backtop


Print 222 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Feb 9 at 10:14 AM


The rocket prior to take off  (Source: Associated Press)
Iran successfully launched its own satellite into space, which has some Western nations concerned

Iran successfully launched its first satellite, marking a symbolic step that has some security experts concerned about possible implications regarding space militarization.

The country launched its first domestically manufactured satellite aboard a Safir-2 rocket, with the stated intentions of research and telecommunications, Iranian TV officials said.  Iran's launch of its Omid (meaning "Hope") satellite was scheduled to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the Iranian revolution.  

Security experts from the United States, France, and several other nations showed great concern after the successful launch, though President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said it had only peaceful intentions for the Iranian space program.

As the United States continues to struggle finding money for NASA, space programs in China, Russia, Iran and India continue to increase their presence in space -- which some U.S. politicians find troubling.  There is a high amount of concern over the possibility Iran may use its space program to launch ballistic missiles, and the Iranian satellite program may be using technology that could launch missiles.

It's even more serious because the United Nations has sanctions in place against Iran because the country is reportedly interested in building nuclear weapons, and the launch technology could be used to attack other nations with a long-range missile with a nuclear warhead.

"There's almost always a link between satellite programs like this and military programs and there's almost always a link between satellites and nuclear weapons," Center for Strategic and International Studies defense technology expert James Lewis told the Associated Press.  It's the same delivery vehicle."

However, Iranian officials have repeatedly stated the country's goals involve furthering its growing space program, and not launching missiles.

"Iran's satellite technology is for purely peaceful purposes and to meet the needs of the country," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said during a press conference.

In February 2008, the country launched a low-orbit research rocket, and then launched a rocket able to carry satellites into orbit last August.  Prior to its own launch, Iran was forced to rely on Russian rockets to launch satellites into space.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

"peaceful purposes "
By ekv on 2/4/2009 5:27:37 AM , Rating: 5
Hmm, kind of makes you wonder if Iran is thinking ...

"yes, our missile is intended for peaceful purposes. Once Israel is wiped off the map, THEN there will be peace."

How did Iran get the technology to build the missile? Did they develop their own guidance system? And did the U.S. know this launch was taking place?

I have a little experience in missile launches. Tricky stuff.




RE: "peaceful purposes "
By dflynchimp on 2/4/2009 5:46:00 AM , Rating: 5
Frankly, I don't see why the U.S has to do anything about this. Israel is more than likely to beat us to the punch if Iran needed a military smackdown. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just being pragmatic here. Right now our priority is to pull our dicks out from the M.E piece of pie and get our priorities (see economy) straight.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Regs on 2/4/2009 9:43:03 AM , Rating: 3
The difference between Iran and Iraq is that Iranian leadership is completely bat-sh*t-insane. If there is anyone that would support a terrorist it would be Iran or for the least bit destabilize the region if not half of Asia as well . Though since we did such a wonderful job picking Iraq as our adversary, you're right, we pretty much can't do anything right now except concentrate on our domestic affairs. Though I also would not want to see WW3 start because we're too busy paying our way out of debt.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 10:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"The difference between Iran and Iraq is that Iranian leadership is completely bat-sh*t-insane"
Not in the least. They've just recognized the very real geopolitical benefit from having others think you're insane-- a variant of the same principle that keeps a person from molesting a rabid dog.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Regs on 2/4/2009 1:35:34 PM , Rating: 1
Then lets hope that rabid dog does not start staging "space vehicle launchers" at their borders and we end up with a mid-eastern variant of a Cuban missile crisis.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Murloc on 2/4/2009 2:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
some guys just can't understand: Iranian leadership is maybe extremist, but not stupid. They speak much but they will not throw a bomb on israel just because they feel like so.

And anyway, why is US complaining about militarization of space when they already have 23453345804 military satellites, ready to guide nuclear warhead?
because they want to be the number 1 power in the world forever.

But US egemony will not last forever, and they can't pretend to rule the world for long. Iran is just making it's way to the club of the nations that count and can say something.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 2:49:52 PM , Rating: 4
> "But US egemony will not last forever"

I strongly suspect that, when faced with the results of that loss, you'll be one of the first to complain. Europe has benefitted so long off the free protection and stabilizing influence of the US, that it seems to have forgotten what the world was like without it.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By kontorotsui on 2/5/2009 4:55:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Europe has benefitted so long off the free protection and stabilizing influence of the US


And USA has benefitted from a strong set of allied states (NATO) right to the border of the Warsaw Pact.
And, thus, from the let go of almost all the modern "western" countries, without any third voice in the deeply polarized Cold War.
I wouldn't call it "free" protection, it was paid with an almost complete loss of independence in foreign policy.

Today, UE is the largest (if not strongest) economy in the world, China is powerful enough to make their voice count, and there is a new set of independent states that are getting more and more important.
The future is in the UN, not in Washington and Moscow as in the past.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2009 7:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
The UN is a joke of epic proportions. If anyone still takes them seriously they need to wake up.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/5/2009 8:30:09 AM , Rating: 3
The UN needs serious restructuring, the whole idea of a security council veto is fundamentally flawed. It basically gives its members power over other nations it doesn't really have the right to own.

not to mention that nothing can be done at the UN to target a sec council memeber.

It's the same bloody system set up in 1945, just now bloated and full of useless departments.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2009 3:25:42 PM , Rating: 3
Ditto. It also has no real power to enforce any of the measures it passes. Other nations can use those measures as an excuse to take action, but even then there is usually political backlash.

Quite simply put, the UN in its current form can't do anything.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/5/2009 9:00:38 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If there is anyone that would support a terrorist it would be Iran


Not the USA then, no.

Did you know the USA was providing funding for the *freedom fighters* organisation that bombed a mosque in Iran killing 11 people?

By the way, I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that Iran is providing material support to any organisation outside of Iran that might be construed as the least bit 'dodgy'.

Just like I never saw any real evidence that Saddam had WMD, that he had ties to Al queada or that he was trying to aquire materials for nuclear weapons.

your crappy corporate media sure convinced you lot though!


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By 2bdetermine on 2/4/2009 2:23:56 PM , Rating: 3
1) Last thing you want is a nuke key in the hand of a religious fanatic.

2) What are you whining about the economy? After all, you're living an American Dream. Big house, big car, money and greed running wild.

3) suck it up!


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Ammohunt on 2/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By 2bdetermine on 2/4/2009 3:15:20 PM , Rating: 5
"I love how Success=Greed with you people you must be Euro Trash or Canadian. "

Success=Stepping on others, taxpayer etc...
Success=Elected senator to do lobby for big corporations.
Success=Taxpayer money go to pay CEO bonus.

Need I go on...


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By dflynchimp on 2/5/2009 12:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that sort of "success" can only be attributed to a very small demographic of Americans. The 98% of us that are average day-job in, night-shift out PEOPLE scurrying about in our own pointless existence.

You're judging all of us based off the international image our admittedly capitalistic media and the big corporations give off, but the truth is that most Americans don't fall under that catagory.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By abzillah on 2/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By kyleb2112 on 2/4/2009 6:06:49 AM , Rating: 5
There ARE still Palestinians. If the balance of military power was suddenly reversed, would there be any Israelis? Israel has shown unprecedented restraint.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 7:32:06 AM , Rating: 4
They have. The fact that Israel hasn't said enough is enough and leveled Palastine, and Syria is a testament to their restraint. In their position, many other countries would have leveled them or taken over and declared martial law. See: Russia, China, US....


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By TheSpaniard on 2/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 7:57:13 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
sounds more like torture

Retaliation sounds like torture?

What does having 3000+ homemade rockets launched into your neighborhood every year sound like? A day at the beach?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By foolsgambit11 on 2/4/2009 1:18:05 PM , Rating: 4
Brings a whole new meaning to "there goes the neighborhood".

But I think your numbers are inflated. I don't think any single neighborhood has been hit with 3000+ rockets (homemade or otherwise) since the founding of Israel.

The situation is convoluted, of course - which side is retaliating against which?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Moishe on 2/4/2009 9:30:03 AM , Rating: 4
The IDF has used phosphorous responsibly and legally (i.e. as a smokescreen) just like every other army... and while you're at it why don't you bitch about the constant stream of rockets (some with phosphorous) that are targeted at Israeli civilians.

You're showing your a$$ by having a double standard.

Restraint is Israel having the power and the valid reason to annihilate their enemy and NOT doing it. Meanwhile, Hamas has no problem attacking from and hiding in schools, hospitals, and homes.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Pirks on 2/4/2009 2:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
Why does Israel refuse to accept full Palestinian autonomy?

Masher, please give us your insight on this.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 2:33:49 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not sure how much my "insight" is worth, but some of the land Israel has seized is very holy to them; they're not giving it up without a fight.

They're willing to return land such as the Gaza strip, but they're afraid if they allow it to become an independent nation, it'll soon become a military base from which attacks much more serious than a couple stray mortars will originate.

So they only allow partial autonomy, controlling the airspace, borders, waters, and other facets of the region, while giving it some slight measure of self-government. A solution that satisfies no one...and indeed, there isn't any solution that will do so.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Myg on 2/4/2009 8:45:02 PM , Rating: 3
There is little/nothing Isreal can do really, idealogically, geographically and politically.

This is the middle east we are talking about here, where physical strength and military prowess is what you are judged by (small examples: how highly Mohammed was praised for being a good military leader (even today)/ Iraqis cheering on US army/ tribalism being the call of the day/etc...).

If Isreal "turns the other cheek" they will probably get a knife in the back of the head. They are surrounded by people who are offended by their national identity.

The Palestinian situation is something only the Arab states have the ability to fix on short order, but they treat them like the bastards of the middle-east...

Probably because of the aforementioned prowess requirements (or lack of).


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/9/2009 9:34:41 AM , Rating: 2
have you noticed how the Israeli press police have been rating down every comment remotely negative of Israel or it's approach to foreign policy.

yes they are hiring bloggers to go out an manipulate news article comments too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/0...

quote:
Dear friends,

We hold the [sic] military supremacy, yet fail the battle over the international media. We need to buy time for the IDF to succeed, and the least we can do is spare some (additional) minutes on the net. The ministry of foreign affairs is putting great efforts in balancing the media, but we all know it's a battle of numbers. The more we post, blog, talkback, vote – the more likely we gain positive sentiment.

I was asked by the ministry of foreign affairs to arrange a network of volunteers, who are willing to contribute to this effort. If you're up to it you will receive a daily messages & media package as well as targets.

If you wish to participate, please respond to this email.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 11:33:17 AM , Rating: 5
Collateral damage is a fact of war. Frankly I have no qualms about one annihilating the other over there. 100lb bomb is restraint. They could be dropping 2000lb GBU's or JDAM's.

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the "think of the innocents" argument when retaliating with a show of force. The objective is to deliver an overwhelming response to any attack. The U.S., and others do this whenever they respond. Overwhelming superiority in the theatre of war, shock and awe, etc....

You don't lob rockets back when they are fired at you. You respond swiftly and with the biggest stick you can get your hands on. This lets them know, for damage they inflict on you, the consequences will be an order of magnitude higher.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By foolsgambit11 on 2/4/2009 1:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
Shock and awe works great in certain conflicts. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel has tried it several times before, to little effect. That fact co-opts the argument that the point of the invasion was as a deterrent. The removal of key Hamas leaders is a legitimate tactical goal. Although, at best, it provides only a temporary reprieve. Not only that, but it is far from clear that the Hamas leadership can actually control the rockets. Indeed, many analysts have said that Israel seems to have come to understand this fact in the wake of this most recent action. All things considered, though, Israel does feel that they made tangible tactical gains in their offensive.

The grounds for attacking Gaza were legitimate. But just because you have grounds for going to war doesn't mean that war is the best course of action. In this case, I think Israel felt that it was the best course of action based on the internal political goals more than military goals.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 1:50:56 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with your first paragraph, there is little doubt that Hamas has any control over its members firing rockets.

The second paragraph I have to ask the question, do you have a better idea then? It seems talks, peace, cease fires, bombs, rockets, assassinations, etc... have failed to produce longterm results.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 2:37:02 PM , Rating: 4
> "do you have a better idea then?"

We could go back to the original 1947 UN apportioning of the region, with Israel giving up Jerusalem into UN hands, and much of their remaining territory back to the Palestinians.

That would satisfy the Palestinians...but good luck getting Israel to agree.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 2:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
Considering all that has happened since then, it would be hard to "wipe the slate clean" and start over.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Steve1981 on 2/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By ekv on 2/4/2009 4:25:54 PM , Rating: 3
Wasn't there a U.N. resolution (248??) that says something to the effect that Palestinians ought to be relocated to Syria.

Of course, it is curious that most Arab countries in the Middle East talk long and loud about the poor Palestinians and how they are mistreated by Israel. Haven't seen one of the bastids step up to the plate and offer land. Funds by way of military assistance are provided but no land -- which would effectively solve the problem.

