namelesstavern.net

in (the remake of) red dawn, an invading force occupies land against the will of its people, so a small group of locals band together and use (sub)urban guerrilla tactics to fight back against the invaders

ITT you're basically saying the kids are the bad guys and that the invaders have a right to defend themselves, do you not see that

By that reasoning if Mexico were to start invading parts of Texas (lol cartels already do) you would be okay with them shelling/striking civilian Texas neighborhoods, suicide bombing schools, buses, hospitals, shopping centers, etc.

And if the U.S. was to retaliate they'd be assholes, because Mexico is poor and downtrodden and blah fucking blah.

Harrison wrote:Should they not defend themselves because dirty rat towelheads put weapons in close proximity to children? That's insanity.

I think they should be responsible in their defense. I think if they have a blatant disregard for innocent life, they are at fault. When we are dealing with the death of children I don't really care who's more or less justified in their death. It doesn't seem like Israel currently cares about the life of an innocent Muslim child at all, and they are the ones who should have the moral high ground.

Harrison wrote:And if the U.S. was to retaliate they'd be assholes, because Mexico is poor and downtrodden and blah fucking blah.

I would expect their response to be measured with an attempt to minimize innocent life. I believe Israel currently thinks if Hamas is going to put innocent people in harms way they are not personally responsible for their deaths if they kill them. That is a fucked up way of thinking.

Zanchief wrote:

Harrison wrote:Should they not defend themselves because dirty rat towelheads put weapons in close proximity to children? That's insanity.

I think they should be responsible in their defense. I think if they have a blatant disregard for innocent life, they are at fault. When we are dealing with the death of children I don't really care who's more or less justified in their death. It doesn't seem like Israel currently cares about the life of an innocent Muslim child at all, and they are the ones who should have the moral high ground.

IDF calls people in the area and drops off leaflets with a notice that there is an incoming strike, how much more responsible should they be? Give some options on stoping missiles without destroying them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6a112wRmBs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgHyT3FzTF8&feature=plcp

the real solution is to just wipe out every muslim and jew from the known universe

it would definitely stop the hostility between the 2

Tikker wrote:the real solution is to just wipe out every muslim and jew from the known universe

it would definitely stop the hostility between the 2

Good to know I got your vote for killing me and my family

I think his point is trying to get peace in the middle east is very near impossible, and not so much to wipe out 1/5 the worlds population and 2/3 of Hollywood and the U.S. bankers and financial analysts. I could be wrong, though.

Although I personally would not be opposed to a few less Hollywood types, hedge fund peeps, and corporate execs.

UN votes to recognize palestinian statehood

thumbs up

so as a response, israel acts like a kid that didnt get its way and announces building plans in E1, which would effectively split the land that could become a contiguous palestinian state

“That is because the top-level people making decisions here in recent years are completely insular and out of touch with the rest of the world, especially regarding the Palestinians and the settlements,” said Mark Heller, a foreign-policy analyst at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. “Self-righteousness may be good for domestic politics,” he said, but it is not a policy.”

http://world.time.com/2012/12/03/is-net ... ssibility/

I don't think this particular move by Israel is in any way defensible whatsoever. It violates agreements they themselves already made, and flies in the face of international law. Not to mention what it does to the peace process, which was finally in a place to move forward, after the Egyptian mediation of the Gaza strip fighting.

So lets review what Israel did here:

1) Slapped the US in the face, immediately after we had unwaveringly stood by them in the Gaza fight, and (mistakenly, IMHO) in the UN.

2) Slapped Abbas in the face, despite the fact that he's kept the West Bank peaceful, and is supposedly Israel's chosen negotiating partner with the Palestinians.

3) Pissed off just about every ally they have in Europe too.

4) Just invited vastly more attacks against themselves. I mean, like the article said, Hamas attacked with a ton of rockets, and the aftermath is increased freedoms and concessions by Israel. Abbas tries to negotiate, wins a round in the UN, and Israel shits all over them. Now, you're the average Palestinian and you see the outcome of the two disparate methods, which are YOU going to choose?


Absolutely, completely, totally an asinine decision. The US needs to put its foot down about this one. Hard.

-Arlos

.

I pretty much back everything Israel does because dirty slum-rats bombing children intentionally don't deserve shit but a bullet to the face.

It's unfortunate hipsters across the country living safe in suburbia never having to fear anything of the sort look down on "the big bad man" stomping out shit shoveling towelheads, because they're poor. (ignoring the fact they're murdering pieces of shit who target children and civilian populations on purpose)

If poor people north or south of our borders started lobbing missiles into your city, not at military targets but at your malls, libraries, cafes, etc., you wouldn't be saying shit if we curbstomped them regardless of where they hid their missile sites. It's easy to act high and mighty as you sit safe in your bubble.

Fuck "Palestine" right into extinction.

