00pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 1:38pm: skippy. wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:33pm: It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. EXACTLY Do it NOW skippy, your pc and software has more than likely been made in Israel. Throw it out. wrong again, chicken lips. like so many times in the past you are wrong. a LOT of software including MS software was written in Israel. a lot of the technology we use today - the mobile phone - originated there. for a small country its technological abilities are amazing. onthe other side of the border, the dumb-ass arab (redundant I know!0 havent invented anything besides the suicde bomber. ALL of their technology is imported and the last scientific advance made by the arabs occured before Christ. The mobile phone originated from US testings for WW2, and the first generation standard came out of Scandinavian countries.  GSM also didn't originate in Israel.  Nor did 3G.  Seriously mate, stop trying to sell yourself as being smart when each time you try and present something it is utterly wrong. As for software, the origins are also not from Israel - they may write code like ALL other countries do, but when it comes to the basics of Computer Science, it did not come from Israel.   Once again, WRONG. you write well. but that isnt a substitute for accuracy. Israels technological acheivements are WELL ABOVE that of a county of its size. no credible technology expert even disputes that. mind you, compared to the arabs, kangaroo island is technologically advanced.

I never said Israel isn't technologically advanced.  What I said was that you're pampering "facts" that are utterly wrong. Stop doing it, and admit you're wrong.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas. if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks? as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided.

Actually no - I denounce Hamas just as much as I do Israel, especially since the party actually has a denouncement of Israel and a mission of destroying Israel in their party manifesto.

However, international law and duty of care in war clearly states that in this case, even though Israel did go about making a phone call to advise of the planned attacks, if they still found there were too many civilians in the area, it was their responsibility to put ground troops on the ground to do the necessary removal. Or drop the attack.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 12:05pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 10:12am: So then it's not for the Sergeant or the Captain of a platoon then on the front lines then who's actually dodging bullets and putting their life on the line. Outstanding, because they would have better things to do. I'm sure the General's commanding the divisions and regiments then would love to have a lawyer come and replace their copy of Sun Tzu, and updated Battle plan with a fresh copy of "An International Lawyers PC Guide to Warfare",  and they can all sit around and eat fairy bread and drink Koolaid, whilst the lawyer gives them a training session. :) Even better, perhaps a regiment of international lawyers to lead the assault could well pave the way to change in the way armies fight. Then again, it might lead to a lot of dead lawyers. OMG, I think you've gone completely off the loop here.   This was a strategic mission, and was a bombing.  It's not like these troops just stormed in and just decided to open fire because there was risk to their life.  THERE WAS NO RISK TO THEIR LIFE BECAUSE IT WASN"T A GROUND MISSION AND A ROCK THROWN BACK HERE AND THERE.  The mission was planned, and determined to be of reasonable force, PRIOR to it occuring.  At this stage, those who planned it and the Israeli government for approving it, acted illegally because quite clearly bombing "strategic" schools, hospitals, apartment buildings and killing off thousands, was NOT reasonable force, when the casualties on the other side were 0.  Especially since those Palestinians killed were NOT military.  And especially because when you are bombing in civilian areas you have a duty of care to ensure you hit the target, but avoid civilian death (meaning if you know there are still thousands in the area you don't keep going and bombing - you send ground troops in, which WAS DONE in IRAQ by the US.  )   It is always a factor in mission planning to determine a "reasonable" number of civilian casualties - that's a known fact.  In this case I can't understand how thousands would be "reasonable" considering the danger to the Israeli army was, from the evidence, nothing.  Not only that, but this was BOMBINGS - not even ground offensives.  In this case, Israel had a legal obligation to minimise casualties. They didn't. Full stop because it no longer becomes justified but a MASSACRE of innocent people.  And can I say this again: INNOCENT. You really need to get this through your thick head because seriously you are now starting to argue complete and utter waffle.  I can take waffle from some on this forum because that's all they can ever do anyway, but I thought you had some more sense. Stop arguing for arguments sake - what you're saying defies simple logic.

I would say 1400 casualties in a poky area the size of Gaza with a population of 1.5 million crammed in their was quite modest.
Do you like that logic, and you would find it difficult to refute.
How many were vaporised during Shock & Awe.  It would have been 1400 in the first hour alone.
And in those 1400 civilians were the hundreds of civilians that were launching rockets from inside schools, hospitals and near UN compounds.
Everyone is a civilian in Gaza, but also those that fire military grade weapons into Israeli homes.
Sorry, they were enemy combatants who wore civilian clothes.
And as these enemy combatants were firing from these areas, it is quite reasonable that the IDF return fire to the launch sites don't you think?
Or do you think they should have had these sites off limits and just allowed Hamas to pound Israel from these 'off limit' areas.
Are you ok with that?
Even though as you rightfully pointed out it wasn't primarily a ground mission, the ongoing incessant indiscriminate missile  attacks on Israeli civilians (who are civilians) had been going on for 6 years.
And your right, the general invasion plan would have been established prior, but given Gaza has been sending missiles over for 6 years prior that, a plan would have to be expected.
Instead of worrying whether enemy combatants that make war on Jews by firing indiscriminately into their towns are 'civilians', or whether policemen armed with anti aircraft missiles are 'civilians', you should be more concerned with Hamas firing these weapons using innocent woman and children as human shields.
Even if these innocents are happy to die as martyrs.
I'm sorry you didn't like my lawyers fairy bread and koolaid waffle, but I still find the vision of a regiment of curly wigged lawyers brandishing their copy of "An International Lawyers PC Guide to Warfare" charging into battle quite funny.
But dispite what the international lawyers may proclaim, there is just no pc and nice way to kill someone in war.
Perhaps the lawyers should leave the combat details to the professionals.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull.