Palestinians played a large part in the destruction of Lebanon. It used to be a beautiful place. A girlfriend of mine was born there. She says that Palestinians bred like rats. They took over. And it was downhill from there. The interesting parallel is that in Europe, many a Muslim youth can be seen wearing a T-shirt that says something like "2030: and then we take over". Muslim birth-rate in Europe is like 6:1 over their whitey hosts.

Oh, and lastly, if anybody is complaining that Syria is largely desert and uninhabitable, etc. Look at what Israel has done with their desert. They are using farming technology to reclaim the land. Don't see too much from Muslims in the way of technology. Well, except for novel suicide bombs and that ilk.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By foolsgambit11 on 2/4/2009 9:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Haven't seen one of the bastids step up to the plate and offer land.
Actually, at least two of them did. Jordan officially gave the West Bank, which was granted to them by the original UN apportionment, and Egypt has (at least de facto) given them the Gaza Strip. The problem is that Israel insists on controlling lands that, by international agreement, don't belong to them. Then, like most religious states, democratic or not, they marginalize those who don't ascribe to the state religion. They're better than most religious states outside Europe, but still not good. Israel refuses to be a secular democracy, and they insist on discriminating on the basis of religion.

Don't get me wrong though, Israel's got a lot going for it (democracy, for instance), and some of my Arab Israeli friends say that they love living there. Of course, they live in the US now, so I don't know how much they really mean that.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Myg on 2/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By ekv on 2/5/2009 2:59:02 AM , Rating: 2
Good God, man, buck up. I agree with your analysis, but you're not going to simply lie down and give up to the radical Muslims, are you?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Myg on 2/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Myg on 2/4/2009 9:07:13 PM , Rating: 4
Well, unless Islam gets their act together and starts outlining what is doctrine and what ain't, this is gonna continue...

Its impossible to expect people who read "Love and peace" in one passage, then "Destory and conquer" in the other to know what the heck to do when the pressures they deal with get to them.

Hamas can't fix the problem on its own unless a dictator arises who defines everything by his interpretation of the Quran. Which could probably lead to genocide/cleansing in such a volatile environment.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By foolsgambit11 on 2/4/2009 9:38:32 PM , Rating: 3
There are no good ideas to reach a solution to the crisis. There are certainly no quick fixes. But I'll try to lay out a potential roadmap.

While military solutions will always be ineffective (unless "absolute" action is taken), political solutions are only impossible in the current climate. The fact is that a negotiated settlement cannot be realized while lawlessness continues in the Palestinian territories. If there isn't an effective government to enforce a peace, no agreement will last long. Enforcement within the Palestinian territories cannot be the responsibility of Israel, since that will provoke a backlash. But monetary and moral support from the world, including Israel, for a duly elected government would be acceptable to the Palestinians.

Unfortunately, this means the world (especially America and Israel) will have to swallow its pride and work directly with Hamas. Not exclusively, mind you, but within the framework of the Palestinian government. All of these safeguards and caveats put in place to sidestep the members of Hamas who are part of the PA have to go. It is time gloss over their warmongers' and ideologues' rhetoric. It is time to be pragmatic.

I understand that it is difficult to ask everyone but the Palestinians to take the first steps, and to be steadfast even though the Palestinians will not lay down their arms forthwith. I know that there is a very real risk that a democratically-elected Palestinian leadership will end up making its appeal to the baser elements in Palestinian society. But just as attacking Hamas militarily only militarizes more of the Palestinian people, these attempts to politically marginalize Hamas only give them more political power.

Once the Palestinian government is actually strong enough to be a real State, then serious negotiations can take place. I know this plan seems overly-idealistic, and that people will say that it has been tried before. But while all other paths have been given serious effort, attempts to legitimize an effective Palestinian government have always been half-hearted.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2009 7:09:08 AM , Rating: 2
Won't happen. The US and Israel will not deal with a terrorist organization. Wishful thinking otherwise.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/5/2009 7:35:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Collateral damage is a fact of war.


collateral damage? they killed more civilians than militants. That's not collateral damage, that's indifference to civilian casualties.

quote:
Frankly I have no qualms about one annihilating the other over there. 100lb bomb is restraint. They could be dropping 2000lb GBU's or JDAM's.


That was a typo, I meant to type 1000lb bombs. It's laughable, they dropped this bomb to kill one guy, who was at home with his wife and family. The IDF then has the gall to turn around and claim they are using civilians as shields. He was AT HOME.

quote:
Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the "think of the innocents" argument when retaliating with a show of force. The objective is to deliver an overwhelming response to any attack. The U.S., and others do this whenever they respond. Overwhelming superiority in the theatre of war, shock and awe, etc....


History has shown this doesn't work, and that other solutions are better.

quote:
You don't lob rockets back when they are fired at you. You respond swiftly and with the biggest stick you can get your hands on. This lets them know, for damage they inflict on you, the consequences will be an order of magnitude higher.


That will not stop them. The more people you kill the more the rest of them want to kill you.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2009 3:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He was AT HOME.

So what? Why would anyone care if hes at home or at his terrorist compound planning the next attack? Your occupation does not stop at the door.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/9/2009 5:01:51 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So what? Why would anyone care if hes at home or at his terrorist compound planning the next attack? Your occupation does not stop at the door.


The point was you can't turn around and say he's using civilians as shields because you bomb him when he's at home.

Targteting anyone at their house while they are in bed shows a total lack of interest in reducing civilian casualties, however.

why don't they just target this 'terrorist compound' you think he trots off to plot attacks in every day?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By FITCamaro on 2/4/2009 6:39:29 AM , Rating: 5
No instead they should just let themselves continue to be bombed by groups that seek their destruction, never retaliating. Because diplomacy is always the only answer right?

Israel has the right to defend itself. And war isn't pretty. Israel did it the way its supposed to be done. Without regard for how things look on the news.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By theapparition on 2/4/2009 7:50:36 AM , Rating: 5
Uneducated much???

First thing your incorrect on. Aegis systems cost in the billions.

Second thing. Rockets launched from a small distance have virtually no travel time and reaction time for such systems would most likely be inadaquate. Compare that to missiles launched from 300-400 miles away in the case of naval attacks.

Third thing. And this is the most important. Since I'll take it you've never seen a full Aegis deployment (BTW, I have), it rains down shrapnel over several square miles. That's OK in the open ocean, but would be catastrophic for your civilian population that you're supposedly protecting.

quote:
It can be done, but they don't..... Why?

So your OK with being attacked every day? Let see, your neighboor who hates you takes a shot at you every day as your leaving for work. You think the only thing you need to do is put on some kevlar. While that may stop the bullet from killing you, it doesn't solve the problem.

While I don't agree with many of Israel's policies, it's clear that they have the right to defend themselves. If these militant groups had a single sense of decency, they wouldn't launch thier rockets from schools and hospitals.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 10:54:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's clear that they have the right to defend themselves.
The Palestinians surely do. Living your entire life in the squalor of a mud-filled refugee camp, having to continually ask an Israeli soldier for permission to come and go, while Israeli settlers build new homes on your ancestral farm, it's tempting to strike back every now and then.

You might stop to think sometime why a substantial number of Israelis refuse to serve in the occupied terrorities, and support reurning at least a portion of the land to its original owners.

With all due respect, you might also want to read about the formation of the Jewish state, the original acts of terrorism by Jewish Zionists (against everyone from British troops to Swedish diplomats to the Palestinians to even their own people, to better motivate them) Look at the original UN proposal for the creation of the Jewish state, and see how much more land Israel actually wound up forcibly claiming. Look at where those millions of refugees actually fled from, and why.

Finally, as someone who has castigated the US many times for "going against the world" in invading Iraq, you might want to consider why the US has so often been the only nation in the world to vote against UN resolutions condemning Israel for its actions. Even in Iraq, we managed to convince 40-odd other nations we were doing the right thing. Why can't we seem to convince even one about Israel?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By crystal clear on 2/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By theapparition on 2/4/2009 11:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
Are you directing this at me? I have no idea why since nothing in my post stated that I support Israel's politics.

Believe me, I know plenty of the history of Israel. That's why I stated that I don't agree with most of thier policies. The lines from 1967 should be respected and expansion settlements outlawed. A palestinian state needs to exist.

quote:
The Palestinians surely do [have the right to defend themselves].

Defense does not include randomly targeted rocket attacks. Surely, you can see the difference.

quote:
Finally, as someone who has castigated the US many times for "going against the world" in invading Iraq, you might want to consider....

Once again, are you directing this at me? If so, you are certainly mistaken. Because I don't think you'll find a single post that expressed that opinion.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 12:15:11 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Defense does not include randomly targeted rocket attacks.
Not according to the Hague and Geneva Conventions at least-- but those apply only to its signatories, autonomous nations with standing armies.

An occupied people always resorts to guerilla warfare. It was instrumental in Ireland, India, and other nations gaining their independence from Britain, the French resistance conducted guerilla warfare against the Germans in WW2, as did the Chinese against Japanese occupiers in Manchuria.

Is guerilla warfare justified? I don't think the question itself makes sense. The word implies an independent, rational assessment of the term "justice", which isn't applicable in such cases. There is no solution to the Palestinian conflict that will be perfectly just to everyone involved. Redrawing the lines at the 1967 boundaries is probably the best overall solution, but to claim it means "justice for all" is far off the mark.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By theapparition on 2/4/2009 12:28:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
An occupied people always resorts to guerilla warfare.

I have no issue with guerilla warfare conducted primarily against military or political targets. It's when you set a bomb at a dance club (example) that I draw the line with.

quote:
Redrawing the lines at the 1967 boundaries is probably the best overall solution, but to claim it means "justice for all" is far off the mark.

Agreed, there is no perfect solution, but this is what must happen for any semblence of peace.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Grast on 2/4/2009 4:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
I am the first to say that I am some what ignorant of the complete history of how Isreal came into existance.

The damage is done in regards to previous conflicts by Isreal.

IMHO, nothing good will continue as the status quo. If Isreal is unlike/unwilling to give up land which from its point of view won during the defense of Isreal, I believe they should just cut out the middleman.

as you said masher, they should take complete ownership of all disputted Palestinian land. No more comprimise. They should offer programs for citizenship and harsh punishment (exile) for terrorist activities. The Palestinians which stay can live with it or get kicked out.

If that means that all of the Palestinian's are moved to Siria, Iraq, Iran, turkey or what ever..... So be it.

It is like crap or get off the pot, you either end this conflict now or give up and let the Palestinian's have the land they want and reconise as a valid country/state.

No more simi police state and let the Palestinian's start taking ownership of their own future.

Later


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By rohith10 on 2/5/2009 12:42:54 PM , Rating: 3
Pardon me, but when did India achieve independence via guerilla warfare?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Steve1981 on 2/4/2009 12:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Palestinians surely do. Living your entire life in the squalor of a mud-filled refugee camp, having to continually ask an Israeli soldier for permission to come and go, while Israeli settlers build new homes on your ancestral farm, it's tempting to strike back every now and then.


Tempting? Yes. Ultimately useful? No.

I'd liken the Palestinians to a man locked away in a mental facility from which he cannot escape. Ultimately it makes no difference how he got there. Ultimately it makes no difference if the guards provoke him. The man's only real path to freedom is to prove to the doctors that he is sane. He won't get that opportunity if he keeps responding to every little provocation of the guards.

To apply that to the Palestinians... Stop smuggling in weapons. Cease acts of violence, regardless of whether they are "justified". If you want to smuggle something in, try video cameras. Let the world watch. Wield the weapon of shame, something vastly more powerful than rockets.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/4/2009 11:43:21 AM , Rating: 1
Uneducated much???
First thing your incorrect on. Aegis systems cost in the billions.


Well I was thinking of the goalkeeper really, which has a unit cost of $16m USD. The WHOLE aegis system is very expensive, but that involves a lot more than the gun turret and spotting radar unit you see on the ship.

Second thing. Rockets launched from a small distance have virtually no travel time and reaction time for such systems would most likely be inadaquate.

Utter rubbish, go youtube a video of these things in action. The goalkeeper and Aegis are very similar, but the goalkeeper has a maximum range of 2km, can rotate fully in 3.8 seconds or so and is capable of taking out missiles going at mach 2. Compare that to the rockets fired at Israel. There is no comparison, the goalkeeper could shoot them down with one eye shut.

Compare that to missiles launched from 300-400 miles away in the case of naval attacks.

That only get detected by the short range defence system when 100 miles away and only fired at when within 2km. Yeah AWACS helps, but if the gun cant fire that far, what use it is it for the gun to detect it that early? except for allowing for other countermeasures of course.

Third thing. And this is the most important. Since I'll take it you've never seen a full Aegis deployment (BTW, I have), it rains down shrapnel over several square miles. That's OK in the open ocean, but would be catastrophic for your civilian population that you're supposedly protecting.

oh noes, shrapnel over several square miles. Good job there is this pre-existing no-mans land that the IDF shoots anyone seen in dead.

So your OK with being attacked every day?

The only time that is true is when Israel is bombing the hell out of them. Once this new fracas started there had been no israeli deaths from rocket fire in over a year.