Uh, Harrison, the West Bank, which is where this is happening, hasn't been bombing anyone for quite some time. So, you're raging against something that isn't, you know, happening.

-Arlos

Harrison wrote:I pretty much back everything Israel does because dirty slum-rats bombing children intentionally don't deserve shit but a bullet to the face.

It's unfortunate hipsters across the country living safe in suburbia never having to fear anything of the sort look down on "the big bad man" stomping out shit shoveling towelheads, because they're poor. (ignoring the fact they're murdering pieces of shit who target children and civilian populations on purpose)

If poor people north or south of our borders started lobbing missiles into your city, not at military targets but at your malls, libraries, cafes, etc., you wouldn't be saying shit if we curbstomped them regardless of where they hid their missile sites. It's easy to act high and mighty as you sit safe in your bubble.

Fuck "Palestine" right into extinction.

what the fuck is this shit

do you live in a war zone

are you military

no and no

where's this bullshit fake swagger come from

you're defending one pack of murderers for murdering another pack of murderers, and you're throwing race into the mix like a true redneck gunporn fuckwad

worthless

He's also focusing 100% on events that happened decades ago and have nothing to do with modern palestinian sentiment. Equating extremists to an entire population is some bush-league al qaeda/afghanistan bullshit. Like Arlos said, none of that really happens. Unfair and naive. Also completely disregarding the more recent use of palestinian children as gunpoint-forced human shields for the shitbag israelis

I don't think calling either side names or demonizing either side is going to accomplish much, and is what we have had too much of already.

Both sides have done horrible things to each other.

Harrison, if you need an example of the Israelis being responsible for horrible civilian slaughter, just look up the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which the previous PM of Israel, Ariel Sharon was judged (in a court of law) to bear personal responsibility for. If I may quote from a journalist who was able to sneak into the scene:

Janet Lee Stevens, an American journalist, later wrote to her husband, Dr. Franklin Lamb, "I saw dead women in their houses with their skirts up to their waists and their legs spread apart; dozens of young men shot after being lined up against an alley wall; children with their throats slit, a pregnant woman with her stomach chopped open, her eyes still wide open, her blackened face silently screaming in horror; countless babies and toddlers who had been stabbed or ripped apart and who had been thrown into garbage piles."

Enough innocent child-killing for you?


The point I am making is, at this point, either side can point to horrible things the other side has done. Doing so, though, gets the sides nowhere towards an actual peace. With that as a backdrop, Israel has committed a major act of economic aggression towards the West Bank, the PEACEFUL side of the Palestinians, and done so in a manner that slaps all their allies in the face. There is no excuse for what they are doing, and it certainly doesn't help the peace process.

Every side involved here needs to sit down and actually work on this: Abbas, Hamas, Israel, Egypt and the US. They all need to look at the long view and past all the slights, and really negotiate. (which means ALL sides need to be willing to give up something.) Without real negotiations, and real efforts at compromise and diplomacy, there will never be peace in the region.

-Arlos

Arlos wrote:Uh, Harrison, the West Bank, which is where this is happening, hasn't been bombing anyone for quite some time. So, you're raging against something that isn't, you know, happening.

-Arlos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pa ... rael,_2012

One of them even targeting a nuclear research facility. Yeah, let's rocket attack something that could kill millions in radiation, geniuses.

article wrote:On November 21, another soldier, Boris Yarmilnik (28),[313] was killed and a bus was bombed in Tel Aviv. The bus bombing, which injured 28 Israeli civilians, was condemned by the UN, the United States, and several European countries,[314] and was praised by Hamas and celebrated in the Gaza Strip.

November 21st last quick-searched bombing I found.

Over 1,456 rockets were fired at Israel between November 14 and 21.

Since everyone like to jump to conclusions and make bashing posts without actually learning anything about facts, here is a good synopsis of actual facts about this construction that has been spun by news to upset everyone:

• The E-1 area is a part of the Israeli city of Maale Adumim, located immediately adjacent to Jerusalem. There is an E-1 construction plan that was devised in order to link Maale Adumim and its 36,000 residents to Jerusalem. Every Israeli prime minister since Yitzhak Rabin has supported the plan. The E-1 site covers an area of largely uninhabited, state-owned land.
• Without control of the E-1 area, Israel is apprehensive about a Palestinian belt of construction that will threaten Jerusalem from the east, block the city’s development eastward, and undermine Israel’s control of the Jerusalem-Jericho road. This major artery is of paramount strategic importance for Israel in order to transport troops and equipment eastward and northward via the Jordan Rift Valley in time of war.
• Contrary to reports, the completion of E-1 would not cut the West Bank in half and undermine Palestinian contiguity. Israel has planned a new road that would allow Palestinian traffic coming from the south to pass eastward of Maale Adumim and continue northward to connect with the cities in the northern West Bank. This Palestinian bypass road would actually reduce the time for Palestinian drivers traveling in a north-south direction who would encounter no Israeli roadblocks.
• The main threat to Israel’s future contiguity comes from encroachments on E-1 made by illegal Palestinian construction. Israeli and Palestinian construction in the West Bank has been governed by the legal terms of the Oslo II Interim Agreement from September 28, 1995. The area around E-1 is within Area C, where, according to Oslo II, Israel retained the powers of zoning and planning. As a result, much of the recently completed Palestinian construction there is illegal. In contrast, none of the Oslo Agreements prohibited Israeli settlement activity, though Israel undertook unilateral limitations upon itself in this area in recent years.
• Israeli construction of E-1 will not undermine Palestinian contiguity, but were Israel to lose control of E-1, the contiguity of Israel would be severely compromised.