Fourteen hundred isn't thousands.
Sorry.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

I would say 1400 casualties in a poky area the size of Gaza with a population of 1.5 million crammed in their was quite modest. Do you like that logic, and you would find it difficult to refute. How many were vaporised during Shock & Awe.  It would have been 1400 in the first hour alone. And in those 1400 civilians were the hundreds of civilians that were launching rockets from inside schools, hospitals and near UN compounds. Everyone is a civilian in Gaza, but also those that fire military grade weapons into Israeli homes. Sorry, they were enemy combatants who wore civilian clothes. And as these enemy combatants were firing from these areas, it is quite reasonable that the IDF return fire to the launch sites don't you think? Or do you think they should have had these sites off limits and just allowed Hamas to pound Israel from these 'off limit' areas. Are you ok with that? Even though as you rightfully pointed out it wasn't primarily a ground mission, the ongoing incessant indiscriminate missile  attacks on Israeli civilians (who are civilians) had been going on for 6 years. And your right, the general invasion plan would have been established prior, but given Gaza has been sending missiles over for 6 years prior that, a plan would have to be expected. Instead of worrying whether enemy combatants that make war on Jews by firing indiscriminately into their towns are 'civilians', or whether policemen armed with anti aircraft missiles are 'civilians', you should be more concerned with Hamas firing these weapons using innocent woman and children as human shields. Even if these innocents are happy to die as martyrs. I'm sorry you didn't like my lawyers fairy bread and koolaid waffle, but I still find the vision of a regiment of curly wigged lawyers brandishing their copy of "An International Lawyers PC Guide to Warfare" charging into battle quite funny. But dispite what the international lawyers may proclaim, there is just no pc and nice way to kill someone in war. Perhaps the lawyers should leave the combat details to the professionals.

I stopped reading after your first line.   It's definitely nice to see you can compare results in casualties to be able to say "modest."  Good to know you can make that judgement.  Very nice.

Too bad that's not the point.  The point is how disproportionate the war was.  1400 on one side. 13 on the other.  And the aim was to destroy military targets, and government targets? Yeh.  

Go do some research before doing relative determination of what is modest.  Seriously, it's becoming annoying repeating because u keep restating the same bull crap.

And one more thing: I will again repeat that Hamas's actions are not something I agree to either, but in the end that doesn't justify, and NEVER WILL justify, forgetting how to conduct an attack.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull. Fourteen hundred isn't thousands. Sorry.

Oh, well *phew* that's a relief.  Only 1400? Yay!

You nut.  Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:14pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:39pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way. a study of war would show you to be totally wrong. as one poster wrote, war is played to WIN. it is only in the last few decades that civilian casualities were even considered an issue in war. the enemy was the COUNTRY - not merely its military. look at london in WW2, Dresden and Hiroshima. the target was the COUNTRY. When we look at any rules of engagement, these are formed for DUTY OF CARE.  Rules of Engagement in MOST occasions ensure that civilians are avoided.   In this case, Israel passed their mission with rules of engagement that had no duty of care at all.  They would've won whether they killed 100 or tens of thousand because their mission objectives were met.  For that reason alone this war was unjust, and seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this but then again I should get used to it when dealing with right wing nutjobs who only show any rational thinking when it's only them being affected.  Sad nutjobs.

Yes they did fulfill their mission.
Many Hamas rocketeers and mortar crew were killed, and many factories that made those katyusha rockets identified previously and were reduced to rubble.
And 1400 from 1.5 million people is not a massacre.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:14pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:39pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way. a study of war would show you to be totally wrong. as one poster wrote, war is played to WIN. it is only in the last few decades that civilian casualities were even considered an issue in war. the enemy was the COUNTRY - not merely its military. look at london in WW2, Dresden and Hiroshima. the target was the COUNTRY. When we look at any rules of engagement, these are formed for DUTY OF CARE.  Rules of Engagement in MOST occasions ensure that civilians are avoided.   In this case, Israel passed their mission with rules of engagement that had no duty of care at all.  They would've won whether they killed 100 or tens of thousand because their mission objectives were met.  For that reason alone this war was unjust, and seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this but then again I should get used to it when dealing with right wing nutjobs who only show any rational thinking when it's only them being affected.  Sad nutjobs. do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas. if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks? as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided.