Let see, your neighboor who hates you takes a shot at you every day as your leaving for work.

been reading too much IDF propaganda havent you.

You think the only thing you need to do is put on some kevlar. While that may stop the bullet from killing you, it doesn't solve the problem.

Oh right, because the gazan peopel are gonna love you even more when you kill thousands of them arent they.

While I don't agree with many of Israel's policies, it's clear that they have the right to defend themselves.

This is not self defence, that's the point.

If these militant groups had a single sense of decency, they wouldn't launch thier rockets from schools and hospitals.

If the IDF had any sense of decency they wouldn't then destroy the hospitals and schools afterwards because the militants that fired those rockets *ARE NOT THERE ANYMORE*. Not to mention that I bet half the time that's just an excuse they've come up with.

What stupid idiot fires a rocket, that he knows will be retaliated for, and then waits around for the artillery shells to land on his position?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By theapparition on 2/4/2009 11:58:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Utter rubbish

I suggest you look up specs rather than rely on you-tube for your facts.

quote:
oh noes, shrapnel over several square miles. Good job there is this pre-existing no-mans land that the IDF shoots anyone seen in dead.

What? English dude....English.

quote:
This is not self defence, that's the point.

Than what is it. Delibrite provokation.

quote:
What stupid idiot fires a rocket, that he knows will be retaliated for, and then waits around for the artillery shells to land on his position?

And what idiot lets rockets be fired and doesn't retaliate.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Amiga500 on 2/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 2:54:49 PM , Rating: 3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_CIWS

I just don't see that system stopping rocket attacks from the borders. It seems to be severely limited especially if you fired a barrage of missiles.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/5/2009 6:12:21 AM , Rating: 1
Severely limited? it can track 18 targets at once and will kill an sn-22 sunburn, perhaps the most advanced anti ship missile in the world (or at least was) in 5.5 seconds after detection at 30km. That thing cruises at over mach 2.

If you think a couple of thses couldn't stop a barrage of rockets then you'd be wrong.

They'd have to fire so many, all at the same time to overload it, aint gonna happen.

I mean.. what is it that severely lmits it exactly?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2009 7:12:18 AM , Rating: 3
How about the ammunition attachment. It can't keep up a rate of fire necessary to knock down a dozen rockets without a 9 minute reload. By the way, this uses standard bullets to knock down rockets/missiles. It's nothing but a Phalanx with a larger gun. I'm sorry, but this thing isn't going to stop much in a barrage. It's clearly designed to stop half a dozen or so missiles/rockets and that's it.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/5/2009 8:41:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
How about the ammunition attachment.


Yes it needs reloading, and?

quote:
It can't keep up a rate of fire necessary to knock down a dozen rockets without a 9 minute reload.

yes it could, why would they bother equipping it to track 18 targets if it can only fire at 10 of them?

quote:
By the way, this uses standard bullets to knock down rockets/missiles. It's nothing but a Phalanx with a larger gun. I'm sorry, but this thing isn't going to stop much in a barrage. It's clearly designed to stop half a dozen or so missiles/rockets and that's it.


Exactly how many rockets do you think they are going to be firing over? from the sound of it you think they all line up and fire 500 in one go.

Set up a perimiter around the one city that gets hit by gazan rockets in Isreal, of about 5 goalkeepers and not a single gazan rocket will make it there. Even if they fired 50 simultaneously.

Even if one gets through, bear in mind that most of these rockets miss everything and land nowhere special. It's the odd one that scores a hit and even then it's debatable if anyone is gonna get hurt.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By theapparition on 2/4/2009 4:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
No need to since I used to work for Raytheon and have far more intimate knowledge than you do. Patriots are not effective for close range attacks.

But thems intra-web facts can be darn neer misleeding.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By ekv on 2/4/2009 4:33:37 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, a good buddy of mine works for Raytheon (infrared something-or-other, if you know what I mean).

I hadn't heard about GoalKeeper, though it simply looks like Phalanx. Good for short-range, like on a ship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6nm-6eCzM

I personally was thinking more along the lines of THEL/MTHEL (though I can't seem to find the video at this time)

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm

There is also the Arrows

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060913...

Each has their place in a tiered anti-missile defense.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/5/2009 7:15:38 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that the THEL/MTHEL system would likely be the better bet, but it would depend on how quickly the US can get it into mass production.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By theapparition on 2/5/2009 7:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
While impressive, everyone is missing the point. Defensive systems like Aegis, Patriot, and Goalkeeper are designed to protect a single important target, like a ship.

Patriots were utilized in Israel during the first Gulf War, but only to protect long range attacks on thier major cities.

With the randomness and massive border to protect, you'd have to deploy goalkeepers every several miles, otherwise your shield is ineffective for short range attacks.

Let's face it, a patriot missle can't intercept a rocket with a travel time of 30 seconds when it's a minute away. Just can't be done. Only if you string massive amounts of batteries along your border can it be accomplished. And at several million a pop, now you're in the billions.

That's why I've stated from the beginning that Patiots/Goalkeeper are not effective for short range attacks. I'll clarify that statement saying they are not effective for short range attacks unless the attack is directly at them. That's the only way they can possibly intercept in time.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/5/2009 8:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
The rocket fire from gaza has been targetted at the only city the rockets can reach, so defend that city and embargo all arms supplies so they can't build better rockets.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 7:51:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is instigating a press blockade the way a country goes about 'not being concerned about how it look son the news'?

Yes. "The Press" is full of people with agenda's anyways. Their job isn't to report the news, its to report what they want, how they want, and accuse those they want. Israel is well within its right to boot out foreign news reporters. Frankly reporters have no place in a war zone.

quote:
If Israel gave back the land they've stolen and settled, stopped bulldozing palestinian houses and stop using white phosphorous shells on civilians then maybe they'll stop trying to kill Israelis.

They have been trying to kill Israelis long before Israel started bulldozing houses or firing white phosphorous shells. I also don't see Israel firing rockets over the border every few days when a "cease fire" is in place. I sure as hell see Hamas & Co. doing it however. Here's a new idea, actually honor a cease fire and stick to it. Stop using it to rearm and rebuild in between each round of attacks.

quote:
I've always said, If Israel was really serious about peace (and not agressive expansionism) then it wouldn't spend billions bombing the hell out of it's neighbour to stop 5 rockets coming over. It'd spend a tenth that installing systems to shoot down these missiles before they even get over to Israel.

No. If they were truly serious about it, they would have leveled Palestine by now. Setting up defenses on the borders to shoot down rockets each day is a recipe in stupidity. If all Israel did was play defensively, Hamas & Co, would simply increase the number of rockets being fired to overwhelm any defense system, and cause more damage. No, the best action is to retaliate and inflict damage, that way Hamas & Co, has to play defensively as well. If you only defend, you limit yourself and eventually lose. This is Strategy and Tactics 101 here.

quote:
If you don't think it can be done, go and read up on the aegis and goalkeeper defence systems employed on naval vessels (those things vulnerable to missiles). It can be done, but they don't..... Why?

It sends the wrong message. It sends the message that Israel will simply turn the other cheek and take the beatings as they are dished out. It's far more effective to shoot back and inflict heavy damage. Sends the message "Don't screw with us or we will screw right back". Kind of like the same message Russia, China, Britain, USA, and other countries send when they are attacked.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/4/2009 12:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. "The Press" is full of people with agenda's anyways. Their job isn't to report the news, its to report what they want, how they want, and accuse those they want. Israel is well within its right to boot out foreign news reporters. Frankly reporters have no place in a war zone.

AAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAA HAHAHAHAAH AH AHAHAA

Thanks for that laugh.

What is actually true is that the press are full of people that might expose what the IDF is doing and let the truth get out. Hence they are banned.

They have been trying to kill Israelis long before Israel started bulldozing houses or firing white phosphorous shells.

Really? because Israel was stealing land the day it was set up. No I don't mean the land it was granted under the UN mandate, I mean the extra land it immediately took.

I also don't see Israel firing rockets over the border every few days when a "cease fire" is in place.

Israel DOES violate the cease fire, has done already and always did. not to mention it still opresses them. If some neighbouring country stopped me leaving my village to go to the next and see my dying relative I'd sure as hell want revenge.

I sure as hell see Hamas & Co. doing it however.

yeah well when one side has the media monopoly then opinions like this undoubtedly form.

Here's a new idea, actually honor a cease fire and stick to it.

That's a good idea, Israel should probably try doing that sometime.

Stop using it to rearm and rebuild in between each round of attacks.

When you just damn well know that another attack is coming whether you re-arm or not then I'd chose the option where I have something to fight back with.

No. If they were truly serious about it, they would have leveled Palestine by now.

How the F*CK is obliterating another country 'making peace'?

how retarded can you get!??!

Setting up defenses on the borders to shoot down rockets each day is a recipe in stupidity.

yeah, beause it would work and Israel wouldn't be able to get away with its agressive expansionism anymore.

If all Israel did was play defensively, Hamas & Co, would simply increase the number of rockets being fired to overwhelm any defense system, and cause more damage.

When they find that hundreds of rockets a day isn't enough, they'll give up and try a different tactic.

No, the best action is to retaliate and inflict damage, that way Hamas & Co, has to play defensively as well. If you only defend, you limit yourself and eventually lose. This is Strategy and Tactics 101 here.

They could kill as many gazans as they like, that course of action will NEVER EVER EVER lead to the gazans accepting Israels hold over their land and their people. That is what israel claims it wants and they will never get it the way they go about it.

It sends the wrong message. It sends the message that Israel will simply turn the other cheek and take the beatings as they are dished out.

Your trousers are muffling your voice. What 'beating' has Israel ever taken? the list of Israeli civilian csualties because of palestinian attacks... well Israel probably killed more civilians this time round than gazans have EVER killed israeli civilians.

It's far more effective to shoot back and inflict heavy damage.

Not when there is nothing left to damage except PEOPLE and their HOMES.

Sends the message "Don't screw with us or we will screw right back".

WRONG, it sends the message of 'we ARE the monsters those hamas people tell you we are'

Kind of like the same message Russia, China, Britain, USA, and other countries send when they are attacked.

ah, I'm glad you mention that. Far more professional a terrorist organisation than hamas would be the IRA. The IRA had a whole bombing campaign across britain and killed a lot more people than hamas did.

When did we carpet bomb Ireland?
When did we totally occupy and restrict movement of civilians in Ireland?

Never, because it was unneccesary. We did send over troops... that resulted in Bloody Sunday which REALLY helped the situation didn't it.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 1:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is actually true is that the press are full of people that might expose what the IDF is doing and let the truth get out. Hence they are banned.

Riiiiight. Because Israel really cares what a bunch of BBC and CNN reporters think?

quote:
Israel DOES violate the cease fire, has done already and always did. not to mention it still opresses them. If some neighbouring country stopped me leaving my village to go to the next and see my dying relative I'd sure as hell want revenge.

Right, so lets get to crux of your statement there. Israel opresses them so its ok. Your true colors show at last.

quote:
yeah well when one side has the media monopoly then opinions like this undoubtedly form.

Hamas clearly has the monopoly on the media. I can't count the number of "poor innocent children, etc.." I hear about every day on CNN and the BCC and how they were innocent victims of Israeli rocket fire, bullets, etc.... Get real.

quote:
When you just damn well know that another attack is coming whether you re-arm or not then I'd chose the option where I have something to fight back with.

So your telling me Hamas can predict the future now eh? Alright, tell them to get me next weeks lottery numbers.

quote:
How the F*CK is obliterating another country 'making peace'?

Extremely easily. It takes 2 to fight, eliminating Player 1 or 2 results in peace. It's simple mathematics really. 2-1 = 1.

quote:
yeah, beause it would work and Israel wouldn't be able to get away with its agressive expansionism anymore.

I see Israel building fences and pulling back more than expanding, but thanks for playing.

quote:
They could kill as many gazans as they like, that course of action will NEVER EVER EVER lead to the gazans accepting Israels hold over their land and their people.

If there is no gazans left, I would say that works out to the same end result no?

quote:
Not when there is nothing left to damage except PEOPLE and their HOMES.

Clearly that isn't enough to get them to knock it off with the rocket attacks.

quote:
WRONG, it sends the message of 'we ARE the monsters those hamas people tell you we are'

Considering that is taught in schools from a young age, and reinforced by teaching and actions at home, Israel not responding would mean "We're winning, those evil zionists are on the run, huzzah!". I prefer the retaliation method myself.

quote:
The IRA had a whole bombing campaign across britain and killed a lot more people than hamas did.

There were quite a few IRA members killed and/or arrested during that timeframe as well.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 1:43:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If there is no gazans left, I would say that works out to the same end result no?
Sounds like you're attempting to justify genocide, and the intentional killing of millions of civilians. Care to explain that position?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 1:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
From the sake of technicality, removing 1 member of a 2 party conflict, tends to remove the conflict. Quite simply put, if the Gazans were annihilated (Or the Israeli's) the conflict would be over.

