quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: subrosaDom



Churchill, in his first volume of his WWII history, seems to have a different point of view regarding active appeasement during the 30s. I think the man knows whereof he speaks.

Really? Do you really think that war mongering piece of shit knew a fucking thing except how to instigate a war?
His phoquing book is filled with his admissions of how he plotted to get gb into a war with germany.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: BamaD

Israel is not dedicated to the extermination of the Arabs so the rest of your post would be a waste of time. If Israel wanted to exterminate them they could napalm all of Gaza get back when your are in touch with reality


If one looks at the past 70 years it would appear quite obvious to the most casual observer that israel is trying to kill all of the palistinians. Count the bodies

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

I don't think you know who you are dealing with subrosaDom, thompsonx is among the best and the brightest that the left has to offer here.

Careful, now...

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If that's the best you can do, subrosaDom, that is a pretty pathetic response. It contains a number of factual errors, such as:

quote:

Israeli does not target civilians to cause terror (as does Hamas) -- they do it to root out Hamas's terrorist infrastructure

Israeli General Gadi Eizenkot was quite specific that Israel does target civilians and civilian infrastructure : "From our perspective, these [civilian areas] are military bases. [...] Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah" A deliberate strategy of "harming the population", could it be any clearer? The enormous number of civilians killed and injured in Israel's current rampage in Gaza, with most independent estimates putting it at c75-80% or approx 1350 of the c1800 fatalities confirms the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Since I know you can read I know you know you are intentionally misrepresenting that quote.

He's saying Hezbollah is hiding amongst the civilian population so the IDF has to attack those civilians to get at Hezbollah.

If real lives weren't at stake, DKs post would rank as first class comedy. As it stands, it provides a revealing insight into the kind of intellectual gymnastics and double think necessary to maintain the kind of blind fanatical faith in Israel and its absolute inability to commit a mistake Dom Ken has displayed for as long as I have been posting here.

Even tho' the Israeli general specifically states that "harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah", DK insists this doesn't mean what it says. Even tho' DK states that "the IDF has to attack those civilians", which can only mean that the civilians are being deliberately targetted, DK wants us to believe that doesn't mean that they are deliberately targetting them. One wonders if DK wants us to believe that the IDF are "attacking' those civilians accidentally (!?)...... when he concedes they are being deliberately targetted to "get at Hezbollah". There is no defence in law or morality that I know of that allows the deliberate targetting of civilians. In some circumstances, one can make a case in law and morality for collateral harm against civilians but not deliberate targetting.

Buried the depths of his spin DK thus agrees that civilians are being deliberately targetted. The contradictions are to immense and glaring for any one to resolve. DK's tries to justify the deliberate targetting of civilians as it is the "only way to get at Hezbollah". Even this tenuous defence contains a massive lie - there are other ways of "getting at" Hezbollah or Hamas or whoever Israel's enemy de jour is. For Israel Palestinian lives carry no value so Palestinians are deliberately targetted and killed, sometimes for reasons vaguely related to some kind of military objective, and often times for no reason at all, such as the incident I documented in post #702.

The IDF is quite specific that all this is deliberate and planned, this is not some low level local commander making poor decisions on the ground. The deliberate targetting of civilians and civilian infrastructure - "This isn't a suggestion. It's a plan that has already been authorized." - is an integral part of the IDF's strategy approved at high level. So there is a degree of pre-meditation to these attacks on civilians. They are no accident, they are an integral part of the overall plan.

Even tho' DK is posting the double think and gibberish analysed above he has the stupendous audacity to accuse others of "intentional misrepresent[ations]" - while, as we have seen, he is busy doing exactly that himself. I wonder precisely how tenuous his relationship with reality is. If he really believes what he is asking us to believe, one must conclude that DK's nonsensical misrepresentations suggest that his relationship with reality is very tenuous indeed.

One should also note that DK makes no attempt whatsoever to deny the main charge levelled against the IDF - that it is a terrorist force. Whatever way we look at it, the IDF is deliberately targetting civilian and civilian infrastructure - we have their unambiguous word for it. And that makes the IDF a terrorist force by any reasonable understanding of the term 'terrorist'.

None of that is true. The civilian areas are the same as military bases. To attack the military, they must therefore target civilian areas, because there are no military-only areas. They don't target civilians qua civilians. They target military areas that have civilians in them because of Hamas's immorality. The IDF is therefore in no way a terrorist force. They are attacking Hamas's military bases buried amongst civilians. 100% Hamas's moral responsibility. 0% Israel's. DK is right. You are wrong.

Your interpretation is erroneous.

Please look closely at Gen Eizenkot's words: "Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah". He is not talking about attacking a military base, or even a military objective. Eizenkot specifies his goal as "restraining Nasrullah", the political head of Hezbollah. He chose the term "restraining" not 'killing' or 'eliminating'. Eizenkot is talking about achieving a political goal not a military one. He wants to "restrain" Nasrullah by inflicting terrible losses on the civilian population - "harming the population" - literally terrorising them into submission so that they beg Nasrullah to stop whatever he is doing that arouses Israeli displeasure.

His goal is political not military. His means of achieving his goal is deliberately target the civilian population and unleash massive firepower inflicting devastating losses in order to achieve the political goal of influencing Nasrullah. He is specific and unambiguous about all of this.