An interesting point also is the IDF was also receiving intelligence through the mobile phone network on the location of terrorists from Gaza residents themselves.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:16pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:14pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:39pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way. a study of war would show you to be totally wrong. as one poster wrote, war is played to WIN. it is only in the last few decades that civilian casualities were even considered an issue in war. the enemy was the COUNTRY - not merely its military. look at london in WW2, Dresden and Hiroshima. the target was the COUNTRY. When we look at any rules of engagement, these are formed for DUTY OF CARE.  Rules of Engagement in MOST occasions ensure that civilians are avoided.   In this case, Israel passed their mission with rules of engagement that had no duty of care at all.  They would've won whether they killed 100 or tens of thousand because their mission objectives were met.  For that reason alone this war was unjust, and seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this but then again I should get used to it when dealing with right wing nutjobs who only show any rational thinking when it's only them being affected.  Sad nutjobs. Yes they did fulfill their mission. Many Hamas rocketeers and mortar crew were killed, and many factories that made those katyusha rockets identified previously and were reduced to rubble. And 1400 from 4.5 million people is not a massacre.

1.67million in the Gaza strip - not 4.5 million.

And it is a massacre when duty of care wasn't followed.  

Would you like to now go through all of this again? Or can you come up with something new, and with actually some evidence? Instead of continuously being relative in an argument you can't substantiate.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull. Fourteen hundred isn't thousands. Sorry. Oh, well *phew* that's a relief.  Only 1400? Yay! You nut.  Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment.

Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3...

And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants....

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:14pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:39pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way. a study of war would show you to be totally wrong. as one poster wrote, war is played to WIN. it is only in the last few decades that civilian casualities were even considered an issue in war. the enemy was the COUNTRY - not merely its military. look at london in WW2, Dresden and Hiroshima. the target was the COUNTRY. When we look at any rules of engagement, these are formed for DUTY OF CARE.  Rules of Engagement in MOST occasions ensure that civilians are avoided.   In this case, Israel passed their mission with rules of engagement that had no duty of care at all.  They would've won whether they killed 100 or tens of thousand because their mission objectives were met.  For that reason alone this war was unjust, and seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this but then again I should get used to it when dealing with right wing nutjobs who only show any rational thinking when it's only them being affected.  Sad nutjobs. do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas. if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks? as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided. An interesting point alsi is the IDF was also receiving intelligence through the mobile phone network on the location of terrorists from Gaza residents themselves.

are these the same residents they later killed off, just in case?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:11pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull. Fourteen hundred isn't thousands. Sorry. Oh, well *phew* that's a relief.  Only 1400? Yay! You nut.  Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment. Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3... And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants....

Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!  

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas. if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks? as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided. However, international law and duty of care in war clearly states that in this case, even though Israel did go about making a phone call to advise of the planned attacks, if they still found there were too many civilians in the area, it was their responsibility to put ground troops on the ground to do the necessary removal. Or drop the attack.

And in which war has this EVER occurred in before.
What army EVER on the planet EVER went into a suburban combat situation and removed the civilians BEFORE launching the ground assault?
Sorry, it's never happened and will never happen.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:22pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas. if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks? as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided. However, international law and duty of care in war clearly states that in this case, even though Israel did go about making a phone call to advise of the planned attacks, if they still found there were too many civilians in the area, it was their responsibility to put ground troops on the ground to do the necessary removal. Or drop the attack. And in which war has this EVER occurred in before. What army EVER on the planet EVER went into a suburban combat situation and removed the civilians BEFORE launching the ground assault? Sorry, it's never happened and will never happen.

Hence why rockets are not fired at civilian locations, and at military locations.

But I'm afraid international law still stands, and we can argue this all into the night.  The point is that your attempts to judge by using other excuses doesn't negate Israel's responsibilities during this attack.  And being that the result ended up being 1400 vs 13, it's quite clear that Israel's responsibilities were not met.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:11pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull. Fourteen hundred isn't thousands. Sorry. Oh, well *phew* that's a relief.  Only 1400? Yay! You nut.  Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment. Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3... And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants.... Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!

Has there ever been a 'proportionate' war or military action???

The idea is, after all, to win...
To quote Conan the Barbarian about what is best in life...."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."

And do you seriously think that if it'd been Hamas, with all the advanced weapons, that the civilian Israeli casualties would have only been around 50% of the combatant casualties???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:11pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull. Fourteen hundred isn't thousands. Sorry. Oh, well *phew* that's a relief.  Only 1400? Yay! You nut.  Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment. Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3... And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants.... Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!   Has there ever been a 'proportionate' war or military action??? The idea is, after all, to win... To quote Conan the Barbarian about what is best in life...."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."

If you check back 6-7 posts, we've been over this.  But thanks for adding in your voice to the debate :)

Oh, and thanks for providing the quote :) Very nice :)

Quote:

And in which war has this EVER occurred in before. What army EVER on the planet EVER went into a suburban combat situation and removed the civilians BEFORE launching the ground assault? Sorry, it's never happened and will never happen.   Back to top