I'm not justifying the intentional killing of millions of civilians, but if everytime the bodycounts are in the "thousands" (I believe these numbers to be grossly exaggerated) then the birth rate would likely not be as high to offset the number killed in conflicts each year. Over time, the population would dwindle and/or become extinct.

I'm not advocating to nuke their little province and wipe out all life in the area, but if the conflicts keep up at their present pace, and assuming the death counts are 100% accurate, then its only a matter of time before the yearly deathcount vastly outpaces the birthrate. Population decline would eventually lead to the end of the conflict and/or end of their civilization.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 2:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
then the birth rate would likely not be as high to offset the number killed in conflicts each year.
There are over 4 million Palestinian refugees. Using their published birthrate of 35.9/1K, that's 140,000 new problems each year, a value far larger than the number who die through both conflict and natural causes.

The problem isn't going to die out...not unless Israel begins using nerve gas and nuclear weapons.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 2:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
Or unless it escalates into full scale war. Hrm only 4 million though eh? I thought the number was higher.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 1:57:52 PM , Rating: 1
Sure, then its one less issue we have to deal with. :-)


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By blaktron on 2/4/2009 5:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
We also forget that the IRA used to bomb EMPTY buildings whenever possible, and tried their best NOT to kill people. Their goal was to rid themselves of British government, not to kill all British people. Hamas and their allies want to kill ALL Israelis. You cannot just fix hate like that, you MUST respond to it and destroy it. There are children there shooting rockets at Israel being taught that that is the path to heaven. Put your soldiers in uniform and get them out of civilian populations if you want to fight a war without civilian casualties. Also, if they had spent the aid money we sent on food and medicine instead of weapons, they would still be receiving foreign aid, which they are not.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 5:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We also forget that the IRA [tried ]their best NOT to kill people
You mean, except for the IRA assassination squads, their habit of targetting politicians, judges, police officers, the hundreds of innocent civilians killed by one IRA faction or another? Possibly you discount their murders carried out for nothing more than religious reasons, such as the Kingsmill Massacre?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By blaktron on 2/4/2009 5:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
yes, there was lots of killing, but they're avowed purpose for being was freedom, not murder. The Hamas charter says it would like Israel "replaced" by an Islamic Palestinian nation. Thats the political wing too, not even the military wing. That sounds like they want to get rid of the Jews. If the IRA had wanted England AND Ireland and was firing rockets from schools in Dublin into London, then the comparison would be apt.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 6:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
yes, there was lots of killing
If you judge by the total number of civilians killed, the IRA was certainly much more succesful than Hamas ever thought about.

Hamas wants the same thing the IRA did-- their land back. The difference between the two situations is that England, prior to invading Ireland, actually had its own country.

In any case, Hamas has repeatedly stated they would accept the 1967 lines, which is considerably friendlier to Israel than the original 1948 UN apportioning. I think that's a more than acceptable compromise...but one that, so far, Israel has staunchly refused.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Keeir on 2/4/2009 7:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
I was under the impression that the IRA killed approx 600 civilians, approx 600 British Army, approx 300 Police, and approx 30-40 politicians over roughly 30 years.

Hamas has only existed for 20 some years and was not the major player that the IRA was until quite recently.

But clearly, from Irsaeli Casulaty numbers for the Second Intifada only (2001 and on), 719 Civilian Deaths to 335 military deaths + 1,000s of rocket and mortar attacks per year that Hamas and others have been as successful as the IRA in causing civilian deaths although the IRA was clearly much more efficient in thier stated goals.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/5/2009 6:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Riiiiight. Because Israel really cares what a bunch of BBC and CNN reporters think?


Obviously, otherwise they would allow them to report on what is happening over there.

quote:
Right, so lets get to crux of your statement there. Israel opresses them so its ok. Your true colors show at last.


Your assinine nature is showing through. You have put words in my mouth, I never said anything was 'ok'. Take some reading classes.

quote:
Hamas clearly has the monopoly on the media. I can't count the number of "poor innocent children, etc.." I hear about every day on CNN and the BCC and how they were innocent victims of Israeli rocket fire, bullets, etc.... Get real.


WHAT? what means do they have to influence the media? they are a bunch of guys surrounded by barbed wire you moron.

And you can't count the number of innocent children that have died in gaza because THE NUMBER IS SO HIGH. If they are not innocent then what are these CHILDREN guilty of? Being an arab?

quote:
So your telling me Hamas can predict the future now eh? Alright, tell them to get me next weeks lottery numbers.


When the actions of another are so mind numbingly predictable then yes. They know damn well Israel will not uphold it's end of the bargain because they NEVER HAVE.

No lottery number predictions required.

quote:
Extremely easily. It takes 2 to fight, eliminating Player 1 or 2 results in peace. It's simple mathematics really. 2-1 = 1.


Right, exterminate them, that's the path to peace. An austrian bloke said that once.

quote:
I see Israel building fences and pulling back more than expanding, but thanks for playing.


Right now they are pulling back because they are right inside the country. Try to keep up. Instead pay attention to what their settlers do.

quote:
If there is no gazans left, I would say that works out to the same end result no?


If that's a valid and acceptable solution then why isn't the annihilation of Israel an acceptable solution?

Oh, that concept is abhorrent, but its A-OK to talk about the annihilation of these other people because... well they aren't proper humans are they. Go back to your nazi hidie hole.

quote:
Clearly that isn't enough to get them to knock it off with the rocket attacks.


No, in fact it intensifies their efforts with the rockets, DUH. perhaps if Israel abided by past agreements they might find the rocket attacks reducing.

quote:
Considering that is taught in schools from a young age, and reinforced by teaching and actions at home, Israel not responding would mean "We're winning, those evil zionists are on the run, huzzah!". I prefer the retaliation method myself.


WHAT SCHOOLS? They are all BURNING YOU IDIOT. Thousands of children are homoless and orphaned now, nobody is teaching them SH!T. The only thing they are learning is that bullets and tank shells hurt.

quote:
There were quite a few IRA members killed and/or arrested during that timeframe as well


How many artillery shells did we fire at Ireland?
How many fighter jets were used?
How many 1000lb bombs did they drop on ireland?
How many tanks did we send over?
How many schools, hospitals, UN agencies or power stations did we destroy?

P-E-R-S-P-E-C-T-I-V-E


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By FITCamaro on 2/4/2009 2:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip. When they left it was a very nice area with luxury homes. Now its like a third world country.

Hamas responded to the gesture with moving their rocket launchers closer to Israel's border.

Yes Israel is the bad guy here. Fact is that if Hamas stopped firing rockets at Israeli cities, Israel wouldn't be in Gaza. But enough was enough, and now they're kicking their ass. As they should.

And honestly I'm all for just letting the Middle East duke it out amongst themselves. Israel will kick the sh*t out of all of them and it'll be over. Israel will end up owning a large portion of the Middle East (at least the parts that aren't glowing) and all that oil will make its way to the US. They'll be even more indebted to us than they are now.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 3:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip. When they left it was a very nice area with luxury homes. Now its like a third world country
Considering their "pullout" consisted of maintaining a continual blockade of Gaza's air, water, and land borders, and a de facto strangulation of all trade and commerce, its hardly surprising that the region deteriorated.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/9/2009 9:40:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And honestly I'm all for just letting the Middle East duke it out amongst themselves.


It'll never be a 'fight amongst themselves' whilst the USA gives them millions of dollars a day to carry on doing this stuff.

hehe, not to mention the other surrounding countries it gives aid to.

I agree, it would be a good idea for us westerners to stop playing god with the middle east. If Israel stopped getting the financial support from the USA, along with the use of the USAs security council veto then I think their attitude in the middle east over there would change fairly quickly.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Moishe on 2/4/2009 9:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
You need to read some history books and get a clue about what has happened in regards to Israel's history during the 20th century.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Regs on 2/4/2009 10:13:33 AM , Rating: 2
Just 40-50 years ago we wouldn't let blacks into our schools. The local law enforcement would cover up murders against their kind and we would burn crosses on their front lawns. The blacks did not rise as one in a civil war or crusade. They did not rebel against the US government and decide to hold land that's they say was rightfully there's. They actually became apart of the country through peaceful acts (mostly) even with all the prejudice and hatred against them. We've come so far and it took many decades but as you can see we're actually making a lot of progress.

Then you have Israel. You add a bunch of radical religious fanatics in the mix on "holy land" and it all goes to hell. In reality they are just an egotistical and maniacal idealist battling it out for ultimate supremacy. The Palestine's are not looking for peace because they always wanted to be segregated within their own country. The price of forced segregation is constant civil war, innocents dead, and collateral damage..and for what? For the word of God? God did not want it this way. The Palestine's are fighting for a cause that died years ago. Apparently god's will is something they can't comprehend.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By aegisofrime on 2/4/2009 9:57:48 AM , Rating: 4
Israel did not steal any land. Israel won them fair and square when the Arab states tried to exterminate Israel. If it's anyone fault, it's the Arab states.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 11:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Israel did not steal any land. Israel won them fair and square when the Arab states tried to exterminate Israel. If it's anyone fault, it's the Arab states
To see how ridiculous this is, let's use an analogy. Mexico invades Texas. The US, in repulsing the Mexican army, also decides to confiscate the home of every black family in Texas -- and the bordering states of Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Louisiana as well. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Let's also not forget the sequence of events that led to the 1948 Arab Israeli war. Claiming the attacks were wholly unprovoked is to deny the facts of history.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By maven81 on 2/4/2009 12:46:55 PM , Rating: 3
You've already proven time and again that you don't know history. But your analogy is frankly idiotic.
The correct analogy would be Pakistan attacks India. India fights back and captures East Pakistan. East Pakistan becomes Bangladesh. Now in a hypothetical Bangladesh decides to launch rockets into India.

Here you get all the factors, former British rule. Arbitrarily drawn borders. People with similar ethnic backgrounds. A similar force difference (Bangladesh compared to India).
That hypothetical does not look so simple now does it?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 12:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The correct analogy would be Pakistan attacks India. India fights back and captures East Pakistan.
Oops, wrong on a few points. The most important is that, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Israel didn't capture land from Jordan and Egypt -- it took land from the Palestinian civilians who fled both the war, and the ethnic cleansing they feared from Jewish nationalist groups like Irgun and the Stern Gang.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By maven81 on 2/4/2009 1:28:09 PM , Rating: 1
Even if that was true (which it's not, because there was no Palestinian state). It's the 1967 war where Israel captured territory from Jordan and Egypt. So what are you talking about? Israel did in fact capture territory in a war.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 1:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oops again. First, if you're talking about the 1967 war, you're forgetting that Israel initiated the attacks, not the Arabs. You're also forgetting that the Palestinian refugee problem has already existed for 20 years prior to this.

Lastly, your comment about there being no Palestine state in 1948 is an utter non sequitor. Palestinians had lived there for centuries; they were displaced by Jewish forces. Also, remember that the UN apportioned a Palestinian state at the same time it did a Jewish one.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By geddarkstorm on 2/4/2009 3:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
True, Israel did launch a pre-emptive strike on Egypt's airforce. However, you overlook the fact that in the month previous, Egypt had expelled the United Nation's Emergency Force from the Sunai peninsula which had been there to keep peace since 1957, a decade earlier. Egypt then massed an army of at least 100k troops on Israel's border and blocked off the Straits of Tiran from all Israeli ships, thus cutting off Isreal's only Indian Ocean seaport. Egypt clearly meant to start and go to war, Israel only struck first to prevent an inevitable Egyption attack and give themselves a fighting chance. So, it's a gross oversimplification to say Israel started the war.

It's hard to say what should be done with land won in war. But, Palestine was never a state other than the city states, which lined the Mediterranean, during the time of the kingdom of Israel (long before Islam, so Israel is just as "arab" as the "arabs" that held those ancestral lands if we put our start point nearly 3000 years ago. Islamic "arabs" are a new phenomenon in relative terms). Other Arab powers have ruled over that land only after Rome fell, Islam rose, and the Israelites were scattered; the Israelites had always been there previous, just conquered centuries before by Babylon, Persia, Greece, then Rome. Israel's current borders, southward not eastward, are beyond their average historical bounds however. Should Israel give all the land back? They did pull out of some areas and nothing got better for anyone, which a person can argue was due to them not doing enough, or too much.

I have no opinion on it to voice, just putting down facts, since no opinions of mine could ever change the conflict nor the price of the tea of China.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 3:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
True, Israel did launch a pre-emptive strike on Egypt's airforce...Israel only struck first to prevent an inevitable Egyption attack
Did you forget that those actions were themselves precipitated by Egypt being attacked in 1956 and the Sinai Peninsula occupied? Or the very public statements by Israeli politicians such as Ben Gurion, who claimed that the 1956 Armistice was null and void, and Israel had a right to reclaim control? Or the IDF's blatant attacks on Syrian soil for years before the war?

