Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers

[a_person]

Quote from destroyer:[/B]

Karen Abu Zayd is a UN official
And that's supposed to mean that she is not biased. LOL.

and the Youtube video with Jim Clancy did a factcheck on the palestinian opinion which was confirmed. Israel broke the truce, just deal with it.
Watch it again, it confirmed that Israel bombed the tunnel, it confirmed nothing else. They did not have to bother factchecking it, no one ever denied it. The tunnel was a violation of the ceasefire to begin with, plus CNN did not investigate dozens of rockets fired into Israel during the ceasefire prior to the tunnel incident - but of course they did not even have a pro-Israel representative to point that out. So anyway, chronologically, Gaza fired dozens of rockets into Israel, Hamas was digging a 250 meter tunnel into Israel, then the Israelis went in and destroyed that tunnel. Want to factcheck?

Definitely more independent than whatever you've got.
Right, an arab, a palestinian solidarity officer, the most leftist newspaper in the UK and another Arab on CNN. And even they "proved" what was never denied. LOL

What do you have, exactly?
Read and weep:

The Islamist Hamas movement said the truce in and around Gaza will end on Friday, ruling out any extension and insisting that it will respond to any Israeli attack. "The truce will end tomorrow," said Fawzi Barhum, a spokesman for the Hamas rulers of the besieged Gaza Strip where violence already surged in recent days. "There is no possibility of renewing the truce," he told AFP on Thursday after a meeting with Islamic Jihad and other factions in Gaza.

Israel, which had hoped for an extension of the truce, had no immediate reaction to the Hamas statement.
http://www.france24.com/en/20081218-hamas-rejects-renewing-truce-gaza-israel

Let me get this straight. You're saying that Gazans should have been in Sderot so that they could experience the horrors of war?
I am saying that while Israel did nothing for weeks and there was indeed lull in Gaza, Sderot was a war zone, thanks to Hamas.


peace negotiations Israel has been offering virtually nothing
Other than then entire Gaza, 97% of the WB and 3% of the Israeli land, half of Jerusalem and financial compensation in lieu of the right of return of course.

Ah, spoils of war. So because retarded Arab leaders decided to attack Israel, it is acceptable for Israel to steal land from regular, civilian, innocent Palestinian farmers?
You bet it would be acceptable if Israel wanted to, it's always been acceptable, it is still acceptable, it will always be acceptable, that's after all how the land was stolen from the jews in the first place, that's how absolutely all countries have always acted throughout the history. But you ignored the second part, Israel's willingness to trade land for peace (but nothing less than peace) - approved and supported by the UN, no less.

Is it okay for Hamas to throw the people of Sderot out of the land and place out palestinian settlements?
First of all Israel does it when attacked, Hamas always attacks first. And you can't blame Hamas for not trying. They, arabs and their idiotic supporters should just stop whining when it backfires and they get their ass handed to them and lose their property. It is time for them to learn that when they attack status quo is not necessarily is the worst case scenario, they may actually lose big too. Otherwise if they know they have nothing to lose they will never stop attacking.

Dude, your moral compass is broken.
Nope, I am moral, you are a moralizing self-righteous blind idiot. Only a brain-washed lunatic can seriously believe that Hamas is interested in peace or is about to moderate their views without a serious beating (which is exactly what they are getting right now). It's simply amazing that an Israel hating Hamas supporter has the gall to lecture me on morality.

 

[a_person]

Quote from traderNik:

Exactly. Thank you for proving the point. One attack by a crazy person (sure, every group has crazy people)

He actually had to go all the way back to 1954 to find an example. How pathetic.

 

[Mercor]

We need to change the context of this war.

Everyone assumes there is some diplomatic settlement possible.
Most wars settled by truce never really end.

The logical outcome for a permanent solution is unconditional total victory. Which means one side will need to destroy the other side, population and all.

Now the question is, who makes the better victor. Should the World be pragmatic and look at the contributions to mankind from each side?
If we had to pick only one side for winners who should that be?

This solution is the only guarantee for peace.

 

[a_person]

Quote from Mercor:

Everyone assumes there is some diplomatic settlement possible.
I agree, there is too much unfinished business and hard feelings in the middle east to be resolved without a major war. This war with Hamas is not even a warm up, Syria and Iran is where the real war will be.