Leaflet drops into towns and cities warning of impending attack was done quite often during WW2 by both the Germans and the Allies.
It got the civilians moving rearwards and choking up lines of supply needed by the defenders.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:02pm: I would say 1400 casualties in a poky area the size of Gaza with a population of 1.5 million crammed in their was quite modest. Do you like that logic, and you would find it difficult to refute. How many were vaporised during Shock & Awe.  It would have been 1400 in the first hour alone. And in those 1400 civilians were the hundreds of civilians that were launching rockets from inside schools, hospitals and near UN compounds. Everyone is a civilian in Gaza, but also those that fire military grade weapons into Israeli homes. Sorry, they were enemy combatants who wore civilian clothes. And as these enemy combatants were firing from these areas, it is quite reasonable that the IDF return fire to the launch sites don't you think? Or do you think they should have had these sites off limits and just allowed Hamas to pound Israel from these 'off limit' areas. Are you ok with that? Even though as you rightfully pointed out it wasn't primarily a ground mission, the ongoing incessant indiscriminate missile  attacks on Israeli civilians (who are civilians) had been going on for 6 years. And your right, the general invasion plan would have been established prior, but given Gaza has been sending missiles over for 6 years prior that, a plan would have to be expected. Instead of worrying whether enemy combatants that make war on Jews by firing indiscriminately into their towns are 'civilians', or whether policemen armed with anti aircraft missiles are 'civilians', you should be more concerned with Hamas firing these weapons using innocent woman and children as human shields. Even if these innocents are happy to die as martyrs. I'm sorry you didn't like my lawyers fairy bread and koolaid waffle, but I still find the vision of a regiment of curly wigged lawyers brandishing their copy of "An International Lawyers PC Guide to Warfare" charging into battle quite funny. But dispite what the international lawyers may proclaim, there is just no pc and nice way to kill someone in war. Perhaps the lawyers should leave the combat details to the professionals. I stopped reading after your first line.   It's definitely nice to see you can compare results in casualties to be able to say "modest."  Good to know you can make that judgement.  Very nice. Too bad that's not the point.  The point is how disproportionate the war was.  1400 on one side. 13 on the other.  And the aim was to destroy military targets, and government targets? Yeh.   Go do some research before doing relative determination of what is modest.  Seriously, it's becoming annoying repeating because u keep restating the same bull crap. And one more thing: I will again repeat that Hamas's actions are not something I agree to either, but in the end that doesn't justify, and NEVER WILL justify, forgetting how to conduct an attack.

Research is not required when comparing 1400 to 1.5 million.
You have a calculator, do the math.
Hang on, I'll do it for you.
That's 1 in every 1071 people in Gaza.
That's less that an eighth of one percent.
Yes that's right, less than an eighth of one percent.
That's modest to me.
Does your calculator say otherwise?
And disproportionate was not in Sun Tzu, or in any warfare manual I ever read.
Is that in the new International lawyers trusty handbook on warfare?
Would you have felt better that Hamas terrorists had killed 1400 IDF personel then?
Personally, I feel better knowing they can't hit the side of a kibbutz at 50 paces with a katyusha rocket or a grenade launcher.
Should the Israeli ground forces that did go into Gaza have stood still whilst they were being fired upon to even things up a bit?
So they could be 'fair' and equitable.
Should more male soldiers have stood still as opposed to female soldiers?
More over 21's or more under 21's?
It's not Israel's fault Hamas are lousy shots.
It's also not Israel's fault Hamas gathered kiddies around then and used schools and hospitals as launch sites.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:30pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:11pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull. Fourteen hundred isn't thousands. Sorry. Oh, well *phew* that's a relief.  Only 1400? Yay! You nut.  Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment. Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3... And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants.... Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!   Has there ever been a 'proportionate' war or military action??? The idea is, after all, to win... To quote Conan the Barbarian about what is best in life...."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." If you check back 6-7 posts, we've been over this.  But thanks for adding in your voice to the debate :) Oh, and thanks for providing the quote :) Very nice :)

Any time...

Something else to think about too..( i don't know if it's been covered or not)

But the designation of civilian casualty vs combatant casualty was made at the hospitals and/or morgues....so if you take the weapons and ammo off a combatant (in jeans and a tee-shirt) before you put him in the ambulance, when he arrives at said hospital/morgue, would he be listed as a civilian or a combatant???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:30pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:11pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull. Fourteen hundred isn't thousands. Sorry. Oh, well *phew* that's a relief.  Only 1400? Yay! You nut.  Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment. Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3... And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants.... Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!   Has there ever been a 'proportionate' war or military action??? The idea is, after all, to win... To quote Conan the Barbarian about what is best in life...."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." If you check back 6-7 posts, we've been over this.  But thanks for adding in your voice to the debate :) Oh, and thanks for providing the quote :) Very nice :) Any time... Something else to think about too..( i don't know if it's been covered or not) But the designation of civilian casualty vs combatant casualty was made at the hospitals and/or morgues....so if you take the weapons and ammo off a combatant (in jeans and a tee-shirt) before you put him in the ambulance, when he arrives at said hospital/morgue, would he be listed as a civilian or a combatant???