If you want details you can read much more here

Arlos wrote:Both sides have done horrible things to each other.

Harrison, if you need an example of the Israelis being responsible for horrible civilian slaughter, just look up the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which the previous PM of Israel, Ariel Sharon was judged (in a court of law) to bear personal responsibility for. If I may quote from a journalist who was able to sneak into the scene:

Janet Lee Stevens, an American journalist, later wrote to her husband, Dr. Franklin Lamb, "I saw dead women in their houses with their skirts up to their waists and their legs spread apart; dozens of young men shot after being lined up against an alley wall; children with their throats slit, a pregnant woman with her stomach chopped open, her eyes still wide open, her blackened face silently screaming in horror; countless babies and toddlers who had been stabbed or ripped apart and who had been thrown into garbage piles."

Enough innocent child-killing for you?

Just so we are clear, since it is not in your post: Israelis did not do this - Lebanese Christian militia fighters did this, while Israeli Defense Forces and Ariel Sharon were found indirectly responsible for not stopping this. IDF never entered Sabra and Shatila camps, but were in control of the area and aware of the fighting inside the camps. Not trying to justify anything, and I'm fully in agreement that IDF should have prevented/stopped this from happening; but I don't want you to present this as something that Israelis did.

Ganzo wrote:Just so we are clear, since it is not in your post: Israelis did not do this - Lebanese Christian militia fighters did this, while Israeli Defense Forces and Ariel Sharon were found indirectly responsible for not stopping this. IDF never entered Sabra and Shatila camps, but were in control of the area and aware of the fighting inside the camps. Not trying to justify anything, and I'm fully in agreement that IDF should have prevented/stopped this from happening; but I don't want you to present this as something that Israelis did.

You are absolutely right that it wasn't the Israelis directly that went in there and did the actual killing. But the IDF knew what those militias were like, and knew what they intended if they ever got the chance. The IDF also put the camps on lockdown, let the militias in, and then continually fired flares to light the area, so the militias could see what they were doing as they went slaughtering through the camps. Nor, as you said, did the IDF make any move to stop what was going on. So, still, pretty direct responsibility, I think, even if they didn't do the actual slayings. Anyway, my point wasn't to be attacking Israel for this, it was to make the point that BOTH sides have plenty of reason to hate the other, because of atrocities that both sides have been responsible for.

As for E1, I'll look at your article later, I have a final in a few hours, so I don't have time this minute. Even SHOULD it be legal under international law, however, don't you see at all how this just inflames the issues there to do such an action at *THIS* point? Especially given all that has transpired within the last couple weeks? Is delivering such a huge insult to the US (who begged Israel not to make such an announcement at this time), and to the Palestinians RIGHT after the events in Gaza at all smart? Combine that with Israel's refusal to hand over the millions in tax revenue they owe to Abbas' government, and it just looks like petulant retaliation for the vote in the UN. Also, it HAS alienated your allies, and HAS lessened the chances for peace. It was a stupid, stupid move, regardless of the claimed legality.

Harrison: Every single instance you list were attacks from Gaza, not the West Bank. Indeed, every single item listed in the article you linked ALSO was from Gaza. Do you even know the difference? Blaming the Palestinians of the West Bank for those attacks would be like blaming Canada for starting the war with Iraq in 2003 instead of the US.

-Arlos

Arlos wrote:You are absolutely right that it wasn't the Israelis directly that went in there and did the actual killing. But the IDF knew what those militias were like, and knew what they intended if they ever got the chance. The IDF also put the camps on lockdown, let the militias in, and then continually fired flares to light the area, so the militias could see what they were doing as they went slaughtering through the camps. Nor, as you said, did the IDF make any move to stop what was going on. So, still, pretty direct responsibility, I think, even if they didn't do the actual slayings. Anyway, my point wasn't to be attacking Israel for this, it was to make the point that BOTH sides have plenty of reason to hate the other, because of atrocities that both sides have been responsible for.