Claiming Israel was an innocent bystander, who attacked merely to prevent war, is seriously misleading.

quote:
Should Israel give all the land back?
I think the question itself is meaningless, at least on moral or ethical grounds. We can only look for a pragmatic solution here. My only point is to show that Israel cannot claim the moral high ground here...such a position, frankly, does not exist.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/4/2009 6:56:37 AM , Rating: 1
Oh and have you noticed that when Israel bombs palestine, it's war.

But when palestinians fire rockets at israel it's terrorism.

Why is it not also war?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Amiga500 on 2/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 7:35:26 AM , Rating: 3
Oh hush. It's terrorism because Hamas uses civilians or people dressed in civilian attire to attack civilians in Israel. Suicie bombing markets, buses, etc....

It's War for Israel because they use regular uniformed military personnel and vehicles to deal with Hamas.

Get it straight.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Aloonatic on 2/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 8:01:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Israel doesn't want the Palestinians to have a legitimate army though as then the terrorist argument cannot be made which is swallowed by surprisingly gullible people like Mr Kenobi above, allowing Israel a free hand to slaughter thousands.

I've heard some crazy arguments, but this one has thus far taken the cake. Define "legitimate" army, before we continue down this road.

quote:
Seriously, are you saying that the Palestinians could fund or even have room for a modern military but they choose to limit themselves to the occasional suicide bombing and the odd random rocket attack?

Of course they couldn't fund a modern military, but that does NOT give them the right to resort to irregular civilian dressed fighters that suicide bomb buildings and people.

quote:
A balance of power isn't in the Israeli government's best interests of course. It would be in the interest of the Israeli people, but what is in their best interests has never really been at the top of the ruling classes priorities.

Right, because letting your neighbor that hates your guts the time, money, and resources to build up a modern military force on par with your own is a smart decision. Do you really think that? Look at all the other World/Super Powers on the planet. Do you think they got there by allowing their enemies to do as good as them? No, they got there by being better, and showing they were better.

quote:
The people who benefit the most from every missile fired out of Gaza or wherever are, somewhat ironically, the Israeli government.

I would argue the media benefits, as it gives them something other than Paris Hilton to report on.

quote:
The last few months of attacks was meant to achieve one thing and one thing only, make it high up the political agenda when someone new moved into the white house a short time ago. That Israel went to far and had to withdraw was a bit of a miss calculation on their part but it has had the desired effect, by and large.

I'd argue it was to make a show of force again. Spend too long sitting on your hands and people start thinking you won't fight back.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Aloonatic on 2/4/2009 8:28:13 AM , Rating: 1
Legitimate Army is just that, an army. If you can't understand that then I really don't know where to go. I'll give you a clue, I was talking about a balance of power.

Not being allowed to have an army means that you don't have much of a choice but to fight how you can in the most effective manner available. What are they expected to do? Let Israel take over their land and treat them like they do and offer nothing back. People here keep on saying that Israel has teh right to defend itself but Palestinians can't?

Maybe they should ask themselves why some Palestinians hate them so much? How would they (or you) feel if the roles were reversed?

When there is such a massive advantage in military power there really is no excuse for the way that Israel has behaved.

I'd liken it to a midget poking a grown man in the eye and then the grown man claiming that holding the midget down by the throat and punching them in the face until it is a bloody mess for weeks on end wa acceptable and then being surprised if, when finally released, they didn't thank them for being so graceful as to release them but maybe fought back with what they could. Sure, you aren't going to like that but there you go.

Proportionate is a word that obviously does not translate into Hebrew.

As for the Paris Hilton thing. I don't know what you are on about there. Are you really saying that the only people who benefit from this are the media, who aren't allowed in and only have an Israeli spokeswoman who made "comical Ali" seem like a reputable source of information?

You've swallowed the propaganda and are surprisingly easily lead, no doubt fully backing all the "axis of evil" nonsense too and think Sadam had to be removed because of the WMDs and terrorists or whatever the excuse is this week.

Finally, you seem to be confusing your own insecurity and immaturity and need to go around flexing and shouting "hurrahhhh" every other day as a necessity perhaps, when in reality it isn't.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Targon on 2/4/2009 9:19:43 AM , Rating: 1
I think you need to look at the time-line again and see the ORDER of events before making some really basic mistakes.

When Israel controlled ALL of that territory, the PLO was there supporting the fight against Israel. Yes, there were attacks and such that would be considered terrorist attacks(targeting civilians), but considering the way Israel treated non-Jews at the time did add to the problems.

In time, Israel decided to pull back from the settlements, giving the Palestinians their own land and allowing them to have their own government. This was an effort by Israel at peace.

Even after that time, there has been continued attacks by Palestinians against Israel, even after Israel had attempted to bring peace. Israel leaving Gaza FULLY, military, police, EVERYTHING, and giving them the chance at peace was just that, but look what happened. Rocket fire from Gaza, year after year.

After Israel had TRIED to bring peace, it has been clear that some in Gaza just don't want it. What did Israel do about it for YEARS? Nothing...until they grew so tired of it that it was time to fight back.

Now, in Gaza, those firing the rockets do it from schools and mosques. Now, how could Israel stop the rocket fire if they can't get close because "civilians" might get hurt? So, many innocent people have been killed in Gaza, but the reason is that those firing the rockets are using those innocent people as human shields.

Israel had NOT blockaded Gaza until the most recent troubles, and even when there was a cease-fire, those in Gaza used it to rearm, not to try to help those not wanting to fight.

Those in Gaza not having an army is no excuse for launching rockets at Israel after Israel GAVE THEM THE FRACKING LAND.

Now, proportionate responses...hmmm, how many rockets were fired from Gaza BEFORE Israel attacked? Hundreds? Thousands? And, if you have a problem with ants in your kitchen, don't you do everything you can to kill every ant inside your house, even if you don't do anything to those outside?

Sometimes, in order to stop attacks, you need to stop the SOURCE of the attacks. That means the groups that are supporting those launching rockets as well as those doing the actual launching.

Oh, if someone were to SHOOT you in the arm while trying to kill you, would you try to shoot him/her in the arm just because he didn't kill you on the first shot, or do you look at the intent and respond to the intent?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 11:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those in Gaza not having an army is no excuse for launching rockets at Israel after Israel GAVE THEM THE FRACKING LAND
Err, Israel did no such thing. They gave the Palestinians partial, limited autonomy over a tiny fraction of the total land which was taken, and still continued to exercise continual control and interference over the borders and internal affairs of what they did "give back".

The notion that the Palestinians "just hate all Jews" for religious reasons is a convenient fiction, but it denies the very real grievances in the region.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 9:30:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Legitimate Army is just that, an army. If you can't understand that then I really don't know where to go. I'll give you a clue, I was talking about a balance of power.

I fail to see the point of your comment. Are you trying to say that Palestine should have an Army of comparable Size and Capability as that of Israel? If so your crazy. Does Russia let their enemies have a comparable size and capable army to its own? Heck no.

quote:
Not being allowed to have an army means that you don't have much of a choice but to fight how you can in the most effective manner available. What are they expected to do? Let Israel take over their land and treat them like they do and offer nothing back. People here keep on saying that Israel has teh right to defend itself but Palestinians can't?

I'm saying that I don't want to hear Palestine crying when Israel levels city blocks and homes. They are bombing civilian locations in Israel, don't expect Israel not to retaliate in a lethal manner.

quote:
Maybe they should ask themselves why some Palestinians hate them so much? How would they (or you) feel if the roles were reversed?

To answer that question, it would require revisiting WW2 and biblical times. This isn't a new problem and the hatred is deeply rooted. The creation of Israel after WW2 is what sparked this situation. Frankly I don't "care" how "they" feel. This isn't a liberal arts class where the exercise is to "feel" like the oposing party and write a short essay on how all parties feel in a given situation.

quote:
When there is such a massive advantage in military power there really is no excuse for the way that Israel has behaved.

So, Israel should switch to firing low tech rockets back over the border indiscriminately? Ok.

quote:
I'd liken it to a midget poking a grown man in the eye and then the grown man claiming that holding the midget down by the throat and punching them in the face until it is a bloody mess for weeks on end wa acceptable and then being surprised if, when finally released, they didn't thank them for being so graceful as to release them but maybe fought back with what they could. Sure, you aren't going to like that but there you go.

The better question is why the Midget thought he could get away with poking that grown man in the eye. He was an idiot for trying it, and an idiot to keep trying it.

I won't dignify the rest of your comments with a response since your simply making false acusations.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By omgwtf8888 on 2/4/2009 11:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone would like to try to apply the which came first chicken or the egg history to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Problem is that we know have a big scrambled egg. What is needed is a new approach. I believe we should take the United Nations out of New York and Move it to Jerusalem. Jerusalem should be taken away from Israel and made a protected world hertiage city, similar to how Washington DC was carved out of the north and south. The city should be under the control and protection of the United Nations and their security forces. Being the birthplace of so many of the world's religions, no one country should control this city.

The Israeli and Palestinian countries should then be defined and date established for relocation of citizens. Citizens remaining in Palestine or Israel would become citizens of the country in which they reside, and would have to abide by that country's laws.

Ok problem solved... glad to help... I believe it's lunch time!


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Amiga500 on 2/4/2009 9:31:57 AM , Rating: 1
The first suicide bombing in over a year took place this Monday.

The last suicide bombing to kill someone was Jan 29th 2007.

Not that you'd ever hear much about all that.

Anyway - my original comment was not aimed at the terrorism/war debate - but the truth in general.

The banning of international journalists from Gaza is proof enough that the leaders of Israel do not want credible sources to emerge with conflicting reports to their own.

If you cannot see that for what it is - then there is not much point in disccusion as you've clearly made up your mind already.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 9:35:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The banning of international journalists from Gaza is proof enough that the leaders of Israel do not want credible sources to emerge with conflicting reports to their own.

That seems to be a rather large leap in conclusion. Any evidence to back this up?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Amiga500 on 2/4/2009 12:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
Don't even pretend to be that stupid.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 2:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
Your reading between the lines and expect me to do the same? No. If you have evidence to support your theory, place it on the table. Otherwise its merely your unsubstantiated opinion.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Amiga500 on 2/4/2009 2:51:39 PM , Rating: 1
Well, I can of course point towards the photos and UN condemnation of the phosphorous shells in a densely populated area - which could be construed as a war crime.

Or the bombing of a UN school, a school the Israelis knew the location of.

There are literally countless examples of where UN reports conflict with Israel reports. Now - are you still going to say that Israel is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

If you are, your an idiot - plain and simple.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Moishe on 2/4/2009 9:42:48 AM , Rating: 2
Are you saying all those rocket attacks are not terrorism? Is only a suicide bomber a terrorist? Hell no.

If you want to talk about the truth, start with accepting that some people have the destruction of Israel as their agenda. You can't debate what Arab leaders say publicly.

Add to that the numerous documented times that Israel has bent over for the world and offered land deals and peace. Each time those deals have been either flat-out refused or they've been broken by terrorists who target civilians. Now Israel is defending itself from constant rocket attacks and trying to clear out the dangerous elements in Gaza. It's war and war is messy. People get hurt and accidents happen. What's incredible to me is that Israel can accidentally injure or kill a few people and it's a big firestorm with "casualty" numbers that are proven to be falsely inflated. Yet Hamas can use civilians shields and nobody gives a f**k.

The problem is simply that Israel is trying to play by the rules of war against an enemy that has NO rules and no qualms about using and abusing their own people. I see this as an impossible position for Israel.

If you think this is simple or if you ignore the events that have gone before then you are amazingly naive and it shows that you truly already have your mind made up that Israel is evil and should be crucified while Hamas has free reign to do whatever the heck it pleases.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By toyotabedzrock on 2/5/2009 6:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
I think it has to do with protecting the press from harm. They don't want anymore incidents like when UN workers got killed.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 7:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is it not also war?

Because Hamas is not recognized as a military controlled by the Palestinian state. They are civilians, who have formed their own group, and are committing acts of violence against another nation.

And why shouldn't Israel fight back? Its not like the Palestinian government is going into Gaza to get rid of Hamas, are they?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Amiga500 on 2/4/2009 9:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
Hamas are the government in the Gaza strip...

Did you not know they were elected over Fatah?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 9:31:57 AM , Rating: 2
Hamas is a political organization, similar to that of the Democrat or Republican party. They are not an actual "government" separated from the Palestinian authority.

Are you going to try to convince me now that we should have Democrat and Republican militias that should not be governed or controlled by the US Government?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Amiga500 on 2/4/2009 9:41:15 AM , Rating: 2
Q: Are Hamas the ruling party in the Gaza strip?

A: Yes

Q: Are the ruling parties frequently referred to as the governments?

A: Yes.

Just like you might call it a democrat senate, or republican house - over in England they would talk about a labour government for instance.

Again - Hamas are the goverment


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 9:43:23 AM , Rating: 2
You can parse and call it what you want. But the fact is they are a political party. Else, they wouldn't be a Palestinian state, and rather be their own country.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Moishe on 2/4/2009 9:45:41 AM , Rating: 2
Why is the "elected" government of Palestine using its own people as shields? This is a war crime. Why is Hamas allowed to shell into Israeli settlements without expecting retaliation from Israel?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By foolsgambit11 on 2/4/2009 2:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
References, please? I've heard lots about Israelis killing civilians because they thought there were militants there (at least, so they claim). What is more, with an average population density of over 10,000 people per square mile, it's pretty hard not to be near a civilian as a militant.