The results were confirmed by western NGOs.  And unless you've actually go some hard prove, I suggest you don't fish around.  Maybe you should go make a doco about this so all the nutters can start discussing it and how it must be true because it ended up on film?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:20pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:16pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:14pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:39pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:03pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:26pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 12:18pm: With a President of Iran continually telling us Israel has to be driven into the sea and funding the rabid dogs of Hezbullah and Hamas, it seems very reasonable to me that Israel should sometimes take proactive or forward defensive action. But that would not seem reasonable of course to the anti-semitic Greens. It is reasonable to defend yourself. Within the law.  That's what you don't quite understand.   It has been documented widely, by media on BOTH sides of the spectrum, that the actions of Israel in the 09 attacks were illegal.  In any military operation, the amount of force used must be justified, and killing thousands of Palestinians because a bomb was deployed that injured 3 Israelis is not something that can be justified; admitted even by the US military.  Not to mention that casualties amongst parties needs to be rational, and having a few injured soldiers vs. thousands of civilian casualties is not rational. Let's not even begin to talk about the peacetalks and how many times they've broken down because the Israeli government refuses to negotiate.  It wants a 2-party deal...then it doesn't...then it does... then it doesn't.  The fact that even Obama is at his wits with the support Israel receives shows that they are not a reasonable government. There is nothing wrong with Israeli people; like all people they are simply living their lives.  It's the right-wing Israeli government that is completely rabid and repugnant, and unfortunately to get the message through to them the entire state needs to be boycotted. And if over 6000 missiles and mortar shells were landing in NSW over an eight year period, you would expect the government to do nothing even if those missiles only killed 30 people??? Of course their military response was legal and justified. They had no choice but to respond. You think they should just suck it up and take one for the team? Or 6000 for the team. And since when in any military operation the amount of force used needs to be justified. It's war. And war's are fought to be won. If you want fair, play scrabble. But don't ever in the real world expect war to be reasonable, fair and justified. And don't get caught up in that civilian casualties crap in Gaza. Even Hamas missile crew were counted as civilians. Everyones a civilian in Gaza, even the black clothed policemen firing anti aircraft missiles at IDF planes. Their military response was illegal and has been proven to be illegal. In any warfare the level of aggression has to be justified.  Killing off thousands of civilians because a few weeks before 3 Israelis were injured is not justified, under any circumstance. And since when does military operations need to be justified? Uh... since we've become a modern world that actually aims for peaceful resolutions.  Go speak with international law experts and they'll back me up 100% of the way. a study of war would show you to be totally wrong. as one poster wrote, war is played to WIN. it is only in the last few decades that civilian casualities were even considered an issue in war. the enemy was the COUNTRY - not merely its military. look at london in WW2, Dresden and Hiroshima. the target was the COUNTRY. When we look at any rules of engagement, these are formed for DUTY OF CARE.  Rules of Engagement in MOST occasions ensure that civilians are avoided.   In this case, Israel passed their mission with rules of engagement that had no duty of care at all.  They would've won whether they killed 100 or tens of thousand because their mission objectives were met.  For that reason alone this war was unjust, and seriously, I can't believe I have to explain this but then again I should get used to it when dealing with right wing nutjobs who only show any rational thinking when it's only them being affected.  Sad nutjobs. Yes they did fulfill their mission. Many Hamas rocketeers and mortar crew were killed, and many factories that made those katyusha rockets identified previously and were reduced to rubble. And 1400 from 4.5 million people is not a massacre. 1.67million in the Gaza strip - not 4.5 million. And it is a massacre when duty of care wasn't followed.   Would you like to now go through all of this again? Or can you come up with something new, and with actually some evidence? Instead of continuously being relative in an argument you can't substantiate.

You will be pleased to know I fixed my numerical typo earlier.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:11pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull. Fourteen hundred isn't thousands. Sorry. Oh, well *phew* that's a relief.  Only 1400? Yay! You nut.  Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment. Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3... And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants.... Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!   Has there ever been a 'proportionate' war or military action??? The idea is, after all, to win... To quote Conan the Barbarian about what is best in life...."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." And do you seriously think that if it'd been Hamas, with all the advanced weapons, that the civilian Israeli casualties would have only been around 50% of the combatant casualties???

That's beautiful Gizmo.
Thanks.
It's the nicest quotation I've heard this week.
But don't wait up tonight for an answer to the proportionate question from alavine.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:45pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:43pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:30pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:11pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull. Fourteen hundred isn't thousands. Sorry. Oh, well *phew* that's a relief.  Only 1400? Yay! You nut.  Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment. Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3... And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants.... Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!   Has there ever been a 'proportionate' war or military action??? The idea is, after all, to win... To quote Conan the Barbarian about what is best in life...."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." If you check back 6-7 posts, we've been over this.  But thanks for adding in your voice to the debate :) Oh, and thanks for providing the quote :) Very nice :) Any time... Something else to think about too..( i don't know if it's been covered or not) But the designation of civilian casualty vs combatant casualty was made at the hospitals and/or morgues....so if you take the weapons and ammo off a combatant (in jeans and a tee-shirt) before you put him in the ambulance, when he arrives at said hospital/morgue, would he be listed as a civilian or a combatant??? The results were confirmed by western NGOs.  And unless you've actually go some hard prove, I suggest you don't fish around.  Maybe you should go make a doco about this so all the nutters can start discussing it and how it must be true because it ended up on film?

And how did the western NGOs determine this???...They ASKED the people who brought the wounded/dead in....

Not exactly an accurate method in a place controlled by one of the protagonists in a conflict, now is it??


Not fishing around, just speculating.....and remembering stories family members have told about situations like Vietnam.....where the guy who served you breakfast in the morning was the same guy who'd fired mortars at your tent last night...