Nor is the some abstract academic discussion, some theoretical analysis. The entire world has just witnesses Eizenkot's words become reality in Gaza. Eizenkot's words are a 100% accurate prediction of the events we have just witnessed in Gaza. The rate of civilian casualties - all independent estimates I have seen put the civilian casualty rate at 75-80% of total casualties - confirm this allegation. The IDF unleashed massive firepower on the civilian population in the hope of forcing them to insist Hamas 'restrain' its activities and so avoid more Israeli massacres. This is precisely the strategy the IDF deployed - the Dahiya doctrine as outlined by Eizenkot some 6 years before this latest invasion of Gaza.

Eizenkot's words speak for themselves in all their stark brutality. His words leave no room for interpretation or ambiguity - they are precise and succinct, just as one would expect from a military person. If the term terrorist has any meaning then this is classic textbook terrorism. Therefore, the IDF is a terrorist force.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Israel has the ability to take out the bad guys and destroy high priority targets without hurting civilians in the process. They have the technology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Israel has the ability to take out the bad guys and destroy high priority targets without hurting civilians in the process. They have the technology.

Just curious, but exactly what "technology" would this be? Does it have to be sprinkled with pixie dust before being used? Because it sure as hell sounds like magic to me. There's no such thing as a weapon that's guaranteed to take out just the enemy. It doesn't exist. Anyone who tells you differently is a moron.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom


Even if appeasement has historically been pragmatically beneficial (and appeasement toward America vs. toward Hitler is a rather different matter), past performance is no guarantee of future results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Fine. If you want to ignore the fact British foreign policy in the 1930's was a continuation of hundreds of years of British foreign policy then be my guest. There are deep rooted structural, social and cultural issues that made British foreign policy in the 1930s the obvious course to take for us.

We always did that. The British appeased the Americans in the 1890s when territorial disputes arose.

I suppose you don't get to the top in the event you're going to fight every battle that comes your way when some of those battles will obviously be very costly to you with limited gain in return.

I think the argument is that Chamberlain met directly with Hitler over the Sudetenland and should have known that he would not have been satisfied with that small chunk of land. Whether Britain went to war over it or not Britain should have been preparing for the war that was inevitable rather than pretending that the matter was over. And war in Czechoslovakia, which many historians argue Hitler would not have actually risked, might have avoided all that came after.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Israel has the ability to take out the bad guys and destroy high priority targets without hurting civilians in the process. They have the technology.

Just curious, but exactly what "technology" would this be? Does it have to be sprinkled with pixie dust before being used? Because it sure as hell sounds like magic to me. There's no such thing as a weapon that's guaranteed to take out just the enemy. It doesn't exist. Anyone who tells you differently is a moron.

Obviously, you haven't read the Harry Potter sequel which is dramatically set in Gaza. It's amazing what those wizards can do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Israel has the ability to take out the bad guys and destroy high priority targets without hurting civilians in the process. They have the technology.

Just curious, but exactly what "technology" would this be? Does it have to be sprinkled with pixie dust before being used? Because it sure as hell sounds like magic to me. There's no such thing as a weapon that's guaranteed to take out just the enemy. It doesn't exist. Anyone who tells you differently is a moron.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Israel has the ability to take out the bad guys and destroy high priority targets without hurting civilians in the process. They have the technology.

Just curious, but exactly what "technology" would this be? Does it have to be sprinkled with pixie dust before being used? Because it sure as hell sounds like magic to me. There's no such thing as a weapon that's guaranteed to take out just the enemy. It doesn't exist. Anyone who tells you differently is a moron.

Actually this technology does exist. It's just a matter of finding the right delivery mechanism (clearing throat)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Under any other circumstances I would have laughed/smiled at your witty response. Your attempt however on humor or sarcasm in this serious matter can’t hide your extreme and fundamentalist views that I witnessed from you in this OP. You don’t make a mockery from slaughter of innocents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Israel has the ability to take out the bad guys and destroy high priority targets without hurting civilians in the process. They have the technology.

Just curious, but exactly what "technology" would this be? Does it have to be sprinkled with pixie dust before being used? Because it sure as hell sounds like magic to me. There's no such thing as a weapon that's guaranteed to take out just the enemy. It doesn't exist. Anyone who tells you differently is a moron.

Obviously, you haven't read the Harry Potter sequel which is dramatically set in Gaza. It's amazing what those wizards can do.

Under any other circumstances I would have laughed/smiled at your witty response. Your attempt however on humor or sarcasm in this serious matter can’t hide your extreme and fundamentalist views that I witnessed from you in this OP. You don’t make a mockery from slaughter of innocents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I think the argument is that Chamberlain met directly with Hitler over the Sudetenland and should have known that he would not have been satisfied with that small chunk of land. Whether Britain went to war over it or not Britain should have been preparing for the war that was inevitable rather than pretending that the matter was over. And war in Czechoslovakia, which many historians argue Hitler would not have actually risked, might have avoided all that came after.

Britain were preparing for war, I dont know where you got the impression we weren`t.

From the historical record. When the war did begin Britain was still woefully behind in weapons development and production.

quote:

If America knew Hitlers intentions in 1938, why didnt they do anything ?

We did. Not enough but we did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Despite your smears, nobody except for Muslim terrorists enjoys "the slaughter of innocents". Again, Israel acts defensively. Hamas attacks civilian areas with primarily rocket fire, and Israel strikes the source of the barrage and invades to destroy the tunnels said rockets are smuggled through.

That innocents are killed is entirely on Hamas and their backers.