I'm not going to claim that Hamas is without fault. They have deep, deep flaws. But you need to take the quotes off of 'elected'. Hamas' election was legitimate. Whether their government is legitimate or not could be debated. So maybe put the quotes on 'government' instead.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By toyotabedzrock on 2/5/2009 8:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
Then why can't they stop the rockets being fired? They are not a government because they do not have control over everyone firing rockets.

If they wanted to claim that they are a government then they should do the following.

1. Pick a group of area leaders form a counsel. Everyone in the counsel needs to understand that regardless of there position the majority wins. The counsel could handle things until a more traditional governing body is formed.

2. Form an internal police force, ask the UN to help train a small number of police at first. Training should be focused on police tactics only.

3. They need to internally make the effort to stop the missiles via there own police force.

4. Patience, once the rockets stop some time needs to pass for borders to open.

I think the world would respond well even if they just would do number 2 and 3. And it might cause the UN to pressure Israel to open up the borders to some extent.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 9:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
Hamas the government and Hamas the terrorist group while one and the same in practice, claim to be different.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Targon on 2/4/2009 8:48:16 AM , Rating: 2
The basic concept is that in war, you do NOT target civilians. Intentionally targeting civilians is considered terrorism, while attacking military/political targets is a part of war.

This includes what happened during World War 2 and Japan, but that was a different era and the situation was a bit different(open warfare between true rival powers). What happened in WW2 is the subject of a different debate, and might still be considered terrorism due to how many civilians were killed in the nuclear blasts.

So, missile fire from Gaza just randomly at towns is considered terrorism. Targeted strikes against enemy forces where some civilians were killed is collateral damage.

Something for you to consider as well is that Israel pulled out of Gaza FULLY, all settlements and troops left the area in the hopes that it would bring peace. It wasn't until TOO many rockets had been fired from Gaza into Israel that Israel just decided to go in and put an end to it. It seems to me that if Israel has been willing to compromise and give territory outright in the hopes of peace, and they get rocket fire as a response, Israel could easily have just gone in there and re-taken their territory back.

If you make an agreement and then violate that agreement, all deals are generally considered null and void. It amazes me that Israel didn't go in immediately to clear out the idiots firing rockets and thinking there would be no retaliation.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Amiga500 on 2/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 7:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And Israel can easily defend itself...

Your right, they can. They can easily level whatever city block Hamas decided to fire that rocket from.

quote:
Unless you think those much vaunted Patriot missiles are actually so crap they couldn't shoot down a home-made unguided rocket?

Why should Israel put such a system in place and "accept" the fact that Hamas is going to fire rockets over the boarder all day long and all they can do is hope their missile defense systems shoot them all down. Forget that. Israel is doing the right thing, they are responding by moving the playing field out of Israel and into areas where Hamas has a presence. It's less fun for Hamas when the Israeli military is right up in their back yard blowing their homes up. Forcing them to fight on their own ground rather than Israel's.

quote:
By the disproportionate response alone, the leaders of Israel (both political and military) have committed war crimes - but don't expect them to get pulled up for it.

The Israeli military doesn't go suicide bombing civilian gathering places. Israel has 2 options currently. Force the civilians to throw Hamas out and stop firing rockets by applying pressure until they do so. The other option is to simply level the place and not worry about civilians.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Amiga500 on 2/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 9:54:03 AM , Rating: 5
I have a vested interest in not adhering to the philosophy of hippies and peace lovers that think the world is a rosey and peaceful place. It's not, so get over it.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Amiga500 on 2/4/2009 12:24:26 PM , Rating: 2
Coming from Ireland, I think I know a little bit more about how this sh!t runs than most.

What Israel are doing will not work, never. I can absolutely guarantee that.

Contrary to the popular belief of Fox News (unfortunately the chief source of information for many on this website) - people do not blow themselves up for fun - but (for instance) when a father sees his kids & wife wiped out, what's he got to lose eh?

But, hey, you stick to your "philosophy", however insanely stupid and childish it may be.

Meanwhile others that have a clue will continue to advocate the need for both to treat each other with respect, acknowledge both have legitimate grievances and go to the negotiating table as such - without preconditions. That has yet to happen in the history of (the 1948+) Israel.

(Note that the blame in the last paragraph is not exclusively one way - not even close - not that I expect this bit to be noticed by the many Zionist apologists in here)


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 12:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
> "Contrary to the popular belief of Fox News "

I was with you all the way until you tossed this little strawman out. Do you really think CNN or MSNBC is any better than Fox in reporting on the Israeli conflict?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Amiga500 on 2/4/2009 1:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. In fact very few of the Western broadcasters are conveying the facts equal handed - or even approaching equal handed. The barring of foreign journalists from Gaza by Israel may have something to do with that.

There was an English member of parliament made a speech the other day, a Jewish grandson of a holocaust victim, that described the current Israeli actions as "that of Nazis". He is 100% correct.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 2:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
> "In fact very few of the Western broadcasters are conveying the facts equal handed - or even approaching equal handed"

So why demonstrate bias and damage your argument by singling out Fox?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By dubldwn on 2/4/2009 3:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
Because Fox news uses terms like “homicide bomber” and refers to entire countries as “terrorist nations”. This kind of over-the-top pro-Israel slant far surpasses CNN and MSNBC. IMO.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 3:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because Fox news uses terms like “homicide bomber”

As opposed to what? Please tell me. "Innocent boomer"?
quote:
and refers to entire countries as “terrorist nations”

You mean the ones that have proven money trails funding terrorist and extremist groups? Oh how politically incorrect. <sarcasm>
quote:
This kind of over-the-top pro-Israel slant far surpasses CNN and MSNBC

Ahh yes. The pro-Israel slant is so much worse than CNN and MSNBC basically telling all Americans that if you don't vote for Obama you're a racist.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By dubldwn on 2/4/2009 5:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
And you.
quote:
As opposed to what? Please tell me. "Innocent boomer"?

Suicide bomber.
quote:
Oh how politically incorrect.

Yeah, exactly. You can have your flame bait opinions. A respectable news source? I expect factual, unbiased coverage. Do they still continue to embarrass themselves with "fair and balanced?"
quote:
The pro-Israel slant is so much worse than CNN and MSNBC basically telling all Americans that if you don't vote for Obama you're a racist.

ok, here you admit the bias on FOX, which leads me to believe it's ok with you. That's disturbing. And CNN saying if you don't vote for Obama you're a racist? Where on earth did you get that information?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 3:44:34 PM , Rating: 3
> " This kind of over-the-top pro-Israel slant far surpasses CNN and MSNBC. IMO. "

Really? Here's the latest article on the situation from Fox:

Human Rights Groups Fight to Prove Gaza and Hamas Violated Laws of War

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487789,00.html

Seems rather balanced to me, especially when they specifically point out facts like:

quote:
Rights activists say Gaza's Hamas rulers and other Palestinian groups committed war crimes by targeting Israeli civilians with rockets. They also say Hamas' use of human shields, as alleged by Israel, would constitute war crimes
It's certainly no worse than this latest piece by CNN:

Rocket from Gaza fired into Israeli city

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/03/israel.r...

But perhaps you can point to exactly what offends you in either of the two pieces?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By dubldwn on 2/4/2009 5:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Human Rights Groups Fight to Prove Gaza and Hamas Violated Laws of War

Who and Hamas? I rest my case.
Oh, and directly from your hand picked story:
quote:
Given the clarity of Hamas' violations, such as firing rockets at Israeli cities, organizations are focusing more on Israeli actions, the facts of which they say are harder to establish.

Because remember, the Palestinians are the enemy and are obviously in the wrong. Israel? Well, it's a little more complicated.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By dubldwn on 2/4/2009 5:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and the CNN article was very well written. Concise, professional, and just contained the facts. No unnecessary little comments or cheap shots. AP my ass.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 6:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who and Hamas? I rest my case.
Eh? Because they use the word "Gaza", they're automatically biased? You'll have to do better than this...especially when the majority of the article I cited was condemnatory of Israeli actions.

quote:
Because remember, the Palestinians are the enemy and are obviously in the wrong. Israel? Well, it's a little more complicated
You've misunderstood. The citation is simply pointing out that no one, not even Hamas, disputes that they are firing rockets at civilians. Every war crime Israel is accused of, however, they deny. That makes the facts harder to establish. This is simple, incontrovertible truth. Not bias.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By theapparition on 2/4/2009 7:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless you think those much vaunted Patriot missiles are actually so crap they couldn't shoot down a home-made unguided rocket?

Wrong again. Patriot missiles are not crap, but they are ineffective of shooting down "home-made" rockets. The rockets being launched are low range and low altitude. Patriots only shine when the attack is launched from at least 200 miles away.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Amiga500 on 2/4/2009 9:38:08 AM , Rating: 1
Wrong again. Patriots only shine when the attack is launched from at least 200 miles away.

Tell you what - go google "PAC3 cruise missile defence".

Consider that.

Then come back and try to tell the aerospace engineer what Patriot can and cannot do.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Fnoob on 2/4/2009 10:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it may or may not be capable. But why use a million dollar defense rocket to shoot down the equivalent of a flying pipe bomb? The falling debris from the patriot would far outweigh the aggressor rocket by several orders of magnitude.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By aegisofrime on 2/4/2009 9:55:30 AM , Rating: 2
I'm downright pissed off with all the dumb ignorant anti-Israel sentiment. So they have no right to defend themselves now, right? They should just be tanking all those dumb rockets that Hamas is launching right? So what now, you people think Jewish people are immortal?

You know what? If Hamas or any of those other insane Arab counties were to want to piss off Israel enough, or even try to exterminate them, you can bet your ass Israel will fight to the death, and take everyone else with them.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/4/2009 12:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
Ther are far better ways of solving the situation there than Israels plan of action.

they say their military doesn't target civilians, but thousands of them die.

that makes them one of two things:

1) Liars
2) woefully incompetant.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 1:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm. Ok, so let me get this right. A country using its military to protect its people and retaliate against rocket attacks...says that they do not kill civilians (while obviously referring to being on purpose), but everyone knows there will always be casualties of war...

Is a much worse entity...

Than a group of terrorists, such as Hamas, who openly admit and fire rockets into a country with the sole purpose of killing civilians.

That IS what you are saying, right?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Major HooHaa on 2/5/2009 8:15:58 AM , Rating: 1
If you believe that abzillah, then you are happily advocating genocide.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By FoundationII on 2/4/2009 5:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
It's not very surprising they got the technology.
The USSR launched Sputnik 1 in 1957, now it's 52 years later. Launching a satellite with access to modern day technology is relatively easy.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/4/2009 6:42:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Hmm, kind of makes you wonder if Iran is thinking ...

"yes, our missile is intended for peaceful purposes. Once Israel is wiped off the map, THEN there will be peace."


For the last time, the Iranian president ahminadinijad or however you spell it, has NEVER, not ONCE called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'.

The reports that he did are a distortion of a bad translation that nobody in the mainstream press seems to want to put down.

What he said was 'much like the fascist regime of hitler and the commuist regime of cold war Russia, the Zionist regime in Israel will vanish from the pages of time'.

Quite different from the fallacy still perpetrated by the media.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 7:55:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What he said was 'much like the fascist regime of hitler and the communist regime of cold war Russia, the Zionist regime in Israel will vanish from the pages of time'.

Im not sure what your point here is - are you honestly trying to justify statements on behalf of Iran? If so, you're an absolute idiot.

I will choose to believe the reports of the translations, especially when its the words of 10 newspapers versus the words of you, who think Palestine and Iran are honorable countries.

Besides, you're trying to convince me that the same guy who believes the Holocaust never happened ISN'T saying he wants to wipe Israel off the map.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/5/2009 8:56:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Im not sure what your point here is - are you honestly trying to justify statements on behalf of Iran? If so, you're an absolute idiot.


Maybe I should use smaller words.

The Iranian leader has never said the words 'Israel should be wiped off the map'. He has not 'repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel' like you hear in news reports. He said something different that was mistranslated and, to paraphrase churchill. The lie got half way around the world before the truth had a chance to get it's pants on.

quote:
I will choose to believe the reports of the translations, especially when its the words of 10 newspapers versus the words of you,


what reports of translations? you havent even read them have you. You are just assuming the 'common knowledge' rubbish that has been circulated is true. The information is there to find if you look for it. He never said that.

you see, making out like he DID say something so nutty makes him look a lot more like some kind of fascist tinpot dictator. It's far easier to convince the public to agree with your countries actions if you demonise the target.

quote:
who think Palestine and Iran are honorable countries.


What planet do you live on? that's right, planet 'you disagree with me therefore you support terrorism'.

go away and never return to an argument of politics.

quote:
Besides, you're trying to convince me that the same guy who believes the Holocaust never happened ISN'T saying he wants to wipe Israel off the map.