If we had to pick only one side for winners who should that be?
Some people always pick the underdog. It's their knee-jerk reaction, they can't help it. If Hamas is the underdog - they pick Hamas. That's of course until Hamas kills their dog, then they start blaming the government for not doing its job.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from destroyer:

As for your analysis of terrorist groups, I think you're far off, on both their means and motivations. Sounds like the neoconservatives got to you.

Luckily we can always look at the facts. I suggest you read 'The Looming Tower', Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer Prize winning book on the roots of modern Islamic fundamentalism. Their means and motivations are pretty well known.

It remains to be seen why you would bother denying something that the terrorists not only don't bother hiding, but state publicly.

In addition, we can ask why it is that radical Muslims tend to murder each other even more than they murder Jews and infidel Westerners. I'm sure there have been more Muslim-on-Muslim deaths in the past 30 years than Muslim-on-Westerner.

Finally, this is a must read for anyone in the West

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=974406&highlight=mindset#post974406

 

[destroyer]

Quote from a_person:
Definitely more independent than whatever you've got.
Right, an arab, a palestinian solidarity officer, the most leftist newspaper in the UK and another Arab on CNN. And even they "proved" what was never denied. LOL

Jim Clancy and Rick Sanchez are Arabs too now, huh? Everyone who disagrees with you are Arabs!

What do you have, exactly?
Read and weep:

Wow. When I called you demented I was actually insulting you, but now I'm beginning to feel like I stepped over the line. You really are demented, aren't you?

From your French source:

"Israel and Hamas have accused each other of violating the truce that was negotiated through Egyptian intermediaries as the Jewish state regards the Islamists as a terrorist outfit.

The Israeli government blames Hamas for not stopping attacks often carried out by smaller Palestinian factions, while the Islamists claim Israel broke the truce by failing to lift its blockade of the impoverished territory."

Israel claim that Hamas broke the truce by not being able to have complete control of rogue Palestinian fractions, like that is even possible. Hamas did infact call on other Palestinian factions to abide by the truce, but Israel knows very well that Islamic Jihad and even Fatah fires rockets sometimes without the consent of Hamas. How does that add up? Why would Israel have a truce with Hamas if they where asking for something so obviously impossible? And besides, these rogue rockets where 2-3 at the time, not 80 like Hamas likes to do it.

Hamas on the other hand claimed Israel broke the truce by not lifting the blockade, which is correct, this was a part of the truce.

And this article didn't even cover the Israeli raid in which IDF killed six Hamas gunmen.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that Gazans should have been in Sderot so that they could experience the horrors of war?
I am saying that while Israel did nothing for weeks and there was indeed lull in Gaza, Sderot was a war zone, thanks to Hamas.

By "nothing" you mean besieged Gaza and occasionally went in to do raids. The "lull in Gaza" was more like poor humanitarian conditions and limited freedom of movement. And your little "war zone" Sderot is still a thousand times safer than any Palestinian area has been for 60 years. Or rather 80 years, considering what terrorist groups like Haganah and Irgun where doing before they became the IDF. That's right, they where terrorist groups, attacking civilians much like Hamas is doing now. That's what became the IDF.

peace negotiations Israel has been offering virtually nothing
Other than then entire Gaza, 97% of the WB and 3% of the Israeli land, half of Jerusalem and financial compensation in lieu of the right of return of course.

Yeah, they were offered the West bank chopped into tiny pieces, no real independence and an artificial self-determination. And on top of it, they had to forever give up the right of return for the refugees. The entire situation would have been pretty much like it already is, except for the fact that the entire PLO leadership would have been lynched for treason.

Ah, spoils of war. So because retarded Arab leaders decided to attack Israel, it is acceptable for Israel to steal land from regular, civilian, innocent Palestinian farmers?
You bet it would be acceptable if Israel wanted to, it's always been acceptable, it is still acceptable, it will always be acceptable, that's after all how the land was stolen from the jews in the first place, that's how absolutely all countries have always acted throughout the history. But you ignored the second part, Israel's willingness to trade land for peace (but nothing less than peace) - approved and supported by the UN, no less.

Actually no, according to international law that is not acceptable. To even think that punishment and theft of private land by occupying forces is acceptable in modern times, is sickening. Quite revealing though, it shows that you think it's acceptable to regard entire groups as collective beings and to deal with them as one.

That makes you a fucking communist. And not the warm fuzzy type that wants to share and care for the weak, no that makes you the destructive, despicable kind that took the lives of more than a hundred million people and destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions more throughout the world.

