Oh yes indeed, let's!
"Taken by force" would mean that the army attacked first, moving into occupied territory.
No. Taken by force need not mean that something was taken through military coercion or might, but actually any form of coercion such as doing something against the will and right of the victim. In this case, Israel not only got land in Palestine, but foudned their own state, claimed and occupied territories other than those agreed on, are bombing, killing, and bulldozing the homes and fields of the Palestinians who resist. So yes, it is absolutely by force. Oh but even then! We can include military force into the equation as many of those territories were occupied and claimed by force through the use of a military during war time.
Look up "Israel Wars" and you'll see that during every single war, Israel was the defender, not the attacker (unless you count Gaza as a "war", since (and you don't know this because you don't actually live here) in Israel, we never called it a war. It had an official name "Operation Solid Lead", funny how your media twists things.
Irrevelant. Actually, it is your media which is twisting things. Nationalism, patriotism, and propaganda. It was not "Operation Solid Lead", it was a war. Multiple wars. Your country choosing to give it a cute nickname does not make it anything other than a war. "Operation Solid Lead" still refers to the occurrence and events of a war. Sugar-coating it does not change that. Israel was not the defender, there were military clashes prior to the wars between the two. These clashes led the escalation and declaration of war. One side choosing to attack in full-force is "officially" an act of war, but if we take it in such a way without any context then we'd be resorting to ignorance of the situation at had and basing our claims on a superficial view of what took place. So no, like in the case of the Korean War, I'd argue that the war was not started by either side, it was simply one side that responded with force after the **** hit the fan. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument let's say that Israel was the defender in these wars. So what? Does that make the Israelis innocent? No, it does not. Does that justify their actions? No, it does not. If anything, Israel was attacked in the first war because of them creating a state within Palestine, which pissed everyone off. You, yourself, would be pissed off if some random country came in and and started a state within Israel. Do not tell me otherwise. You'd pick up arms and fight. Anyway, again, I do not even need to live in Israel to know what is taking place. In fact, living in Israel would create a biased opinion on the whole event, such as in your case. This specific argument of yours, which sucks badly, about me not being there is not only irrelevant, but a fallacy in and of itself. Israel started a state within Palestine, the Palestinians and their neighboring countries logically,rationally, and understandably got pissed off.
Oh really? Cause clubs in the Philippines, Indonesia and other Muslim-Extremists-Infested areas are also occupied, right? What about India, where the group of Extremists took over a hotel (or was it an embassy?) and killed anyone they saw? Are the Indians on "Palestinian soil", too? Oh, wait, I forgot. The whole world belongs to Muslims. My bad, I apologize.
Oh god, I just love how you throw about "arguments" while ignoring their social context completely. Laughable. The Philippines, Indonesia, and other "Muslim-Extremists-Infested areas" do NOT share the same situation, events, or context as those of occupied Palestine. The events that take place there are of no relation to those taking place in Palestine. It is not simply Muslim Extremists doing it for "72 virgins", but actually they're doing it for a cause which is the liberation of their country from invaders. That and the fact that even Christians, Atheists, and even Marxists themselves have participated in the Palestinian liberation war throughout history. Seriously though, come up with better arguments, you even destroy your very own argument/analogy when you said, "Are the Indians on "Palestinian soil", too?". Clearly, and self-evidently, you answer yourself that they are not. India is not occupied. The attacks that take place there are completely independent from those taking place in Palestine. In the former it is an act of terror, which I agree with, while the latter is an act of liberation.
Actually, it does matter. You don't know **** about army regulations, army procedures or anything about it if you haven't served in it.
Again, completely irrelevant. I do NOT, AT ALL, have to be in the army to know how it works, or at least its very essential basics and procedures. I can observe, analyze, and study how the army works and I can thus even know more than the common soldier of how the army works.
If you have to bomb a school in order to make sure none of your OWN people don't get killed, then you friggin' blow it to Kingdom come.
And here we clearly see that YOU are the one that does not know **** works. No, you do not bomb a school nor a hospital because you "suspect" or want to "make sure" non of your "OWN" people get killed. That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard, apart from those found on one certain thread. That is the same as saying that you'd be glad to bomb the whole country, or even nuke it, and justify it by claiming it is to protect your own people. In fact, that completely justifies the United States and its foreign affairs. Laughable! Simply laughable. No, not because you KNOW that there are "terrorists" there or even that these people WILL kill your own, you bomb schools, hospitals, homes, etc. etc. because you suspect that your people may get killed? Lol, good one.