Again, another common misconception on your part.

I'll leave YOU to go and research what he ACTUALLY said but I'll tell you now that it certainly isn't that the holocaust never happened.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Moishe on 2/4/2009 9:52:34 AM , Rating: 2
Not that I believe your translation over the professional translators... but you do realize that there have been many Muslim leaders talking about killing all Jews... right? Surely you've done some research?

I have in the past and I've seen the quotes from plenty of people and I've seen Israel give and give while its enemies refuse a peaceful solution.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By foolsgambit11 on 2/4/2009 2:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
Surely you could have done a quick Google check to see if he was accurate or not. The story is convoluted, but what is clear is that the statement Ahmadinejad made was that the Israeli government would vanish from the pages of time. There's some debate, since an official English translation from his office apparently may be the source of the 'wiped off the map' quote.

There have been plenty of Muslim leaders who have talked about ridding the world the enemies of Islam, including the Jews - usually specifically Israeli Jews. These guys are yahoos. With more than a billion Muslims in the world, and no central leadership structure, there are bound to be crazies in the mix, who conflate political and religious duties - to the detriment of the whole world. But governments like Iran are much more measured with their words and deeds.

quote:
I've seen Israel give and give while its enemies refuse a peaceful solution.
That's fair. I mean, imagine somebody beat you up and took you lunch money. When you start trying to fight him back, he offers you a truce and part of your own lunch money. That's fair, right? I'll forgive you if you don't like the deal on offer. But that's basically what Israel has been giving and giving, from the point of view of the Palestinians.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/5/2009 9:02:39 AM , Rating: 2
what *you* said.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By FoundationII on 2/5/2009 3:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying the official translation is wrong, but you can't always trust official translations.
Personally I'm not a native English speaker, and yet it's obvious how many times the "professional translators" give an inaccurate translation at best.
This is especially true when they give a rough translation to suit their needs better (e.g. for sensational or artistic purposes) And sometimes they need to give a rough translation because some things just can't be translated properly.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/5/2009 8:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not that I believe your translation over the professional translators... but you do realize that there have been many Muslim leaders talking about killing all Jews... right? Surely you've done some research?


yeah and the pope just promoted some guy who thinks the holocaust is a total myth and that there were no gas chambers.

so what's your point?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Mithan on 2/4/2009 7:58:00 AM , Rating: 1
Iran can do whatever it pleases. It doesn't have to ask the US for "permission" to go to Space.

Likewise, if they want to hit Israel, they can face the consequences, however if you idiots seriously believe Iran is going to attack Israel, you need help.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 8:04:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Iran can do whatever it pleases. It doesn't have to ask the US for "permission" to go to Space.

True enough. Although they have to be prepared for the consequences of their actions - as many around the globe will see them as questionable at best. They can only hide behind the "<blank> is for peaceful purposes only" argument for so long.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Malik99 on 2/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Oceanborn75 on 2/4/2009 12:57:38 PM , Rating: 1
So what you're saying is that is OK for the U.S. to use its satellite technology for military purposes but not other countries???

Are you really that self-centered?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Ammohunt on 2/4/2009 2:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
The US launched satellites that can detect missile launches anywhere on earth decades ago..remember the cold war?


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Mojo the Monkey on 2/4/2009 5:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
Bound to happen as technology moves forward. What was once new and secret is now old and commonplace. Unfortunately, a lot of tech with deadly potential is now going to be coming into the "commonplace" category. This is going to be a tricky century.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Major HooHaa on 2/4/2009 8:06:11 PM , Rating: 3
Finally the rest of the world is catching up to 1960's America and Russia (in terms of space aspirations and generating nuclear power) and everyone panics.

Yes, there probably is a risk of these technologies being used to help develop weapons, but that's a risk the world has faced once before.


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By Neophyte26 on 2/4/2009 10:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
Forgive me for not reading all of what has been posted. It did become tiresome after a while!

Love him or hate him, in recent times there's only been one political figure able to bring the middle eastern conflict to dialogue and that's Bill Clinton. In fact I'll stick my neck out here and say he was the last "peace-time" president of the U.S. Regardless of that, it does take a lot to bring the two sides to the table, a hell of a lot.

Can Obama do that now? That I don't know but it's worth a try. America's dwindling economic power (and subsequent military) means it would be the perfect time to try something.

As a white european I would tend to be on the side of the Israelis but one thing we need to remember is that the "western" media usually has a slight bias towards Israel (even if it does seem that way) and the Arabic media will also appear to be biased. The only true fact we can say is that if Israel wanted to flex its military might it could and the result of that would be hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. Then again I'm sure they need as much of the west on their side as they can.

It's all catch 22 isn't it? Tit for tat, backwards and forwards with no real answer or end to the conflict. I hope inbetween the U.S./worldwide economic situation Obama can find the time to engage in some middle east talks. As long as the leaders are round the table talking, the explosions tend to happen less frequently from what I can see!


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By PrinceGaz on 2/5/2009 12:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
Why do people assume Iran have anything other tan peaceful intentions in mind? Do you always have to assume everyone is out to get you?

Iran wish to develop a nuclear-energy programme to supplement their oil-driven energy generation; that should be encouraged as it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions once it is up and running. Many other countries have also had nuclear programmes, and have since abandoned them as being uneconomic or unnecessary, but if Iran wishes to devote the resources to use nuclear technology, why not let them? It's better than burning fossil-fuels, and we have the reassurance of their leader that they have no interest in using their nuclear research for military purposes.

As for Iran launching a satellite into orbit, big deal. Quite a few countries have done so, including India which is already a nuclear weapons country and can therefore in theory (and probably in practice) drop a nuclear warhead anywhere on our planet they wish, though it might be intercepted en route.

Everyone assumes Iran is some big bad enemy, whereas it would seem that despite embargos, they are managing to build decent technology anyway either with smuggled technology or home-grown resources (the latter cannot be ruled out as Iran is a developed country and will have full internet access for those they want to benefit from it, one way or another).

There is a slight disagreement between Iran and Israel over the land Israel occupies, but I'm sure they could sort it all out over a few beers in a neutral bar. They could all (including Lebanon and Palestine) sit down together over a few pints and agree on common borders. That would make sense and everyone in the Middle East could live in peace together. Problem solved!


RE: "peaceful purposes "
By MrPoletski on 2/5/2009 9:06:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a slight disagreement between Iran and Israel over the land Israel occupies, but I'm sure they could sort it all out over a few beers in a neutral bar. They could all (including Lebanon and Palestine) sit down together over a few pints and agree on common borders. That would make sense and everyone in the Middle East could live in peace together. Problem solved


lol, alcohol is the solution and cause of all problems!

I'll drink to that!;)


What the hell is that ?
By Oralen on 2/4/2009 8:11:29 AM , Rating: 3
...about possible implications...
...with the stated intentions...
...Iran may use...
... could be used...
...There's almost always a link...

Is this the new George Bush school of Politics, Diplomacy and Journalism?

They may have Weapons of mass destructions... All right. Kill them all. It may not be fair to do it... It may not be justified to do it... But let's do it anyway, ok?

All those people who are quoted may learn to shut the f*ck up until they have proof.

I mean, I am not 100 % sure my neighbor is not a murderer... Should I kill him first, to be on the safe side?

If they are so concerned, well... Why not go and inspect the place! You know, like they did in Irak before the war, without finding anything !

Try to find the truth! Then you will have my support, and my sympathy for what you are trying to do: preventing terrible things to happen.

But being worried is no excuse to speak like an expert on Iran's intentions, when you don't know anything about it, really.

P.S.: I am not Muslin, or Iranian, and I am not trying to defend their political regime. I just would like to see grown ups do the talking. It would prevent wars to happen.




RE: What the hell is that ?
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 8:24:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
P.S.: I am not Muslin, or Iranian, and I am not trying to defend their political regime. I just would like to see grown ups do the talking. It would prevent wars to happen.

How can you honestly expect to talk and have valuable conversations with groups of people who stone people to death, believe women's rights fall just under that of rats, deny the Holocaust ever happened, believe that committing suicide will yeild them 10 beautiful women from Allah, and that oil should be $250/barrel?

Just saying.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By Oralen on 2/4/2009 8:43:32 AM , Rating: 4
Weeeelll...

There might be some people like what you are describing...

Just like there are stupid rednecks who think Darwin is the devil, or like the bishops recently reinstated by the pope who also deny the holocaust happened, because they are Nazi's, like their boss.

But I am pretty confident you can find intelligent people in Iran, just like in every other culture.

The only thing is that those people are not the one you hear the most.

Not in Iran, not in Europe, and not in the USA.

This is what annoys me about this article: the most stupid are the loudest, I know.

But writing a complete article based on what they say is silly.

Let's not fall into the caricature: there are good people everywhere.

Let's give them a voice.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 8:48:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the only thing is that those people are not the one you hear the most.

And out of Iran, who is the person you hear most...ahh yes, they own PRESIDENT! If their prominent elected official says this stuff on behalf of the people of their country...well.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By Aloonatic on 2/4/2009 9:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
Oh yes. Imagine being from a country where your president says stupid things on behalf of the electorate.

Imagine how people outside of that country would view the residents of said country and the political regime?

You may have a point. I'd vote you up if I hadn't already posted.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 9:10:00 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying ALL their people feel this way, but I'm sure there would be many countries out there who would feel the US is bad if the president (or any major elected official) came up and said "All white people should die for their acts of slavery 100 years ago".

Again, I'm merely stating that an elected official to act on behalf of all the people of the country is supposed to represent the morals and beliefs of that country. And after hearing what he says, time and time again, its hard to argue that their people do not follow his method of thinking.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By Aloonatic on 2/4/2009 12:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
When has anyone said that All [insert race/creed/nationality here] need to die?


RE: What the hell is that ?
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 1:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
Hitler to the jews....Amadinjead to the jews....fringe Muslim groups to christians.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 1:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
....fringe Muslim groups to christians
You should tune in more to the politics of the region. All three major religions have components calling for the massacre of all the others. In fact, the worst genocide in the Middle East in the past 30 years was carried out by Phalangist Christians against Muslims.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By Oralen on 2/4/2009 9:11:50 AM , Rating: 4
Do you mean like... How people around the world viewed the USA when George bush was president?


RE: What the hell is that ?
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 9:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
Or how our Allies view us when Bush cannot control the idiot and former President Carter from flying to the middle east and sitting down to have talks with the terrorist group Hamas?

Or how Obama has approached Iran to talk...and now even Iran comes out and says the US is basically a bunch of pansies now?

Ahh yes, those perceptions.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By omgwtf8888 on 2/4/2009 11:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
I agree! The vast majority of people in the world, want to wake up, do not mind doing a fair days work, want to raise their family and do good. They don't want to be blown up, tortured, raped, harrassed, etc. It seems a very small part of the population is hell bent on doing the wrong things. Your subject "What the hell is that?" is appropriate, as many of our current conflicts are over religious beliefs. Interesting that in all these conflicts it seems that the devil is winning. Hopefully, with us taking the lead and getting rid of our crazy president, the Iranians will follow suit and get rid of theirs. Bottom line here is that people are people. You get the same statistical distribution of personality types in whatever country/religion you choose.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By Aloonatic on 2/4/2009 8:44:25 AM , Rating: 2
Or people ditch their elders in homes and grudgingly visit them ever now and again, Iranians aren't the only people how have the death penalty and use methods that are unnecessarily painful by the way, or promote young girls into the spot light and then hound them until they are on the verge of mental illness, or leave major cities and it's residents to rot after levies burst following a hurricanes.

If you're going to throw stones, you should be careful. No country or people are perfect but if you only want to look for negative aspects about a people, probably mostly gleaned from Fox News, then don't be surprised if you haven't got the whole picture.

As for oil at $250 a barrel, how dare they sell their oil for whatever they like, it's an outrage. Just like being able to choose their own leaders, America should have a hand in that, as we all know that that turned out well last time.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By Moishe on 2/4/2009 9:56:57 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, I love how you can make an apples-to-apples comparison of a relatively free society that has its social problems with an extremely restrictive society that is heavily ruled by a backward religion.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By Aloonatic on 2/4/2009 12:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
Many people think the Bush regime was heavily influenced by a backward religion too. Perhaps not quite as backwards, but still backwards, none the less.

What is it with people on this site today?

I am not saying that everything is equal or likening apples to any other type of fruit. Sure, Iran are not great but please do not pretend that everything is perfect where you live, as frankly,it isn't and it's a lot worse than many people are willing to accept.

People in the west are "heavily ruled" too. Yes, perhaps we are a little more free, but not as much as you might like to believe. The authorities in the west are just slicker and handle people and the media in a more sophisticated manner.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 12:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "with an extremely restrictive society that is heavily ruled by a backward religion."

I wouldn't be that hard on Israel. Yes, the hardliner ultra-orthodox Haredim and Zionists like the Yesha Council exert enormous power. But the secularists do still have some influence.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By aegisofrime on 2/4/2009 10:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it's 72 Virgins. Not just 10 beautiful women.