As for your comment about the Jews losing their land that way (another collectivist view of the situation), it reveals that you're also religious. From a rational perspective, we don't really know what caused the exodus. Here's one take on it: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959229.html

Is it okay for Hamas to throw the people of Sderot out of the land and place out palestinian settlements?
First of all Israel does it when attacked, Hamas always attacks first. And you can't blame Hamas for not trying. They, arabs and their idiotic supporters should just stop whining when it backfires and they get their ass handed to them and lose their property. It is time for them to learn that when they attack status quo is not necessarily is the worst case scenario, they may actually lose big too. Otherwise if they know they have nothing to lose they will never stop attacking.

Actually allot of the Israeli towns were built upon destroyed Palestinian towns and villages, so saying that Hamas always attacks first is simply absurd. How can they attack first if they attack a village that was stolen from them?

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

Dude, your moral compass is broken.
Nope, I am moral, you are a moralizing self-righteous blind idiot. Only a brain-washed lunatic can seriously believe that Hamas is interested in peace or is about to moderate their views without a serious beating (which is exactly what they are getting right now). It's simply amazing that an Israel hating Hamas supporter has the gall to lecture me on morality.

There's no point in us talking about morality, as your collectivist views obviously deteriorates any sense of moral you might have had.

 

[sumosam]

There have been protests in Montreal...on youtube if you care to watch, where rabbis protested the state of Israel...saying it was not biblical.

Not televised. In the recent demonstrations, scores of non arabs took part...media only pictured obviously arabs, and extremists at that...

There were jews protesting as well....obviously not shown. Many jews in Israel are protesting. The Jews are better than what is happening in their name...by the Zionists

 

[Mercor]

Quote from sumosam:

There have been protests in Montreal...on youtube if you care to watch, where rabbis protested the state of Israel...saying it was not biblical.

Not televised. In the recent demonstrations, scores of non arabs took part...media only pictured obviously arabs, and extremists at that...

There were jews protesting as well....obviously not shown. Many jews in Israel are protesting. The Jews are better than what is happening in their name...by the Zionists

Lets praise the Jews for having public debate on a serious issue. Seems like the civilized way to express different viewpoints.

Why have I not seen one protest in Gaza against Hamas? Does the whole Gaza population agreee with Hamas about killing every Jew in sight. Do they all agree about launching random rockets at Jewish children?

 

[destroyer]

Quote from Mercor:
We need to change the context of this war.

Everyone assumes there is some diplomatic settlement possible.
Most wars settled by truce never really end.

The logical outcome for a permanent solution is unconditional total victory. Which means one side will need to destroy the other side, population and all.

I agree that the two-state solution is dead, in my opinion it was dead before they even started talking about it. The PLO have, from the get go of the peace negotiations, only been willing to accept a to-state solution as long as the refugees gets to return, which basically means Israel would become Palestinian land again in a matter of decades. My personal belief is that the PLO never even considered giving up an inch of land, I believe the PLO only went with the Oslo accords and all the other negotiations because they knew this was their best shot at getting back in.

Similarly Israel has always known that real peace with the Palestinian people would mean that they have no reason to keep the refugees out of the land, which in turn means that Israel as a self-determined Jewish homeland with an overwhelmingly Jewish population would come to an end. This would explain why the Israeli government seems do be doing everything in their power to keep the conflict at a high but controllable level. It explains the settlements, it explains the harassment, the checkpoints, the wall that eats Palestinian land, the collective punishments, the demolition of hundreds of houses and the funding of Hamas (yes, they actually funded their mortal enemy).

Obviously, with this situation - with Palestinians who will never give up their land, and Israelis who will never give up that same piece of land, a two-state solution will never work. The only viable solution, though highly unlikely, is to simply both have their national homes on the same territory. A binational solution in which both peoples share territory, defense and economy. A new constitution would need to be written, that protects the rights of the individual and strongly prohibits any and all sorts of discrimination; a constitution that is entirely blind to race, gender and religion. If Muslims, Jews, Christians or even Druze wants any rules on top of that - if they want to forbid homosexuality, have strict divorce-laws, etc., they could simply have internal governments with their own elected politicians, lawmakers and rules. If Jews wants to have certain laws to maintain their Jewishness, or if Palestinians are stupid enough to want Sharia, they can have that so long as only those who wants to be part of it are under its authority. All others would be protected by the constitution.

Long shot? Indeed, will almost certainly never happen, and even if they tried, there would be thousands of obstacles needed to overcome. But it's either a solution similar to this, or, as you say, the total annihilation of one of the peoples.