Bombing is the only choice that doesn't put our own soldiers at risk.
Soldiers are trained to kill and survive battle situations. Civilians are not. Civilians must not be bombed to prevent casualties from the army. That does not justify bombing schools and hospitals.
Why risk hundreds of our soldiers, sending them into a completely hostile town when we can just run precision strikes on the ones who try to attack?
Oh, wait. Precision strikes? On the ones who try to attack? You mean like the "accidental" bombing of "terrorists" in schools, hospitals, and civilian homes? It is better to risk hundreds of soldiers who are trained and know what they're up against than bomb the whole town to ****, kill numerous innocent civilians, and then create more enemies in the process.
Later Targeting would require a Jet in mid air, 24/7. Other rockets are just too damn expensive to spend on a group of 3-4 terrorists (not to mention they pack a whole lot more explosives). We have Choppers and UAV's in the air, and if one is not available, we always have tanks stationed outside.
Bombings are not taking place 24/7. Either you do those "precision strikes" of yours properly or you do not. You do not bomb up the whole town because "it's risky" or "it's too expensive". Those "3-4 terrorists" are nothing compared to the amount of innocent civilians that are getting killed.
Yes, that is exactly what you do. If they don't want their civilians getting killed, then maybe they shouldn't hide in schools, hm?
They're using children and human shields and we're the bad guys, uh-huh.
Oh what a lovely excuse to hide the slaughter of these children and civilians, "human shields." So first you said that the schools were not targeted (with a bold emphasis, mind you), and now you're justifying the bombing? Let us suppose those were in fact human shields. What then? Do you bomb them just for the fun of it to "possibly" kill one "terrorist" or two? You are not the "bad guys" because they are using "human shields", you are the bad guys because you are BOMBING the "human shields."
Again, aggression would assume we started attacking Gaza first. Israel and Gaza had a truce a couple of years ago, after Operation Solid Lead. Guess who broke it?
That's right, your Palestinian friends.
No, aggression need not exist solely in its militaristic form. Aggression can very well exist through political, economical, and social actions. Aggression can exist directly and indirectly as well. That means that by the very act of claiming a part of Palestine and other Palestinian lands, they have resorted to aggression. They need not invade a country through military might so that it would be considered aggression. Operation Solid Lead, for instance, "was started" by Israel (I took your case of "starting wars" for the sake of argument). But, oh, you mean this truce? http://en.wikipedia....Hamas_ceasefire
Read up on it, it was the Israelis who killed Palestinians made made military incursions into Gaza during the ceasefire. Heck, even that ceasefire did not achieve a lifting of the siege, include the West Bank, and stop the Israeli attacks.
Vise-Versa, those "acts of aggression" are retaliation for rocket strikes.
Actually, rocket strikes are retaliations against acts of aggression by the IDF in many cases. Every time a Palestinian is killed or a militant is killed, rocket attacks take place.
Israel has a very simple rule, and Gaza knows it, as we broadcasted it on National News.
For EVERY rocket they fire, we fire. We will not fire if they won't.
Oh really now? Go up, check out those links I posted. Or heck, take a look at the "ceasefire" above. Self-evident. Israel still bombs "terrorists" and civilians even without rocket attacks. Furthermore, why should they even stop the rocket attacks? Gaza is under siege, Israel took over the majority of their country as their own, Israel is bulldozing their homes, bombing them, raiding them, etc. etc. I don't and cannot expect the Palestinians to remain calm. It is irrational to do so.
And besides, over-kill is the best way to kill. Obliterate the enemy so fast and so hard that it is completely shattered and cannot recover, or is scared shitless to try again.
The thing is, with such a broad and vague definition as "enemy", you're including civilians and children who are being killed as well. Or heck, you're even justifying the Palestine suicide and rocket attacks with that statement, which you previously had criticized.
Lol, right, I'm sure they will get lucky after the last .. er.. 4 wars that they lost?
Israel was attacked many times by multiple countries from multiple directions and it has always won.
Shall I remind you the 6-day war? Where 3 countries and forces from 9 more attacked Israel and lost in less time than it takes to process a driver's license?
Point? Israel is not invincible. It is not an immortal god, by any means. Even with vast American and Western support, they are still not invincible. As such, I do not see your point really. Winning 4 wars with truces rather than utter annihilation and invasion doesn't prove your point, whatever it is. We cannot know what may take place in the future.
Not really. We just got better tech. Same principals remain.
http://en.wikipedia...._(1899_and_1907)
http://en.wikipedia....neva_convention
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Laws_of_war
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Human_rights
http://en.wikipedia..../United_nations
Etc.