Although someone told me it's actually a mistranslation and the exact phrase that says 72 Virgins could actually mean 72 Raisins.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By FITCamaro on 2/4/2009 2:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
72 virgins....does it specify that they're attractive? or even female? ;)

Achmed: "I have given my life for Allah! Where are my virgins?"

Bubba with his finger in his belly button: "Right here fresh meat..."


RE: What the hell is that ?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 2:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
The houri are supposed to be not only virgin, but ever-regenerating virgins. But of course the Quran, like the Christian bible and any other holy book, is open to countless interpretations. How many Christians believe they'll be sitting on a cloud playing a harp when they die?


RE: What the hell is that ?
By Moishe on 2/4/2009 3:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
I bet... none


RE: What the hell is that ?
By ekv on 2/4/2009 4:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
Haven't seen that one in the Bible before. Do you have any specific verses in mind?


RE: What the hell is that ?
By FITCamaro on 2/4/2009 6:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
I want to reincarnated as an alien with god-like power, come to earth, and conquer it. Humanity will be left alone but liberals will become toys for my 3 headed cross between a wolf and a rancor.


RE: What the hell is that ?
By dubldwn on 2/4/2009 6:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you're reincarnated as a boy born in Ramallah, and you have any balls at all, you’ll be a militant that wants to “wipe Israel off the map”. You know, a terrorist.


Who decides??
By hameed on 2/4/2009 5:47:32 AM , Rating: 3
Really who gets to decide what each country can and cannot develop?




RE: Who decides??
By axias41 on 2/4/2009 5:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
U.S., of course


RE: Who decides??
By jadeskye on 2/4/2009 6:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
The irony in that is so complex i have a hard time getting my head around it.


RE: Who decides??
By forester joe on 2/4/2009 6:15:49 AM , Rating: 2
it's not about deciding.
it's about not losing the next war.

if japan could have stopped the US from developing the A-bomb they should have.
if Britain could have stopped the German blitz they should have.

if those who are clearly targeted by Iran (most of western civilization should consider itself prewarned), can stop Iran from possessing large scale weapons such as nuclear weapons or offensive satellites - they should.

it's basically a power struggle, and may the best man win.


RE: Who decides??
By FITCamaro on 2/4/2009 6:42:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yup. If you could stop someone from killing you or those you care about, you would do it. If you wouldn't, then you deserve to die. Because short of someone coming to your aid, nothing will stop them from killing you. Either be prepared to defend yourself and act proactively to do so, or lay down and accept your fate.


RE: Who decides??
By Frallan on 2/4/2009 8:34:41 AM , Rating: 2
Arrrgh

It hurts!!!!

But I have to side with FTCamaro and mdogs444 - Israel is and has been showing remarkeble constraint in the struggle with the Palestinians. They are beeing attackt with high explosive artillery every day. about 3,000 attacks a year (that is over 8 a day) and still tries to settle things with better border control and within the rules.

However Hamas are irregulars without uniform and without legitimacy. You could argue that the armed part of Hamas is the army of the political part that won the election but that would only put the palestinians in a worse spot since the goverment of Palestina would then be waging war on the country Israel. There can be arguments about the legality of the process where Israel was created but since it is now an established and recognized member of the world community it has the right to defend its souveregnity and its people.

That Israel has the possibility to erase Palistina and the supporting states using only conventional weapons and in spite of this superiority chooses not to clearly shows that the Palistinians are most to blame here. Not that there are not activists on the Israeli side but these at least do not shell the Palestinieans 8 times a day.

my 0.02€


RE: Who decides??
By themengsk176 on 2/4/2009 9:43:35 AM , Rating: 3
Why is everyone so concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons?

Does no one take the logical next step and think that if they do get them, using them would mean certain and instant annihilation for their entire country.

It's the same reason that North Korea will never actually use its nuclear weapons, because not only would the US be all over them, China would as well for disrupting world trade.

Iran has every right to develop nuclear technology for itself. Considering that we have proven our hostile intentions to them and that we are heavily responsible for the creation of their crazy, current fundamentalist regime, we should just step back and leave them alone.


RE: Who decides??
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 9:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does no one take the logical next step and think that if they do get them, using them would mean certain and instant annihilation for their entire country.

Its not just the thought of Iran using them on Israel, its more the thought of Iran smuggling them to terrorist organizations.
quote:
It's the same reason that North Korea will never actually use its nuclear weapons, because not only would the US be all over them, China would as well for disrupting world trade.

Well, its already been confirmed that the nuclear site in Syria that Israel took out was a North Korean design. Exporting nuclear technology to unfriendly countries is never good.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/977783.html
quote:
It's the same reason that North Korea will never actually use its nuclear weapons, because not only would the US be all over them, China would as well for disrupting world trade.

The fact is, this has been offered to them. We've offered to give them the nuclear fuel needed to run their energy plants - we just don't want them being able to create that fuel themselves to use in weaponry.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/01/iran.nuc...


RE: Who decides??
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 11:00:00 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why is everyone so concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons?

Does no one take the logical next step and think that if they do get them, using them would mean certain and instant annihilation for their entire country.
You're missing the point here. Once a nation has nuclear weapons, the amount of leverage other states can exert upon it is very limited....especially when the nation is Iran, which has done an excellent job of promoting its rabid-dog image.

If Iran has a large nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver it, what if it suddenly decides to claim a small piece of Iraq, or even say Qatar? Are other nations really going to risk nuclear war to stop them? It seems quite unlikely.


RE: Who decides??
By themengsk176 on 2/4/2009 12:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Iran has a large nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver it, what if it suddenly decides to claim a small piece of Iraq, or even say Qatar? Are other nations really going to risk nuclear war to stop them? It seems quite unlikely.


Yes but that works both ways, whether from a launch in Israel or from one of our subs in the Gulf.

I am of the opinion that Iran wouldn't want to invade countries on its periphery if we hadn't studded those lands with hostile military forces.

They have a solid historical precedent to be hostile towards the west, given that we overthrew their government not more than 50 years ago.

I think that our constant antagonizing of Iran more than likely lends power to their radical fundamentalist government. They can blame their social and economical problems on the US, while dragging their feet in the sand for social reforms.


RE: Who decides??
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 1:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am of the opinion that Iran wouldn't want to invade countries on its periphery if we hadn't studded those lands with hostile military forces
You're arguing moral philosophy. I'm arguing simple pragmatics. A nuclear-armed Iran is able to do many things a non-nuclear one cannot...even if it never uses those weapons in actual warfare.


RE: Who decides??
By BansheeX on 2/5/2009 5:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
Total bullcrap, we were nuclear capable when we invaded Vietnam and lost the gold standard because of it. Then we invaded Iraq and are about to get hyperinflation. It would get Iran in the same mess. You don't have to have have nuclear weaponry to break another country's will and financial wellbeing. Nuclear weapons are nothing more than a deterrent against invasion, and a damn good one.


RE: Who decides??
By Steve1981 on 2/4/2009 2:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Once a nation has nuclear weapons, the amount of leverage other states can exert upon it is very limited


Yes and no. Certainly military action against a nuclear armed nation isn't highly advisable in most circumstances. However, so long as you have the means to counter a nuclear threat, you can apply other types of leverage, economic for example.

quote:
If Iran has a large nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver it, what if it suddenly decides to claim a small piece of Iraq, or even say Qatar?


So what? Even if they had a nuclear arsenal as advanced as ours with early warning systems to detect incoming, etc, they'd still have to resort to using conventional forces to take over Qatar/Iraq.

Sure, they could sabre rattle and say we'll nuke the US if you stay in Iraq, but they wouldn't actually do it, because nobody likes to get MAD.

quote:
Are other nations really going to risk nuclear war to stop them? It seems quite unlikely.


Depends on how valuable the nation being threatened is. We've extended our nuclear umbrella to Taiwan for example.


RE: Who decides??
By Joz on 2/4/2009 10:06:36 AM , Rating: 2
To be perfectly fair, I have been in Israel, near the border of Gaza and the Golan, there is nothing remotely fair about 12-year olds having to live, play and be schooled in bunkers underground becouse some terroist wants to kill your entire people, even when that same terroist's religion and his holy book (The Quran) says 'the jewish people are right." Even regarding that that statement only applies to religous and philosophical matters, the fact that young children live out their lives in fear of death every single day while their own goverment has to sit on their hands becouse terroist supported by assfags like [Amiga500, TheSpaniard, and MrPoletski plus others.]

So lets start from the top:
1. You can not shoot down rockets hamas and other groups shoot into Israel. They launch to close to Israel, have such low flight altitude and strike Israel so quickly after launch that it would take technology that won't even exist for decades, to be able to stop those rockets. (katyusha rockets being the primary suspect.)
2. I have seen mulitple katyusha launched agianst Israel and I saw those rockets strike villages and settlements both near the Gaza and golan.
3. Israel has shown so much restraint and willingness for peace that they have removed militarly presence from the Gaza area, and even gave Egypt back the Sinai (much earlier then the current conflic, but it still applies.) They pulled out of Syira after that goverment promised to "stop terroist activities agianst Israel."
4. Israeli's within striking distance of katyusha and other rockets, live in bomb shelters, 24/7. Does Hamas live in bomb shelters? Nope. Why not? Becouse they are terroists and know that unless Israel commits an act of genocide agianst the palastinians, Hamas knows they will have free-reign to continue their own terroist activies.
5. Do you even know what a rocket sounds like as it flies over your head and then explodes within a residential area, and then the feeling of jumping into the jeep the Israeli goverment assigned you to as you speed down from the village you were in to the one that just was struk by rockets, as you check the medical kit under the seat. I realy don't think you do.

And now, before anyone starts ripping me and my post apart, here are my SOURCES.
Me, in Israel last summer, Israel winter break between semesters.
Me, in a Mosque in Minnesota this winter, discussion with the mosque's imam and several prominent muslim figures in minnesota and wisconsin.
Me, at an inter-religious confrence at the JCC in minneapolis, Fall 2007.
Me, a 19 year old college student that risked his life to help out people being attacked daily by terroists, becouse those same terroists won't rest until they have commited genocide, religocide and sociocide. (don't check the dictonary for those last two words, if your not smart enough to understand what they are and mean, then you should not be debating a single-thing in your life.

Israel has a right to defend itself agianst terroist actions. Israel has a right to prosecute and retaliate agianst terroists by non-terroistical methods. And Israel has the right to invade any area that terroists occupy and fight them on their own turf and not in Israel.


RE: Who decides??
By openterminal on 2/4/2009 12:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
What make you think gazan as a terrorist?
Someone whose doing their best to get back their land is not a terrorist. Your comments about gazan/hamas/palestine as a terrorist is just your act to cover the real culprit. The world are not stupid and watching. The real fact is nobody like to see their land being taken away and their life being controlled by someone not deserved.


RE: Who decides??
By mdogs444 on 2/4/2009 1:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
So by that thought, and as crazy as it is, you're also saying that if Indian groups/people that live in the United States wouldn't be branded as murderers and terrorists if they started bombing buildings and firing rockets and/or guns at people because they "just wanted their land back"?


RE: Who decides??
By masher2 (blog) on 2/4/2009 1:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
That would depend on who's doing the branding. The American Indians who seized and held the entire town of Wounded Knee for two full months just 30-some years ago were called freedom fighters by many.


RE: Who decides??
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/4/2009 2:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ditto. "Freedom Fighter" is interchangeable with "Terrorist/Extremist/Insurgent" depending on which side of the conflict your on.


let me say one thing...then
By bigpimpatl on 2/4/2009 3:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
Think about how far Iran has come technologically and progressed in the last 30 years. Think about the coup in 78-79 that finally got rid of the corrupt shah and put back khoemini. Think about how much the country was in ruins at the time: no infrastucture, no army, a young democracy (the fact that they have elections even with a supreme authority makes it at least somewhat transparant). Add on top of that 8 years of war (Iran-Iraq war) right at the beginning and they somehow managed to hold off Saddam who was backed by western military technology. Add to that U.N. sanctions since god knows when, and remember that Iranian assets are still frozen in US accounts. This is quite impressive from a country that has had two coups since the 50's.

If the US is smart it will finally give up its carte blanche foreign policy towards Israel and actually have a mutually beneficial trading partner/agreement. Seriously, with all the aid that Israel receives, what have they ever done for us? do they pay our health care costs? do they pay our taxes? do they send our children to school? do they build our infrastructure? do they upgrade our cities? do they volunteer their time for us? NO! they don't do a damn thing for us.

And lastly, for the MILLIONTH time, the speech that Ahmedinjad gave in 2006 was mistranslated. Nowhere did he say he wanted to "Wipe israel off the map." I will give you two credible sources IMO about this issue. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12...

and the next is Hooman Majd, the personal translator for ahmedinejad. If you read his book, He is very very critical of his policies and the ayatollah. His father used to be one of the Imams with the ayatollah so he is very well connected.