Mid east

[bn880 5]

How dare they attack such a kind and helpful organization as Hamas.

I'm positive that car was on it's way to plant trees, or to read to blind orphans, or perhaps to clean the bedpans of the elderly.

-=Die Alive=-

Here comes the radical extremist Die Alive again.

How about the people that actually died, maybe they were going to plant trees or clean bedpans. Eh wait, there probably aren't too many elderly Palestinians left. ;)

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]And according to you, was the killing of 4 Israeli soldiers in Gaza yesterday a military operation too?

Yes, killing soldiers is not terrorism. As a soldier I accept this fact. Soldiers are not innocent. It's ugly yes, but that's the way I see it. Terrorism has victims, war has casualties. The longer we pretend that Israel and Palestine are not at war, the worse this is going to get. Labeling everything as terrorism is just that.

Quote[/b] ]Assasination is basically not wreckless nor terrorism when you snipe the leader. (or any other method that gets him only)

Like I said it was reckless, military operations get goatf&*ked, or it could be intentional, I don't know all the facts, so I just see it as a reckless assassination attempt at face value. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, I'm just saying it's ugly. War is ugly, but unfortunately something that is part of human nature that we will probably never escape dispite what you utopian idealists might believe. This isn't about Israeli soveriegnty or a Palestinian homeland, it's a hatred that runs much deeper, and as long as factions continue to thrive off of it, it will continue. This state of being has existed for so long that some people do not know how to live without it. You really think establishing a Palestinian homeland will stop the fighting? I highly doubt it. my point is that the liberal media is quick to blame Israel as a whole for this incident, whereas when Israelis are killed specific militant factions are blamed, or even wear the responsibility like a badge of pride. Like I said in my first post, the situation completely confounds me. So many outsiders are so busy trying to label and place blame, who's right, who's wrong, that they fail to see that these people are dealing with something much more fundamental, survival.

[toadlife 3]

My questions is...why lob seven missiles when they could try and disable the car they were in somehow and use a few well placed snipers. This would prevent all of these tragic incidents of "collateral damage", which has to be a large factor in keeping the war going.

Both sides are wrong.

[FSPilot 0]

when it comes to the middle east, both sides are guilty, and both aren't willing to admit it.

palestinians blow up an israeli target, israelis blow up a palestinian target, rinse with the occassional westerner sticking his/her head in to stop it all, repeat.

[Bernadotte 0]

My questions is...why lob seven missiles when they could try and disable the car they were in somehow and use a few well placed snipers. This would prevent all of these tragic incidents of "collateral damage", which has to be a large factor in keeping the war going.

Both sides are wrong.

My question in response to your question is; if Hamas had Apache gunships and snipers in Israel then don't you think they would go after Israel's leaders in exactly the manner you've just described rather than shooting a salvo of rockets at a crowded street?  Both sides may be wrong but the one side clearly has the means and opportunity to fight differently, but instead chooses reckless brutality.

I'm still waiting for USSoldier11B's answer about why Israel doesn't go take the target out of the Gaza hospital, right now.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Why am I getting the feeling that noone really wants peace over there?

[Bernadotte 0]

@ June 10 2003,19:01)]Why am I getting the feeling that noone really wants peace over there?

...Unlike you crazy peace-loving Americans?  

By the way, everytime I hear an Israeli settler leader interviewed on CNN he's speaking with a Brooklyn accent.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm still waiting for USSoldier11B's answer about why Israel doesn't go take the target out of the Gaza hospital, right now.

Political blowback maybe? That's a good question. I'm not advocating a side here, although personally I doubt the world would be any worse of without the leader of Hamas. But I do get the point of your artful spinning of the subject. Basically you are implying that the attack was meant to cause an uproar not complete an objective. (killing the target)

[MrMilli 0]

My questions is...why lob seven missiles when they could try and disable the car they were in somehow and use a few well placed snipers. This would prevent all of these tragic incidents of "collateral damage", which has to be a large factor in keeping the war going.

Both sides are wrong.

Damn!

You've just made a breakthough in military tactics!

I demand you send this to the IDF Immediately.

