The Political Discussion Thread

[Falcon Horus]

Well, it's not exactly a long career path.

But you'll go out with a blast!

[SoulReaver]

But you'll go out with a blast!

only if you do a bang-up job

[mad_gater]

290 Palestinians have been killed that we know of so far. Three quarters of which are reported to have been civilians. That is an unacceptable ratio.

Meanwhile well over a thousand homes have been displaced and 18'000 people have been displaced by Israeli action. That is not measured, responsible action.

and how many of those Palestinian deaths might be attributed to the Islamists' "honor-killing" of civilians who've chosen to convert away from Islam? it's foolhardy to assume that every single civilian death must be a direct result of Israel's defensive measures

[SGalisa]

....I'm just saying that Hamas should stop fighting like cowards and attacking from a position of hiding behind innocents, thus turning the innocents they're hiding behind into military targets. I'm sure Israel is trying its best to limit civilian casualties as much as possible but the sad and tragic reality of war (which Hamas seems all to eager to wage in perpetuity) is that having zero civilian casualties as an outcome is virtually impossible. But from what I've seen and read they do everything possible to evacuate innocents out of the vicinity of suspected Hamas strongholds.

Israel has tried to limit casualties, as the Iron Dome/etc. system is (stated to be) pin point accurate within ten feet of its target. Sort of like a tornado picking apart one building and leaving the building next to it, undamaged and intact. Problem is that Hamas has been telling the civilians in the area to stay and not leave. Hamas is also accused by Israel's sophisticated weapons locators of hiding their rocket launchers inside (civilian) homes and mosques.

Israel has told the civilians to LEAVE the area, so the IDF can ferret out the hidden rocket launchers and underground tunnels, which were found in several ambushes by Hamas. Problem there might end up that the weaponry stuff might be portable, so wherever it is will end up being whisked away and set up in ambush strikes. Hamas has promised huge ambush attacks to take place in the future. This seems to be the most likely scenario.

[mad_gater]

Israel has tried to limit casualties, as the Iron Dome/etc. system is (stated to be) pin point accurate within ten feet of its target. Sort of like a tornado picking apart one building and leaving the building next to it, undamaged and intact. Problem is that Hamas has been telling the civilians in the area to stay and not leave. Hamas is also accused by Israel's sophisticated weapons locators of hiding their rocket launchers inside (civilian) homes and mosques.

Israel has told the civilians to LEAVE the area, so the IDF can ferret out the hidden rocket launchers and underground tunnels, which were found in several ambushes by Hamas. Problem there might end up that the weaponry stuff might be portable, so wherever it is will end up being whisked away and set up in ambush strikes. Hamas has promised huge ambush attacks to take place in the future. This seems to be the most likely scenario.

right? apparently some on here automatically assume that every single Palestinian civilian casualty must be a direct result of Israel's defensive measures....how do they know that some of those deaths weren't a result of said Palestinian civilians getting too close to one of Hamas's own hidden IED's?

[SGalisa]

So I put it to you people..

Don't the Palestinians also deserve their own land? Or are they just expendable?

what about 1400 years ago?

yeah, what about the last 1400 years or even further back than that?
I heard some history about this, but don't remember the exact details.
So (paraphrasing from those foggy memory banks) . . .

For at least 1800 years, the nomads wandered around Palestine and never once declared the area as their own "state". It wasn't until AFTER Israel became a nation in 1948 that the rest of the Palestinian residents decided they suddenly wanted the land as their own.

Why? Were they (the Palestinians and other non-Jews in the region) suddenly jealous? They had every opportunity to make the land their own and did not do so. Within the first week of being a new nation (again/reborn Israel) immediately in 1948, Jewish Israel was under attack and has been off and on ever since.

When Israel's Jewish leaders gave up the Gaza strip land, they were advised not to do so, because whomever they gave the land away to would someday use those mountainous terrain as an advantage sight in shooting rockets back at the Jewish Israelis on the plains below. Well, those warnings came true. Hamas has led most of the attacks in nearly every war-torn situation against Jewish Israel.

If generic *you* are worried about Israel taking over the land, that will probably be very short-lived. I've read comments from other discussion boards over this situation, stating that Israel will not have to give up the land ever again (now that they have returned to it). However, with most of the entire "Muslim" Middle East (and even Africa) coming against Jewish Israel (which they and ISIS, now as the I.S. swore they'd do in the very near future), Jewish Israelis may have to leave the region (even if only temporarily) for their own safety. Have no idea where they will be going or when, if they are even able to leave. But

Spoiler:

the area will be controlled by some outside entity in the near future (as a result of this, the Bible states the woman {implied being Israel} will flee for 42 months, or 1,260 days--Rev.12:6-16).