Now the question is, who makes the better victor. Should the World be pragmatic and look at the contributions to mankind from each side?
If we had to pick only one side for winners who should that be?

That's completely one hundred percent impossible to even try to determine. Surely Israel is a million times more productive than the Palestinian territories today, but who's to say the Palestinians wouldn't have been more productive if it weren't for the fact that the Zionists are standing on their necks? And how can one know the effects of contributions that happened thousands of years ago? For instance, maybe the entire creation of Judaism, which in turn caused Christianity has contributed to hold us back for centuries of technological development. Or maybe it gave us hundreds of centuries of advancement in technology. And how do we figure out who really did what, and who based what on whos work? For instance the creation of the first alphabet which all alphabets on earth are based on possibly came from ancient Canaan; it surely must be one of the greatest achievements and contributions to mankind - possible even the biggest contribution ever. How the hell can we determine who's to take credit for it? According to archeology, Israelites didn't even come out of Egypt, they where a collection of canaanite tribes that suddenly started calling themselves Gods chosen people for the sake of political power around 700 B.C.

And on top of this, it's quite disturbing to even suggest that a Jew can take any more credit than a non-Jew for whatever another entirely independent Jew does. The world doesn't work like that, people aren't entities, people are a bunch of individuals, each responsible for their own actions.

No, no, no, very stupid notion entirely. If it were to come to this however; if the two peoples were forced to fight till one annihilates the other completely, there's only one way to decide who should win, and that's who ever is the strongest. Obviously that is Israel, but Israel needs to take into consideration that other Arabs and Muslims might back up the Palestinians. Arabs and Muslims would in turn need to take into consideration that Israel has got a grip on the balls of the US. I'd say if it where to come to this, to the complete destruction of one of the peoples, we might be looking at the total destruction of half the planet.

 

[destroyer]

Quote from traderNik:
Luckily we can always look at the facts. I suggest you read 'The Looming Tower', Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer Prize winning book on the roots of modern Islamic fundamentalism. Their means and motivations are pretty well known.

That book is actually quite reflected and to a large extent it explains how the terrorists actually are, which is -not- viscous blood thirsty freedom hating barbarians who eats babies and hates blond hair. They are sick bastards, no doubt about it, but their motives for attacking the US has got nothing to do with American culture or love for freedom. It's all about revenge and punishment for those who the terrorists believe are causing their problems.

It remains to be seen why you would bother denying something that the terrorists not only don't bother hiding, but state publicly.

I'm not sure what exactly you think I'm denying, I'm denying the notion that Osama bin Laden attacked the US because he hates freedom or US values. Terrorists doesn't state that publicly, on the contrary, Bin Laden has said, amongst other things, this:

"Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. May the mercy of God be upon them.

We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.

I wonder about you. Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated."
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/

Some US politicians, especially republicans, keeps repeating this claim that Al Qaeda hates freedom, and stupid Americans actually buy it. You people need to start using your heads before your societies are reduced to something similar to the Arab societies. Heck, Islamic fundamentalists are doing the exact same thing, by saying the west hates Islam and engages in a crusade to destroy Muslim societies. Your religious fanatics are no less of a threat to you than Islamic fundamentalists are in the Arab world. Yours are even worse because they actually have significant influence, you even put one in The White House for 8 freaking years.

Finally, this is a must read for anyone in the West

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=974406&highlight=mindset#post974406

Rearden Metal has got his head so far up his ass, he's licking his own tonsils. Probably confuses them for his testicles, which is about the same size.

First of all, Arabs aren't one people with one culture, 'Arab' is a term used for several peoples connected by a language. Egyptians, Levantines, Saudis and Somalis are all called Arabs, but they're as genetically and culturally diverse as Europeans, if not more. Arabs does, on average, put more weight in pride and honor than modern western societies, but compared to the west only some decades ago, we had similar ideals here. Some western societies still do even, like for instance certain parts and aspects of Italy and Greece. Similarly there are Arab towns and even countries that doesn't even know about the concept of honor killing, some societies are virtually no different from western societies. Second, honor and pride murders is most common amongst the tribal areas in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and amongst Kurds. That's three peoples who are not even Arab. And third, the whole idea of talking about "Arab mindset 101" as if it's some collective conscience is no less than a communist notion, which makes it hilarious to be spoken of by someone who calls himself Rearden Metal. The guy is a disgrace to selfishness.