Oh wait

actually how about because of the fact the 'well placed snipers' would be subject to the same ambushes going in and out that has caused a few of these assasinations, as well as the risk of detection while in the hides effectively surronded by people not too friendly to the fact you're trying to kill their political leaders.

[Bernadotte 0]

...because of the fact the 'well placed snipers' would be subject to the same ambushes going in and out that has caused a few of these assasinations, as well as the risk of detection while in the hides effectively surronded by people not too friendly to the fact you're trying to kill their political leaders.

Thanks for the fact.  I sure am glad to find out that Israel hasn't been sending any snipers into the occupied territories and that they've done all their killing from the safety of aircraft.

Umm... where have you been for the past 35 years?  

[Milkman 1]

Oh boy here we go again. More flaming yay!!!

My view- IDF are doing a poor job elimintating the terrorists. If you look back at the seventies, you will notice many daring and sucessful raids by Israeli security forces. But now, it seems all they manage to do is killing civilians. I think they need some newer and brighter people to run the IDF. *shrugs*

[MrMilli 0]

Come on, so you really think that the attitude of  'oh the snipers could do it easier' is really a good alternative?

I'm not saying firing off missiles is the answer but please, a little more thought into comments. Which is easier and risks the fewest Israeli lives?

Sending in a group of soldiers who have to infiltrate the area, set themselves up, kill the guy and then sneak out without getting into a contact requiring weeks of planning and risking some of the best soldiers they have to offer?

or firing off a missile from a few miles away and a few thousand feet up?

I'll be honest and say it pisses me off when people say things like that, how many people just went 'Oh they could of just got a few snipers and killed Saddam' a few months ago?

[Postduifje 0]

I don't think this falls within the definition of terrorism, but than again I don't think many of the post sept-11th things that have been called terrorism do. So if you're in to popular name-calling, this sure is an act of terrorism.

-Post

[toadlife 3]

Both sides may be wrong but the one side clearly has the means and opportunity to fight differently, but instead chooses reckless brutality.

I agree. Isreal's wrongs, however, don't make the Palestinians actions right.

Regardless of who is more right or wrong, I think that since the Palestinians are the ones who are being oppressed and lack the political/financial power of their oppressors, they must carry the burden of expressing their greivences non-violently.

[bn880 5]

when it comes to the middle east, both sides are guilty, and both aren't willing to admit it.

Yes, but the force used on both sides is not proportional, meaning what Israel is doing with its well armed terrorists and proper infrastructure is much worse than a people without any infrastructure, no police, and nothing but ocupation.

The point is, Israel is the one who needs the UN to step in and beat it back behind its "borders" and keep it there. This is a fact, the only reason it's not happening is US and Britain supporting and arming Israel, who is occupying the Palestinians (causing extreme and wrong reactions).

EDIT: And I forgot, Israels illegal WMDs are also keeping justice from reaching that region.

[bn880 5]

Regardless of who is more right or wrong, I think that since the Palestinians are the ones who are being oppressed and lack the political/financial power of their oppressors, they must carry the burden of expressing their greivences non-violently.

It doesn't work that way, sitting here at a $2000 computer it makes sense, but if you grew up as a Palestinian with Israeli tanks and watch towers haunting you constantly, and have the occasional US made chopper manned by an Israeli firing missiles at cars you would not have the patience. None at all, because you would have no hope for any future.

These people are not "born terrorists" they are just like you and just like me, their intolerance is a result of their surrounding conditions. Any one of us here could have been a "terrorist" if we grew up in Palestine under certain conditions.

[toadlife 3]

Come on, so you really think that the attitude of 'oh the snipers could do it easier' is really a good alternative?

If they couldn't do it without placing an enourmous risk on innocents, they shouldn't have attempted it at all.

I'm not saying firing off missiles is the answer but please, a little more thought into comments. Which is easier and risks the fewest Israeli lives?

So your implying that an Israeli soldier's life is more valuable than an innocent Palestinian's?

Sending in a group of soldiers who have to infiltrate the area, set themselves up, kill the guy and then sneak out without getting into a contact requiring weeks of planning and risking some of the best soldiers they have to offer?

or firing off a missile from a few miles away and a few thousand feet up?

Of course. It's what special forces from all over the world do.