And a note to Catholics--this is not about Mary--aka "the virgin Mary", tho the Catholic Church teaches it that way. Mary fled for 7 years to Egypt after giving birth to Jesus (of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem). The fleeing time period in Rev.12:6 is described instead as 3-and-1/2 years only. So, it cannot be referring to Mary, even tho the "male child" in Rev.12:5 is referring to the child being snatched up to God. It was thru a descendant of Abraham's son, Israel, this male child was born thru. Besides, Mary isn't around when Jacob's (worst) Trouble begins.
(This time frame is about the Great Tribulation for all of Israel, as none like it has occurred since the days of Noah, and will never equal it again after-- see Matthew 24:15-22)

As For Co-Co's observation on Conservatives, it is OBVIOUS where he is coming from. It could only be more Obvious if he held up a sign stating *and YES I mean religious conservativsm* while wearing a captain obvious outfit at the local T.E.D. convention. Any attempt to change that - such as SGalisa's observation - is a sham designed to move the topic away from social conservatism to economic conservatism.

Hey, Please define Conservatism, then.
(Economical,) Energy and nature *conservationalists* don't like to be lumped together with the political spectrum, especially as the Islamic State has vowed to murder all conservatives--who are non-Muslim or disagree with the new/revised Islamic rules. Rumor also has it that the "liberals" in certain gov'ts (USA for one) are planning to pass laws to wipe out *conservatives* one way or another.. and do it sooner than later. Two different groups reaching for the same goal -- differently?

So, please define Conservatism. Is it those who consider murder, deliberate injury to another person, theft, and vandalism a crime?
Is it those who uphold at least 8 of the original Hebrew ten Commandments (law)..? Especially folks with an anything goes attitude, are not conservative in that respect. Violent criminal gangs are liberal, b/c otherwise they wouldn't do such (vicious) behaviors against other people (they'd automatically feel guilty, which most of the time, they plead Not Guilty, even when "caught in the act" of outright criminal behavior).

Try to remember it was the IS (ISIS) who declared it is NOW okay to go around raping and murdering women and children, if an infidel or observed to be disobedient to Sharia Law. Was the radical Islamic law code prior to that declaration claiming it was not moral to do such things, but now is, because it is now being done as a "jihad" war..? They (ISIS/IS) even declared the (USA's typical) southeastern no-no behavior of *kissing cousins and making babies* is now acceptable *behavior* because of jihad. (That's why they want to enforce their version of Sharia Law.) ...and Abortion? (to them/I.S.) Not a problem--just kill the defective fetus or infant (according to the newest jihad ruling--problem solved, and guilt free, too. . . anything goes until the end goal, to wipe out the infidels, is accomplished).

[Womble]

290 Palestinians have been killed that we know of so far. Three quarters of which are reported to have been civilians. That is an unacceptable ratio.

Meanwhile well over a thousand homes have been displaced and 18'000 people have been displaced by Israeli action. That is not measured, responsible action.

This kind of comment always makes me want to ask how many Israelis you would have liked to see dead in order to make things more proportionate.

It is infantile and idiotic to measure proportionality by the number of dead.

The Israelis suffer much fewer losses because they have made a tremendous investment into keeping their people safe. They've built bomb shelters and reinforced rooms into every house. They've built public shelters. They've designed a massively expensive, but spectacularly effective system for intercepting Palestinian rockets- a task that a few years ago was considered a technical impossibility (we're talking about shooting down a projectile the size of a few feet with a launch-to-impact time of 15 to 30 seconds with 87% probability). There are air raid sirens and there are apps that tell you where the last rocket fell so that you would know to check on your relatives living there.

The Palestinians do not have bomb shelters because they don't give a damn how many of their people die. They've chosen to invest their resources into rockets and tunnels with which to attack me and my people. They use their civilians as shields for their rockets and their terrorists. OF COURSE casualty count will be lopsided. Always. It's expected, it's normal and it's right. There is no conceivable reason why the Israelis should care more for Palestinian lives than for the lives of their own people.

The use of force should be proportionate to the threat. The threat Hamas poses is to more than half of my country's population. So if you ask me, the Israeli army is being entirely too gentle this time round.

[Gatefan1976]

Hey, Please define Conservatism, then.

I don't have to, I need to recognise what Co-co was talking about, and it was socio/political conservatism. Saying he may have been speaking of Economic conservatism would be taking him entirely out of context, and disingenuous.