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:45pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:43pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:30pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:11pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull. Fourteen hundred isn't thousands. Sorry. Oh, well *phew* that's a relief.  Only 1400? Yay! You nut.  Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment. Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3... And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants.... Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!   Has there ever been a 'proportionate' war or military action??? The idea is, after all, to win... To quote Conan the Barbarian about what is best in life...."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." If you check back 6-7 posts, we've been over this.  But thanks for adding in your voice to the debate :) Oh, and thanks for providing the quote :) Very nice :) Any time... Something else to think about too..( i don't know if it's been covered or not) But the designation of civilian casualty vs combatant casualty was made at the hospitals and/or morgues....so if you take the weapons and ammo off a combatant (in jeans and a tee-shirt) before you put him in the ambulance, when he arrives at said hospital/morgue, would he be listed as a civilian or a combatant??? The results were confirmed by western NGOs.  And unless you've actually go some hard prove, I suggest you don't fish around.  Maybe you should go make a doco about this so all the nutters can start discussing it and how it must be true because it ended up on film?

How about Goldstone back peddling on his report to the UN recently admitting he got it wrong, and the Israeli's are now demanding a retraction.
You like that proof?
And those left wing NGO's wouldn't know a Hamas terrorist from a civilian.
They don't have name badges on you know.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:45pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:43pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:30pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:11pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull. Fourteen hundred isn't thousands. Sorry. Oh, well *phew* that's a relief.  Only 1400? Yay! You nut.  Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment. Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3... And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants.... Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!   Has there ever been a 'proportionate' war or military action??? The idea is, after all, to win... To quote Conan the Barbarian about what is best in life...."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." If you check back 6-7 posts, we've been over this.  But thanks for adding in your voice to the debate :) Oh, and thanks for providing the quote :) Very nice :) Any time... Something else to think about too..( i don't know if it's been covered or not) But the designation of civilian casualty vs combatant casualty was made at the hospitals and/or morgues....so if you take the weapons and ammo off a combatant (in jeans and a tee-shirt) before you put him in the ambulance, when he arrives at said hospital/morgue, would he be listed as a civilian or a combatant??? The results were confirmed by western NGOs.  And unless you've actually go some hard prove, I suggest you don't fish around.  Maybe you should go make a doco about this so all the nutters can start discussing it and how it must be true because it ended up on film? How about Goldstone back peddling on his report to the UN recently admitting he got it wrong, and the Israeli's are now demanding a retraction. You like that proof? And those left wing NGO's wouldn't know a Hamas terrorist from a civilian. They don't have name badges on you know.

Like I said, make a video about it because it sounds like a surreal conspiracy.

Any "justification" will do for a nut rightard, ey? Seriously.

Don't add this into your conspiracy theory.  It must be some left wing nuts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7952603.stm

Probably the best thing to do is arm both sides evenly.
Everything except Nukes, if your going to do something do it right, nukes contaminate the area for too long, Chemical, YEAH!!! Bring them on.
Allow 3 weeks & as many ships as needed to ferry, those not interested in fighting from both sides & are ok living with each other, out to safety.
Then pull all the press out & let them go for it.
There should be about 3 heavy wounded men left in 6 months & then we can allow the rest to move back & live in peace. :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8276943/Israel-aimed-to-cleanse-Gaza-neighbourhoods-in-2008-invasion.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8257446.stm

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:45pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:43pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:30pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:22pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:20pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:11pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:10pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:23pm: the notion of a legal or illegal war is an absurdity just as is the notion of international law. countries do what they want when they want and it is only opposition and agression from other countries that put boundaries on it. the idea of a war being 'legal' is the pathetic posturings of people with no idea of real politic. If someone attacks yuo and kills 50 people you respons with force and not up to and including the deaths of 50 people. you choose the level of response. Hamas attacks Israel and every time extracts an extermely heavy response. at what point do they learn that throwing rocks at Goliath is stupid? Self-defence has no obligation implicit in it for the response to be proportional in international affairs. afghanistan effectively attacked USA on 9/11 and 2800 people died. the USA took their entire country and killed a lot more. is that unfair? the point is that it doesnt matter. when your behaviour enters the zone of warfare, 'fair' is a pointless notion. The only  think absurd is that you can justify a massacre. And stop bringing up the Iraq war because the same debate is going on about this war.  The only difference of course is that the US actually had ground troops and met enemy fire.  In Israel it was 'let's bomb them', kill thousands, and say "Yay we won."  Even though they would've won had they first made sure civilians were evacuated - like what the international community demanded, and what international law states. I again request you stop trying to sell yourself off as some expert. You've been wrong in every little statement you make. Get some actual knowledge before coming in here and trying to rationalise complete bull. Fourteen hundred isn't thousands. Sorry. Oh, well *phew* that's a relief.  Only 1400? Yay! You nut.  Good to see out of all of that all you could do was make a baseless little comment. Incidently it was 13 Israelis, not 3... And Hamas has admitted that AT LEAST 700 of the 1166 to 1417 casualties were combatants.... Oh wow. 13? Well that's heaps more proportionate. Woo!   Has there ever been a 'proportionate' war or military action??? The idea is, after all, to win... To quote Conan the Barbarian about what is best in life...."To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." If you check back 6-7 posts, we've been over this.  But thanks for adding in your voice to the debate :) Oh, and thanks for providing the quote :) Very nice :) Any time... Something else to think about too..( i don't know if it's been covered or not) But the designation of civilian casualty vs combatant casualty was made at the hospitals and/or morgues....so if you take the weapons and ammo off a combatant (in jeans and a tee-shirt) before you put him in the ambulance, when he arrives at said hospital/morgue, would he be listed as a civilian or a combatant??? The results were confirmed by western NGOs.  And unless you've actually go some hard prove, I suggest you don't fish around.  Maybe you should go make a doco about this so all the nutters can start discussing it and how it must be true because it ended up on film? How about Goldstone back peddling on his report to the UN recently admitting he got it wrong, and the Israeli's are now demanding a retraction. You like that proof? And those left wing NGO's wouldn't know a Hamas terrorist from a civilian. They don't have name badges on you know.