I'll be honest and say it pisses me off when people say things like that, how many people just went 'Oh they could of just got a few snipers and killed Saddam' a few months ago?

I sure never said that about Hussein. There is a difference between Saddam Hussein and the leader of Hamas - the Isrealis knew where the leader of Hamas was.

[Badgerboy 0]

when it comes to the middle east, both sides are guilty, and both aren't willing to admit it.

Yes, but the force used on both sides is not proportional, meaning what Israel is doing with its well armed terrorists and proper infrastructure is much worse than a people without any infrastructure, no police, and nothing but ocupation.

The point is, Israel is the one who needs the UN to step in and beat it back behind its "borders" and keep it there.  This is a fact, the only reason it's not happening is US and Britain supporting and arming Israel, who is occupying the Palestinians (causing extreme and wrong reactions).

EDIT: And I forgot, Israels illegal WMDs are also keeping justice from reaching that region.

Any UK weapon system used by the IDF is not allowed to be deployed in the occupied territories. They tried it last year, and had a short term embargo slapped on them.

[bn880 5]

Any UK weapon system used by the IDF is not allowed to be deployed in the occupied territories. They tried it last year, and had a short term embargo slapped on them.

Very good, I didn't know that.

[Schoeler 0]

My questions is...why lob seven missiles when they could try and disable the car they were in somehow and use a few well placed snipers. This would prevent all of these tragic incidents of "collateral damage", which has to be a large factor in keeping the war going.

Both sides are wrong.

My question in response to your question is; if Hamas had Apache gunships and snipers in Israel then don't you think they would go after Israel's leaders in exactly the manner you've just described rather than shooting a salvo of rockets at a crowded street?  Both sides may be wrong but the one side clearly has the means and opportunity to fight differently, but instead chooses reckless brutality.

I'm still waiting for USSoldier11B's answer about why Israel doesn't go take the target out of the Gaza hospital, right now.

I'd say it's because attacking a hospital could be taken as a war crime, and would at least certainly be considered a very bad PR move for Israel. I'm sure they'll finish the job. I too think both sides are at fault, but that in the two examples given in this discussion so far, neither is terrorism. Attacking legitimate military targets is an act of war, despite the effort to achieve maximum psychological impact on the enemy. Shocking and terrorizing your military opponent has been a fundamental part of war since the dawn of mankind, it's not going to go away any time soon.

[toadlife 3]

It doesn't work that way, sitting here at a $2000 computer it makes sense, but if you grew up as a Palestinian with Israeli tanks and watch towers haunting you constantly, and have the occasional US made chopper manned by an Israeli firing missiles at cars you would not have the patience. None at all, because you would have no hope for any future.

These people are not "born terrorists" they are just like you and just like me, their intolerance is a result of their surrounding conditions. Any one of us here could have been a "terrorist" if we grew up in Palestine under certain conditions.

The problem is that both sides think that it doesn't work that way, when in fact, it does. Unfortunately, it takes extraordinary leaders to get people to actually believe in and practice non-violence.

I'm sure many Blacks in the U.S. felt 'hopeless" in the 50's before the U.S. civil rights movement.

[MrMilli 0]

Come on, so you really think that the attitude of  'oh the snipers could do it easier' is really a good alternative?

If they couldn't do it without placing an enourmous risk on innocents, they shouldn't have attempted it at all.

I'm not saying firing off missiles is the answer but please, a little more thought into comments. Which is easier and risks the fewest Israeli lives?

So your implying that an Israeli soldier's life is more valuable than an innocent Palestinian's?

Sending in a group of soldiers who have to infiltrate the area, set themselves up, kill the guy and then sneak out without getting into a contact requiring weeks of planning and risking some of the best soldiers they have to offer?

or firing off a missile from a few miles away and a few thousand feet up?

Of course. It's what special forces from all over the world do.

I'll be honest and say it pisses me off when people say things like that, how many people just went 'Oh they could of just got a few snipers and killed Saddam' a few months ago?

I sure never said that about Hussein. There is a difference between Saddam Hussein and the leader of Hamas - the Isrealis knew where the leader of Hamas was.

1) Two killed.

Bad, but hardly enormous civilian casualties.