(Economical,) Energy and nature *conservationalists* don't like to be lumped together with the political spectrum, especially as the Islamic State has vowed to murder all conservatives--who are non-Muslim or disagree with the new/revised Islamic rules. Rumor also has it that the "liberals" in certain gov'ts (USA for one) are planning to pass laws to wipe out *conservatives* one way or another.. and do it sooner than later. Two different groups reaching for the same goal -- differently?

Oh Please.
Have you ever considered the reason why these "libruls" are so concerned with religious conservatism is because the look at stuff LIKE these Islamic extremists, hear similar rhetoric coming from *some* Western Demagouges and realise that *some* of these people are just as dangerous?

So, please define Conservatism. Is it those who consider murder, deliberate injury to another person, theft, and vandalism a crime?

Nope, plenty of "libruls" feel the same way.

Is it those who uphold at least 8 of the original Hebrew ten Commandments (law)..? Especially folks with an anything goes attitude, are not conservative in that respect. Violent criminal gangs are liberal, b/c otherwise they wouldn't do such (vicious) behaviors against other people (they'd automatically feel guilty, which most of the time, they plead Not Guilty, even when "caught in the act" of outright criminal behavior).

Defective socialisation and mental processes exist within the entire spectrum of humanity. The Mafia seemed to have no issue reconciling their violent, gang like behaviour with being good Catholics, did they? These Islamic extremists have no problem either.

Try to remember it was the IS (ISIS) who declared it is NOW okay to go around raping and murdering women and children, if an infidel or observed to be disobedient to Sharia Law. Was the radical Islamic law code prior to that declaration claiming it was not moral to do such things, but now is, because it is now being done as a "jihad" war..? They (ISIS/IS) even declared the (USA's typical) southeastern no-no behavior of *kissing cousins and making babies* is now acceptable *behavior* because of jihad. (That's why they want to enforce their version of Sharia Law.) ...and Abortion? (to them/I.S.) Not a problem--just kill the defective fetus or infant (according to the newest jihad ruling--problem solved, and guilt free, too. . . anything goes until the end goal, to wipe out the infidels, is accomplished).

This moral code (and weather you like it or not, it IS a moral code) is a revival of code more reminiscent of what you could find in the middle/ages or before. Can you think of any other religion that in it's scripture commanded such things?

[Womble]

Oh Please.
Have you ever considered the reason why these "libruls" are so concerned with religious conservatism is because the look at stuff LIKE these Islamic extremists, hear similar rhetoric coming from *some* Western Demagouges and realise that *some* of these people are just as dangerous?

That's not true. Because those "libruls" don't seem to be concerned with the Islamic conservatism a whole lot; in fact, they make common cause with Islamic extremists quite often.

[Gatefan1976]

This kind of comment always makes me want to ask how many Israelis you would have liked to see dead in order to make things more proportionate.

It is infantile and idiotic to measure proportionality by the number of dead.

It's not the number of the dead that is being challenged Womble, it is the ratio of military (or Quasi-military) people to civillians that is. Is killing 9 people in order to get one acceptable?
If you were a criminal, do I have the right to bomb your place of work in order to make sure I get you? If you co-workers were co-conspiritors as well, then sure, perhaps. If you just hid within them, or threatened to kill them yourself if they did not come to work, do they deserve to die?

The Israelis suffer much fewer losses because they have made a tremendous investment into keeping their people safe. They've built bomb shelters and reinforced rooms into every house. They've built public shelters. They've designed a massively expensive, but spectacularly effective system for intercepting Palestinian rockets- a task that a few years ago was considered a technical impossibility (we're talking about shooting down a projectile the size of a few feet with a launch-to-impact time of 15 to 30 seconds with 87% probability). There are air raid sirens and there are apps that tell you where the last rocket fell so that you would know to check on your relatives living there.

The Palestinians do not have bomb shelters because they don't give a damn how many of their people die. They've chosen to invest their resources into rockets and tunnels with which to attack me and my people.

Oh please.
The GDP of Israel in 2005 was 134 billion, the GDP of Palestine at the same time was 4 billion. It's not a question of weather they WOULD, it's weather they can AFFORD to. You may as well be a millionaire walking into Joe average's house and telling the parents that they don't take care about their kids because they don't have Nanny's or private tutors or the best new phone.
I think that is a pretty idiotic and infantile rationalization.

They use their civilians as shields for their rockets and their terrorists. OF COURSE casualty count will be lopsided. Always. It's expected, it's normal and it's right. There is no conceivable reason why the Israelis should care more for Palestinian lives than for the lives of their own people.

Are those human shields willing?
If the answer is yes, you have a case, if not, you do not.

The use of force should be proportionate to the threat. The threat Hamas poses is to more than half of my country's population. So if you ask me, the Israeli army is being entirely too gentle this time round.