You painted a gruesome picture of rapes and and murders, I wanted to clarify that it was not IDF who did that, but at the same time as I've said before

Ganzo wrote:Not trying to justify anything, and I'm fully in agreement that IDF should have prevented/stopped this from happening

Arlos wrote:As for E1, I'll look at your article later, I have a final in a few hours, so I don't have time this minute. Even SHOULD it be legal under international law, however, don't you see at all how this just inflames the issues there to do such an action at *THIS* point? Especially given all that has transpired within the last couple weeks? Is delivering such a huge insult to the US (who begged Israel not to make such an announcement at this time), and to the Palestinians RIGHT after the events in Gaza at all smart? Combine that with Israel's refusal to hand over the millions in tax revenue they owe to Abbas' government, and it just looks like petulant retaliation for the vote in the UN. Also, it HAS alienated your allies, and HAS lessened the chances for peace. It was a stupid, stupid move, regardless of the claimed legality.

Israel did say they would retaliate, I think this is much better retaliation than bombing people. Do you know why it is that US, Canada and others voted against upgrading Palestine's statehood status, and most of the EU countries abstained instead of voting?

Wow Arlos, you made it sound that Israel did that shit and now you're trying to backpedal.

I'd like to see an actual comprehensive solution instead of just more politicking and underhanded support for Hamas, whose goal are completely detestable.

Arlos, it does look like you are changing your tune now.

On the flip side, I'd like your thoughts about this, Ganzo:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ction.html

Few of Israel's even most staunch Stateside advocates have ventured to defend the announcement of 3,000 new settlement homes in the territory known as E1, just East of Jerusalem. Instead, the commentary has basically been, 'It's not that bad.' But as of last night there was one notable exception: the Israel Project, a group whose mission is to provide facts to media and the public. The D.C.-based organization put out a release about the Israeli plans.

The Israel Project's novel defense of building civilian settlements in E1, however, has many a pitfall. It hinges on the counter-intuitive—and misleading—notion that not building up E1 would cut off the settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim from Israel proper:

The concerns over contiguity have been held up in particular as almost exactly backwards. Israeli construction in E1 doesn’t preclude contiguity between the West Bank and Jerusalem, as the Israelis have built substantial infrastructure and bypass roads to connect parts of Jerusalem with parts of the West Bank in the absence of routes through E1. In contrast, Palestinian control of E1 actually does cut off Ma’aleh Adumim from the rest of Israel, as there is no parallel infrastructure to maintain Israeli access.

To begin with, building up E1 would indeed effect "contiguity between the West Bank and Jerusalem": Palestinians in Jerusalem would need to pass through Israeli territory—that is, international borders, should a two-state deal ever be reached—to get to the West Bank. Secondly, the vocabulary is wrong: what the Israel Project and, were it interested in a two-state deal, the government of Israel mean to preserve in E1 would be Palestinian "continuity" for transportation, not territorial contiguity. Looking at Elliott Abrams's explanation for the Israeli moves, it's clear what's expected is that the Israeli-built bypass roads for Palestinians will allow movement between the northern and southern West Bank. Some of these roads are already built; they would leave a Palestinian state reduced to a 16-meter-wide road at the center of the country. One can't, with a straight face, call this territorial "contiguity," especially since that road would be easy for Israel to close. (This in defense of an Israeli government that complains about its own "narrow waistline," which is nine-miles-wide.)

The Israel Project's logic also hinges on the notion that settlement is necessary in order to connect Ma'aleh Adumim to Israel proper, but that's a red herring. Israel controls E1 and will do so until negotiations settle the fate of the territory. The roads currently connecting the settlement to Jerusalem indeed run through E1. But the organization seems to imply that if Israel doesn't build further there, Palestinians would suddenly take over: "Palestinian control of E1 actually does cut off Ma’aleh Adumim." That's just a false dichotomy: Israel—and only Israel—controls that land.

Moreover, Ma'aleh Adumim was built where it is exactly to bifurcate the West Bank. Nonetheless, the settlement's now there and some 40,000 people live in it. If Israel, as it does, intends to keep Ma'aleh Adumim in a supposed final peace deal, it should make its case at the negotiating table; that's what this unilateral Israeli move would preclude. Both sides will insist they want some sort of corridor—not just an "umbilical chord"—and they must hammer out a tough compromise.

Most gallingly, the Israel Project centered its release on a statement by an anonymous Israeli official to the Washington Post that, as the title of the press release put it, "Israeli Officials Link House Announcement To 'Vital Interests', Reject Criticism." The statement echoes one by Benjamin Netanyahu, who said building settlements was in the "strategic interests of the State of Israel." Neither Netanyahu, nor the anonymous Israeli official in the Post explain exactly what these "vital interests" are. The Israel Project seems to have taken a stab at it, but fell flat. As such, the group should pipe up: what is the "vital interest" of moving Israeli civilians into the West Bank?