Israel Bombing the Crap Out of Gaza

[Greenday]

I'm one who supports (in theory) the Palastinians. Historically it's their land. They'd been there for thousands of years before the Jewish people found their way there, and decided (was 'chosen' for them) to stay. Only recently had Jews across the world even bothered to move there and for the most part, that's only been in the last 150 or so years...(the Wiki article on the History of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is good!).

I knew this, which is why I've always felt the Palestinians had a right to be totally pissed off about land being stolen from them. That's why, overall, I don't really side with Israel. I don't side with Hamas because they are terrorists and I refuse to side with terrorists too. That's why I think we should just declare neutrality. We made an illigit country too powerful and as a result, the Middle East is a lot more unstable.

Slyt, I don't REALLY think we should just let them blow each other to hell (well, the antagonists can, but collateral damage is unacceptable). But what are we supposed to do, when a lot of the civilians being caught in the crossfire support the fighting? While there are a few people there who don't support either side, the majority of the people seem to crave destruction of their enemies. The civilians are not completely blameless. The older generations teach the younger generations to hate the otherside and it just continues on.

[smileyeagle1021]

About the only way we'll ever get peace is to decide which of the factions: Palestine, Isreal, etc, we support, and kill off everyone else. And then kill of everyone who gets mad over it.

and then kill all the people who gets mad over you killing the people who got mad over you killing the people who got mad over... oh hell, you get the idea... it would be never ending killing until there wasn't a single person left alive in the region.

[lordlundar]

and then kill all the people who gets mad over you killing the people who got mad over you killing the people who got mad over... oh hell, you get the idea... it would be never ending killing until there wasn't a single person left alive in the world.

Fixed for accuracy. With the world as it is right now, where communication has brought the world closer together, this idea becomes international REAL quick.

[Slytovhand]

Firstly, the idealistic idiot that I am, I do believe peace will come to there - and while people are still living there (as against just rocks...).

Probably not in our lifetimes, unless a major world shattering event comes along to shift our mindsets (eg - aliens land).

I think the biggest problem arose when, although we all knew where we were talking about when the word 'Palestine' was used, it wasn't formally recognised as a country. If it had that grace given to it, most of this wouldn't be an issue -it'd be a clear cut 'invasion' of a country. But - it's not... it's just a resettlement of one group of people to where another group of people lived - and they took 'nationality' first.

It actually reminds me of Fiji. Native Fijians are massively outnumbered by immigrant Indians - who now control their parliament, and subsequently, native Fijians see the government as giving unfair advantages to the Indian businesses and people. That's why they had a coup not so long ago...

GD - there are people out there who believe in just nuking the place. I agree (I suppose). There are no 'innocents' over there - except the very young. There are some who really want peace, and realise that we're all human beings...

Peace will come when each and every individual finds the peace in their own hearts - not just externally and by someone else.

RadioClerk... there has been peace* in the Middle East... it just doesn't make the history books because it's not as... interesting. Persia and Babylon were over 2000 years ago - so not the best of examples to use. It was just one small amount of time in the entire history of humanity.


*'peace' being defined as times where parties and organisations weren't at war with each other, and the basic realities of life just got on and got done... farmers farmed, millers milled, and everyone just worked to survive - and didn't really bother about the other locals

[Flyndaran]

In my eyes, a terrorist is someone who strikes at non-military targets for gain. A freedom fighter would be someone using similar tactics, but going after targets of military value. Of course, the military tends to be aware people LIKE to strike at them, and have this silly habit of defending themselves....*shrugs*

Then during WWII we were all terrorists. Are you really ready to deal with that? During the Viet Nam war, the U.S. bombed civilian targets. You ready to deal with calling this nation a terrorist nation but just when we hit a snag with conventional warfare?

[Boozy]

It's often difficult to differentiate between military and civilian targets in modern warfare. Besides, civilians are a major component of the war effort. They pay for the war, manufacture the supplies, rally support on the homefront.