By your own numbers, some 87% of Hamas' attacks are ineffectual due to the staggering technological difference between the 2 parties, yet you have no issue with attacks that are 100% effectual in response?

Don't get me wrong here Womble, Israel has every right to defend itself, and should respond to threats such as Hamas, or Iran, or who/whatever, you are a sovereign nation with every right to exist. You are ALSO open to the rest of the world forming opinions on your country and it's actions.

[Gatefan1976]

That's not true. Because those "libruls" don't seem to be concerned with the Islamic conservatism a whole lot; in fact, they make common cause with Islamic extremists quite often.

Oh really?
please tell.

[Gatefan1976]

right? apparently some on here automatically assume that every single Palestinian civilian casualty must be a direct result of Israel's defensive measures....how do they know that some of those deaths weren't a result of said Palestinian civilians getting too close to one of Hamas's own hidden IED's?

No one assumes that.
Just quietly as well, no one is on Hamas' side here either.
There are people however who don't hold to the psychological condition of "If you are not with us, you are against us". No wonder people fear a "binary" way of thinking, be it from people or "damned tekonogikal thingies"

[Womble]

It's not the number of the dead that is being challenged Womble, it is the ratio of military (or Quasi-military) people to civillians that is. Is killing 9 people in order to get one acceptable?

For one, whose count is being relied upon here? Hamas heath ministry? They list anyone out of uniform as civilian, and most of their gunmen don't wear uniforms. If you see a disproportionate number of men of fighting age among those "civilians", you can be sure they're lying.

Secondly, yes. There are plenty of circumstances that will justify killing 9 people to get one. Especially if we are talking about use of human shields.

If you were a criminal, do I have the right to bomb your place of work in order to make sure I get you? If you co-workers were co-conspiritors as well, then sure, perhaps. If you just hid within them, or threatened to kill them yourself if they did not come to work, do they deserve to die?

You're not seriously comparing apprehension of a criminal to war, are you? Because if you are- go to Gaza, serve a warrant.

Oh please.
The GDP of Israel in 2005 was 134 billion, the GDP of Palestine at the same time was 4 billion. It's not a question of weather they WOULD, it's weather they can AFFORD to. You may as well be a millionaire walking into Joe average's house and telling the parents that they don't take care about their kids because they don't have Nanny's or private tutors or the best new phone.
I think that is a pretty idiotic and infantile rationalization.

Then here's a question for you: how much of Gaza's GDP (including "humanitarian aid" and money funneled by Iran and Qatar that's not in their official GDP) has been spent on protecting civilian population? Because if the answer is none, then the size of Gaza's GDP is completely irrelevant. They can afford to buy thousands of rockets. They can afford five star hotels and shopping malls (Google it). They dig mile-long tunnels buried so deep underground that bombs can barely reach them. But they can't afford public bomb shelters? I call horse manure on this entire line of argument.

Are those human shields willing?
If the answer is yes, you have a case, if not, you do not.

Oh, I have a case regardless. Even if some of them are unwilling (some are clearly willing), their blood is on those hiding behind them.

By your own numbers, some 87% of Hamas' attacks are ineffectual due to the staggering technological difference between the 2 parties, yet you have no issue with attacks that are 100% effectual in response?

None whatsoever. In fact, the more lopsided this count, the more proud I am of my people. Morality is not judged by how successful one is at achieving immoral results.

Don't get me wrong here Womble, Israel has every right to defend itself, and should respond to threats such as Hamas, or Iran, or who/whatever, you are a sovereign nation with every right to exist. You are ALSO open to the rest of the world forming opinions on your country and it's actions.

Israel has every right to defend itself, but is condemned for any practical way of doing so.

Find me another country that puts so much effort into minimizing civilian casualties among the population that cheers when that country's children get kidnapped and murdered. Find me an army that calls the mobile phones of a building's inhabitants and warns them to get out before they blow that building up. We fight in the most ridiculously lawyerly way ever practiced, under the most byzantine rules of engagement known to man- and it's still not enough for "the world" and it's ever-so-enlightened opinion.

So screw that opinion. Shaft it in the rear with a ten foot pole.

[Womble]

Oh really?
please tell.

What is there to tell? Try and find me some leftist mass protest against Islamist brutality. I'm not asking for many, three will do. And then you and I will count all the rallies in which the "libruls" and the Islamist radical stood shoulder to shoulder, screaming "We are all Hezbollah".

[SoulReaver]

apparently socialist France banned pro-palestinian demonstrations. not a mass protest (if anything the french seem to approve but mostly for security reasons)

that aside it'd be much more logical for the leftists than the rightists to protest against islamists anyway, considering the doctrine