Sure, Germany gave it back, but that's cause it was part of their surrender.
So now you're saying the U.S and the West are evil and Gaza and places like Iran that stone you to death if you look at a woman wrong are heavenly?
Did I say that now? No, I did not. I never claimed Iran or even Palestine are "heavenly." What I claimed was that I side with Palestine on this issue, in fact I did not even say that although I did imply it. Now stop trying to pick up strawmen or putting words in my mouth. I do not like neither Gaza nor Iran.
Riiiiight, because there is no such thing as "agendas" in the media and there was never a false report on the media. The media shows you what it wants.
The media is not one single entity. There are numerous sources which you can use, there's even IndyMedia.
And LOL, biased? Dude, I hate this shithole. The government is crap, the education system is ground-low, everybody steals from everybody and the government couldn't care less as long as the pockets of the religious ****s at the top are full.
Oh but your arguments and posts certainly show how much you "hate this shithole." You claiming that you are not biased does not make it so.
I'm just trying to prove a point and destroy any ignorant argument by someone who doesn't even live here and gets his whole information out of a television.
Oh the first part, I'm doing that as well.
"Ignorant arguments by someone who doesn't even live there and gets his whole information out of a television"
Bro, seriously, is that the best you can do? Again, for the hundredth time, one does not need to be there to know what is taking place.
Those were times of Riot, where, again, the Palestinians were the aggressors.
I wonder why they were rioting? Self-evident.
Have you even really looked at your links? The Gaza operation ended 3 years ago.
Oh yes, I have. As for the Gaza operation, it is irrelevant when it ended, what is relevant is what has taken place. You have been referring to the previous wars and conflicts numerous times and yet now you attempt to handwave and claim that the Gaza operation ended 3 years ago? So what? It still took place, killings still took place, a blockade took place, raids took place, etc. etc.
Sure, there are troops all over the strip, but there is no one INSIDE Gaza, only supplies of Medicine, fuel, water and food.
http://en.wikipedia...._the_Gaza_Strip
All those bombings are response to rockets fired upon Israel.
Lolno, if you had bothered reading the links, you would have found that the attacks were not a retaliation for rockets:
http://www.maannews.....aspx?ID=491284
http://occupiedpales...aza-airstrikes/
http://www.imemc.org/article/63658
Etc. etc.
I would have done the same. Hell, if I was the Prime Minister, I would just go on National News and say "The next mother****er that fires a single damn rocket at my goddamn country, I will send a fleet to carpet bomb your entire pisspoor town until there isn't enough left to build a new road"
Heil Hitler?
Lol, one of the links is a Pro-Palestine website (haven't dug too much about the other sites).
Doesn't make it invalid, at all. You can verify the claims by simply using google without me wasting my time doing it for you.
So, I don't get it, what's your point?
I gave you a bunch of reports of people from Gaza killing Civilians on PURPOSE and you give reports about.. Israel killing civilians as response to rockets? Sounds legit.
Omfg.
1) You gave me an anecdote (with no source even) of how some guy went in and killed people. I then replied by giving you multiple links out of hundreds showing the comparison of how Israel is doing far worse than that petty crime.
2) Those are not really response to rockets. See the links above as well.
3) I'd really like it if you actually READ the links rather than brush them aside or ignore them.
In conclusion...
If they fire a rocket, we have complete and utter right to blow them sky high.
And if you fire a rocket, they have "complete and utter right to blow [you] sky high", correct? Or does that simply apply to Israel? If this is your correct assumption then you just created a whole chain of attacks that can only be justified by taking a look at the very first attack, which is near impossible.
This is how this looks in the real world (without your anti-Israel view)
Side A attacks Side B.
Side B shoots back at Side A.
Side A cries about it, goes on national TV and portraits itself as the victim.
Guess who's who?
There are so many things wrong with this "example". Show me now how this Side A was the first to attack. If anything, it was Side B that claimed their land, started a nation in the middle of their country, still bombs them, bombs them on suspicion of the existence of fighters, and in many cases does NOT attack in retaliation, but as a preemptive strike or simply a strike on SUSPECTED fighter positions.
1
Seriously though probably secret police and mass propaganda.
1
Who can't be trusted?
2
Griefing the CRom server is not very mature, nor is accusing a democracy of being oppressive when you're running a dictatorship
1
1
1
1
1
LORD DAGON WELCOMES YOUR SOUL IN PARADISSSSSSS SSSSSSSE
1