Actually, Goldstone wasn't 'back peddling'....he'd included all that in the original report....it's just that no one mentioned it....not the world media..and NOT the UN..

Liberals Caught Out in Jewish Slur
May 12, 2008

THE Victorian Liberal campaign director who sent an anti-Semitic email to a colleague has quit her job and apologised for her remark.
State president David Kemp said Susan Chandler was given the option of quitting or being sacked.

Chandler had described a candidate in an email as a "greedy f***ing jew"


In the latest shot fired in an internal party war that has the Liberals reeling, an email, forwarded from campaign officer John Osborn, shows Ms Chandler making the reference to Liberal Party candidate Adam Held.

The anti-Semitic remark follows a request from Mr Held for more election campaign pamphlets in October last year.

Mr Osborn, was fired after a secret investigation found he and fellow staffer Simon Morgan posted damaging comments on Liberal website blog, called on the State President to sack Ms Chandler immediately.

“I am comprehensively appalled at the clearly anti-Semitic nature of Ms. Chandler’s email,” Mr Osborn said in an email to 3AW.

“Ms Chandler’s involvement as an investigator has tainted the process irrevocably and her involvement in the Federal by-election campaign for Gippsland is a concern.”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/anti-jew-claim-latest-in-anti-baillieu-campaign/story-e6frf7jo-1111116312605

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

Liberals Caught Out in Jewish Slur May 12, 2008 THE Victorian Liberal campaign director who sent an anti-Semitic email to a colleague has quit her job and apologised for her remark. State president David Kemp said Susan Chandler was given the option of quitting or being sacked. Chandler had described a candidate in an email as a "greedy f***ing jew" In the latest shot fired in an internal party war that has the Liberals reeling, an email, forwarded from campaign officer John Osborn, shows Ms Chandler making the reference to Liberal Party candidate Adam Held. The anti-Semitic remark follows a request from Mr Held for more election campaign pamphlets in October last year. Mr Osborn, was fired after a secret investigation found he and fellow staffer Simon Morgan posted damaging comments on Liberal website blog, called on the State President to sack Ms Chandler immediately. “I am comprehensively appalled at the clearly anti-Semitic nature of Ms. Chandler’s email,” Mr Osborn said in an email to 3AW. “Ms Chandler’s involvement as an investigator has tainted the process irrevocably and her involvement in the Federal by-election campaign for Gippsland is a concern.” http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/anti-jew-claim-latest-in-anti-baillieu-campaign/story-e6frf7jo-1111116312605

Yes, fairly similar....other than the fact that Ms Chandler wasn't a 'sitting' member of the Party ( in council, state or federal politics)....and was only basically an office worker/clerk.....Nice deflection though...

Of course you 'could' have just admitted that a Greens pollie (or group of Greens pollies) said something offensive and that you don't agree with it and are upset by the saying it.....

After all pollies ARE still human...we don't need to agree with, or defend, everything they say......

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:43pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 3:38pm: Liberals Caught Out in Jewish Slur May 12, 2008 THE Victorian Liberal campaign director who sent an anti-Semitic email to a colleague has quit her job and apologised for her remark. State president David Kemp said Susan Chandler was given the option of quitting or being sacked. Chandler had described a candidate in an email as a "greedy f***ing jew" In the latest shot fired in an internal party war that has the Liberals reeling, an email, forwarded from campaign officer John Osborn, shows Ms Chandler making the reference to Liberal Party candidate Adam Held. The anti-Semitic remark follows a request from Mr Held for more election campaign pamphlets in October last year. Mr Osborn, was fired after a secret investigation found he and fellow staffer Simon Morgan posted damaging comments on Liberal website blog, called on the State President to sack Ms Chandler immediately. “I am comprehensively appalled at the clearly anti-Semitic nature of Ms. Chandler’s email,” Mr Osborn said in an email to 3AW. “Ms Chandler’s involvement as an investigator has tainted the process irrevocably and her involvement in the Federal by-election campaign for Gippsland is a concern.” http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/anti-jew-claim-latest-in-anti-baillieu-campaign/story-e6frf7jo-1111116312605 Yes, fairly similar....other than the fact that Ms Chandler wasn't a 'sitting' member of the Party ( in council, state or federal politics)....and was only basically an office worker/clerk.....Nice deflection though...

or the fact that the greens are not calling jewish people "greedy bugger* jew," but exercising their right to protest a democratic state acting against international law.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 1:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas. if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks? as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided. Actually no - I denounce Hamas just as much as I do Israel, especially since the party actually has a denouncement of Israel and a mission of destroying Israel in their party manifesto. However, international law and duty of care in war clearly states that in this case, even though Israel did go about making a phone call to advise of the planned attacks, if they still found there were too many civilians in the area, it was their responsibility to put ground troops on the ground to do the necessary removal. Or drop the attack.

