All things Middle East related

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Lol. Nice spin, that warnings are bad. You should start a political career.

Sure, the Israelis should give a week's notice. Give plenty of time for Palestinians to call U Haul, arrange to turn off the utilities, etc. It's not like this is a shooting war or anything.

Oh, wait, the Palestinians' own government has recommended they ignore the warnings.

So, what do you recommend the Israelis do? Bear in mind everything done already in the past.

Your analogy is flawed. The homeowner in your example has pledged death to a group of people worshiping a different god than him. And has fired wildly at said people across the street. But sure, it's the people across the street that are bad for not giving enough warning, before firing back. Right?

Sorry, but this goes for both sides.

• They both hate each other,
• They both worship a different God
• They both believe the other side should be abolished (Israel being under the Talmud, not accepting the New Testament, would believe that they have to wipe everyone out just as the example of Jericho that I posted earlier displayed)
• They both fire across the street,
• One side has a relatively impenetrable defense, and has lost nearly no innocents in the last 15 years
• One side can't protect themselves from attack, and has lost thousands of innocents over the last 15 years.

Of course they recommend to ignore the warnings. THEY CAN'T PROTECT THEMSELVES ANYWAYS. Look through some psych warfare ops, and through books on domination. There are psychological and emotional attacks far more crippling then a rocket, especially when used on mass targets. Helplessness, and control play a large part in all of that. I will admit that I am kind of fascinated by this subject right now, and have looked into basic books on it, so I am certainly keen to see that perspective, BUT, that said, when you look at it from that angle, the warnings, soft bombs, et al, very easily fit that pattern of warfare.


One internet argument I hate, is so what should x do. I'm not sitting in the NSA war room, like JR said earlier, let me - a Redskins fan on an internet board - dictate the policies of the whole world, cuz like I'm just that good. NOT.

My point isn't to describe a new world peace path, but to point out that at the very least, attacks on innocents, by all sides, should be held to judgement and international outrage. And if the Hamas total innocent deaths were 30, and Israel's were thousands, I would be saying that Hamas should be condemned. I did say that in the late 90's. But now, Hamas attacks are as ineffective as throwing stones against a Giant, well if you aren't Israel - that strategy works for them.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Sorry, but this goes for both sides.

• They both hate each other,
• They both worship a different God
• They both believe the other side should be abolished (Israel being under the Talmud, not accepting the New Testament, would believe that they have to wipe everyone out just as the example of Jericho that I posted earlier displayed)
• They both fire across the street,
• One side has a relatively impenetrable defense, and has lost nearly no innocents in the last 15 years
• One side can't protect themselves from attack, and has lost thousands of innocents over the last 15 years.

Of course they recommend to ignore the warnings. THEY CAN'T PROTECT THEMSELVES ANYWAYS. Look through some psych warfare ops, and through books on domination. There are psychological and emotional attacks far more crippling then a rocket, especially when used on mass targets. Helplessness, and control play a large part in all of that. I will admit that I am kind of fascinated by this subject right now, and have looked into basic books on it, so I am certainly keen to see that perspective, BUT, that said, when you look at it from that angle, the warnings, soft bombs, et al, very easily fit that pattern of warfare.


One internet argument I hate, is so what should x do. I'm not sitting in the NSA war room, like JR said earlier, let me - a Redskins fan on an internet board - dictate the policies of the whole world, cuz like I'm just that good. NOT.

My point isn't to describe a new world peace path, but to point out that at the very least, attacks on innocents, by all sides, should be held to judgement and international outrage. And if the Hamas total innocent deaths were 30, and Israel's were thousands, I would be saying that Hamas should be condemned. I did say that in the late 90's. But now, Hamas attacks are as ineffective as throwing stones against a Giant, well if you aren't Israel - that strategy works for them.

Gee, why did Isreal withdraw from Gaza, rather than push the Palestinians into the sea?

So are you really saying Jericho being sacked over a thousand years ago equals this:

On the Destruction of Israel:

-----------------------------

'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will

obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.' (Preamble)



The Exclusive Moslem Nature of the Area:

----------------------------------------

'The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession]

consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. No one

can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it.'

(Article 11)



'Palestine is an Islamic land... Since this is the case, the

Liberation of Palestine is an individual duty for every Moslem

wherever he may be.' (Article 13)



The Call to Jihad:

------------------

'The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the

individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews' usurpation,

it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.' (Article 15)



'Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses

everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the

call of duty, loudly proclaiming: 'Hail to Jihad!'. This cry will

reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is

achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah's victory comes about.'

(Article 33)



Rejection of a Negotiated Peace Settlement:

-------------------------------------------

'[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and

international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of

the Islamic Resistance Movement... Those conferences are no more than

a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of

Islam... There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by

Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a

waste of time, an exercise in futility.' (Article 13)



Condemnation of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty:

----------------------------------------------

'Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of struggle

[against Zionism] through the treacherous Camp David Agreement. The

Zionists are trying to draw other Arab countries into similar

agreements in order to bring them outside the circle of struggle.

...Leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism is high treason,

and cursed be he who perpetrates such an act.' (Article 32)


The rest of your argument is equally bunk. Since when does winning a military confrontation automatically invalidate itself?