Why would it be within the rules of warfare for the enemy in Iraq to kill a 18 year-old US soldier, but not one of the Halliburton executives on a tour of the oil rigs?

Canadians and Americans sometimes have trouble understanding that when a nation is at war, the entire population is at war. Our civilians have always been geographically protected from having to directly confront the enemy the way they did in Europe during WWII (ie, England during the Blitz), or in the Middle East today.

[Greenday]

Hmm, Israel sent in the ground troops. Should be interesting to see how that turns out.

[IDrinkaRum]

Wasn't modern-day Israel created shortly after World War II as a conscience soothing offering to the Jewish people because Europe & the U.S. allowed the Nazis to kill a majority of them? (Yes, I know there were Undergrounds to help the Jews to escape, but a lot of people did stand by and do nothing).

The Israelites and the Palenstinians both claim that piece of land from Yahweh. Both say they have claim because they are both descended from Abraham. The Palenstinians from Ishmael, the son Abraham had with his slave woman. The Israelites from his son Issac(?), with his legal wife. The Palenstinians say because they are descended from the 1st son, they get the inheritance so-to-speak. The Israelites say because they are descended from the legitimate son (even if he "technically" wasn't the 1st son) and he was Jewish, they get the piece of land promised to their tribe.

Or am I completely lost?

[AdminAssistant]

You're not completely lost, Rum! That's my general understanding, too.

Of course, there is the matter of the 6-Day War, which I don't know too much about, other than Israel was about to take over the Sinai Peninusla, but stopped.

[Evandril]

Then during WWII we were all terrorists. Are you really ready to deal with that? During the Viet Nam war, the U.S. bombed civilian targets. You ready to deal with calling this nation a terrorist nation but just when we hit a snag with conventional warfare?

I'd like examples, first. Hitting a civilian factory that's making things for the troops is a valid military target. As is bombing a church that troops are using for shelter. As to the US not behaving in the most civilized of manners...'tis not news to me, but we've still got a better track record than most, IMO. *shrugs* Just because I do still love America doesn't mean I'm blind to our faults...Or our mistakes.

[AdminAssistant]

Evandril, the citizens of Nakasaki and Okinawa would like a word with you....

[Evandril]

Do you mean Hiroshima instead of Okinawa? The folks on Oki were happy with the US...Until we gave 'em BACK to Japan

And, yes, those bombings fit as 'terrorist' acts, though I can't argue with them being taken (I could be wrong, and there could have been valid military targets in them, but I'm not aware if there was)

[Greenday]

Evandril, the citizens of Nakasaki and Okinawa would like a word with you....

Still debatable as to whether that was wrong or not.

[AdminAssistant]

Do you mean Hiroshima instead of Okinawa? The folks on Oki were happy with the US...Until we gave 'em BACK to Japan

Gah! I knew that sounded wrong! I must've been thinking about Kill Bill or something.

Justified or not...we killed a HELL of a lot of innocent people in those two bombings and caused damage on a massive scale. Was it effective? Yes - it forced Japan into surrender. But I think it's a little hypocritical for America (in general) to get on a moral high horse about killing civilians.

[Evandril]

Oh, we've killed more civilians in the desert than were killed on 9/11...but we didn't target any deliberatly... And the damage that was done to civilians during WWII and the like was due to us not being as accurate then as we are now...carpet bombing gets the job done, but VERY inefficently *shrugs*

More lives were *saved*, overall, by the two nukes than were lost...but it still would qualify as a terroist act, unless there was a valid military reason for hitting the two towns (A big part of it was their isolation...so the damage would be impressive enough to convince them...but do no more than that) If we would have been forced to invade Japan, millions more would have died, 'tis pretty much a given. Right or wrong, hard to say after the fact...but it was done to *end* things, as fast as possible.

Does this mean I don't care, or even agree with civilians dying? Not in the least...but that's one of the horrors of war, innocents die. Me not liking it doesn't make it any less of a fact. I do know we are trained to do everything we can, within reason, to avoid needless deaths.