and then you'd have complained about an 'invasion' by using groundtroops. and to use human shields is an abhorrent action and it only works on one side of the wall. Hamas dont give  acrap about the killing of civilians which is why they target them and then use them as shields. so what exactly is your solution besides just 'giving up'. There is one solution and that is to target the miltary WHEREVER THEY ARE. if the civilians dont get out of the place then they are stupid and deserve what is coming. if they stay by choice then that choice makes them part of the military and therefore a legitimate target.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 2:28pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 2:22pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 1:45pm: do you specialise in well-written faslehoods? Israel letter-dropped areas and literally PHONED them residents to let them know and anti-hamas attack was coming. that is a duty of care. and they also targetted military groups who positioned themselves in groups of civilians. and what does hamas do? they intentilly target school buses and civilian groups and areas. if you want to talk abotu duty-of-care where is your condemnation of civilian-based primary attacks? as usual, the argument for people like you is only ever one way. and then you wonder why israel takes no notice of internatinal opinion when it is so hopelessly one-sided. However, international law and duty of care in war clearly states that in this case, even though Israel did go about making a phone call to advise of the planned attacks, if they still found there were too many civilians in the area, it was their responsibility to put ground troops on the ground to do the necessary removal. Or drop the attack. And in which war has this EVER occurred in before. What army EVER on the planet EVER went into a suburban combat situation and removed the civilians BEFORE launching the ground assault? Sorry, it's never happened and will never happen. Hence why rockets are not fired at civilian locations, and at military locations. But I'm afraid international law still stands, and we can argue this all into the night.  The point is that your attempts to judge by using other excuses doesn't negate Israel's responsibilities during this attack.  And being that the result ended up being 1400 vs 13, it's quite clear that Israel's responsibilities were not met.

what LUNACY makes you think a head count of the dead is the definition of 'proportionate response'. hamas makes the count 1400 so you can virtually discount 50% of that from the start and since they alreayd admit that 700 were combatants and therefore need to be removed from the count it is quite possible that the number of innocent civilians is a handful - possibly less than 13.

but the point is NOT about numbers. when you START a massacre of inoocents you cant then complain about the storm that comes back at you. There is a simple soltion to much of this strife. STOP FIRING MISSILES AT CIVILIANS! and then your enemy wil lstop firing back at you.  but no one has ever accused a palestinian of being intelligent.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 8^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 3:43pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 8th, 2011 at 3:38pm: Liberals Caught Out in Jewish Slur May 12, 2008 THE Victorian Liberal campaign director who sent an anti-Semitic email to a colleague has quit her job and apologised for her remark. State president David Kemp said Susan Chandler was given the option of quitting or being sacked. Chandler had described a candidate in an email as a "greedy f***ing jew" In the latest shot fired in an internal party war that has the Liberals reeling, an email, forwarded from campaign officer John Osborn, shows Ms Chandler making the reference to Liberal Party candidate Adam Held. The anti-Semitic remark follows a request from Mr Held for more election campaign pamphlets in October last year. Mr Osborn, was fired after a secret investigation found he and fellow staffer Simon Morgan posted damaging comments on Liberal website blog, called on the State President to sack Ms Chandler immediately. “I am comprehensively appalled at the clearly anti-Semitic nature of Ms. Chandler’s email,” Mr Osborn said in an email to 3AW. “Ms Chandler’s involvement as an investigator has tainted the process irrevocably and her involvement in the Federal by-election campaign for Gippsland is a concern.” http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/anti-jew-claim-latest-in-anti-baillieu-campaign/story-e6frf7jo-1111116312605 Yes, fairly similar....other than the fact that Ms Chandler wasn't a 'sitting' member of the Party ( in council, state or federal politics)....and was only basically an office worker/clerk.....Nice deflection though... or the fact that the greens are not calling jewish people "greedy bugger* jew," but exercising their right to protest a democratic state acting against international law.

while saying absolutely nothing about the murderous dictatorships that surround them. sorry, but there are no plaudits for one-dided exercising of rights. Rights are either for everyone or no one. you cant choose to criticise one side in a conflict while excusing massive violations of human rights on the other. That merely compounds the paucity of their integrity and adds fuel to the calim that they are racists or in this case, anti-semitics.

Two things:

The palestinians need to be beaten until they know they are beaten. This was the trick with the Germans and the Japanese and is the rule for winning a war - th enemy must know it's beaten.  We have a Middle Eastern problem because Israel stopped too soon in 1948 or in any case in 1967. Or 1973 Or 1982. The Western powers exert an enormous amount on pressure on Israel to tread softly-softly. In this sense the western alliance is a hindrance for Israel. As is its humane, democratic and compassionate people. The jews are too nice, even when in mortal danger.

Secondly, the motion by Marrickville Council to boycott Israel was brought by Green councillors and supported by Labor ones and that is how it could be passed. Gillard and Brown are both lying, she by distancing herself from the Greens, he by saying that Marrickville Greens were not acting in accordance with the Greens' policies.