2) To an Israeli Commander?

Any day of the sodding week.

3) So, your saying you'd rather an infantry force get into a fight in a crowded street?

How many do you think would die then? Bullets flying about, adrenaline filled soldiers and militants whose leader they just killed firing away at each other?

4) didn't say you did, doesn't mean it doesn't piss me off.

[Schoeler 0]

I'm not saying firing off missiles is the answer but please, a little more thought into comments. Which is easier and risks the fewest Israeli lives?

So your implying that an Israeli soldier's life is more valuable than an innocent Palestinian's?

No, what I got out of that is that it would be stupid from a tactical standpoint to risk troops when the objective can be accomplished much more simply. Israel didn't use those tactics in the 70's because they didn't have hellfire missiles and airborne sensor technology acute enough to accomplish the mission back then. They have that technology now, thus it makes more sense for them to use it. The Palestinians fight the way they do because they lack that very same technology. Neither side is more honorable than the other. I'm sure if the Palestinians had the same capabilities, they would employ the same tactics. This isn't a chivalrous duel people, its warfare. Both sides are going to try and attain the maximum advantage in killing one another. Bringing honor and bravery into play, while earning you respect and admiration in certain ignorant circles, only invites disaster and reflects extremely poor planning and leadership. Use of daring tactics only comes into play when there are no viable alternatives to their use.

Thus:

Quote[/b] ]

Sending in a group of soldiers who have to infiltrate the area, set themselves up, kill the guy and then sneak out without getting into a contact requiring weeks of planning and risking some of the best soldiers they have to offer?

or firing off a missile from a few miles away and a few thousand feet up?

Of course. It's what special forces from all over the world do.

Those special forces are used only when it is absolutely necessary. Why do you think they are called Special Forces? It's because they are trained only for use in special circumstances. It makes no sense at all to use such troops in ordinary circumstances, and is a waste of time, money, effort and possibly lives. Why use the wrong tool for a simple job? It would be like planting carrots in your garden using a jackhammer. Or, more accurately, using a laser designed for precision eye correction surgery to try and repair a blownout eyeball. Can it be done? Certainly, but that doesn't mean it should.

[bn880 5]

It doesn't work that way, sitting here at a $2000 computer it makes sense, but if you grew up as a Palestinian with Israeli tanks and watch towers haunting you constantly, and have the occasional US made chopper manned by an Israeli firing missiles at cars you would not have the patience. None at all, because you would have no hope for any future.

These people are not "born terrorists" they are just like you and just like me, their intolerance is a result of their surrounding conditions. Any one of us here could have been a "terrorist" if we grew up in Palestine under certain conditions.

The problem is that both sides think that it doesn't work that way, when in fact, it does. Unfortunately, it takes extraordinary leaders to get people to actually believe in and practice non-violence.

I'm sure many Blacks in the U.S. felt 'hopeless" in the 50's before the U.S. civil rights movement.

What I'm saying is no matter who the leader, Palestinian Police is now ineffective (the leadership is ineffective in a Western policing state sense), this is not some coincidence, this is caused by the ISraeli leaderships' greed to take over most of Palestine(whatever is useful). By Israel showing Palestinian leadership can not stop extremists, and as long as they have more extremist acts coming from Palestine, it gives the Israeli leadership permission in the mind of USA and some others to occupy and control/use all the land they wish.

They made conditions for extremists ("terrorists") by making sure they are hopeless, without any policing force or authority of their own. The thing to do is send the UN in there like it is sent to Congo, then build a berlin wall kind of deal... this is going to happen when pigs fly.

[toadlife 3]

Can it be done? Certainly, but that doesn't mean it should.

Please just forget about military strategy for a second. If they really want peace, killing innocents is not the way to bring it about, which was my point. My point wasn't that shooting missiles was safer than using special forces to do the job - that's is a no brainer.

Regardless or Israels methods, killing the leader of Hamas won't solve any problems as long as they have sympathy from the public and financial backing from various governments.

Neither Isreal or the Palestinians seem to want peace in the first place, so when accomplishing their military objectives, they don't care how it gets done.

Neither blowing up buses or indescriminatly firing off rockets into residential neigborhods are good ways to bring about peace.