The Political Discussion Thread

[pookey]

To be honest i dont care, i am only curious about this, not everyone is a killer, not everyone wants death, can you say for certain everyone does not want peace, again, do you want it?

[SoulReaver]

what would civilians from any country have to gain from war?
(except the corporate honchos of the military-indu$trial complex of course)

[Womble]

what would civilians from any country have to gain from war?
(except the corporate honchos of the military-indu$trial complex of course)

Pride, for one. Gains do not have to be material, or objective.

[SoulReaver]

Pride, for one. Gains do not have to be material, or objective.

a flimsy gain; more so when such pride calls for that much self sacrifice
that would be a thin line tween pride & masochism

especially the poor, would have to be exceptionally "proud" to be willing to incur the cost of war
('cost' in all senses of the word)

[SoulReaver]

anyway forget Gaza territory, I'm more curious about that UN school which came under fire a few weeks ago

news from an objective source are preferable as I don't trust outlets from middle east region
hey why not a swiss source



anyway many claim that this UN school in Jabaliya was bombed by the IDF, is this true or not?
(as for the UN they said they were "confident" that the firing did come from the IDF)

some claim Hamas soldiers were stationed in the school (and firing their rockets), is this true?
if so how come the UN's armed forces didn't intervene? or are they prevented from intervening even when it comes to security in their own premises?

others yet claim Hamas soldiers were not inside but "in the vicinity" of the school, is this true?
and if so - and if IDF did attack - did they really aim next to the school?
if so did they really use bombs when firing next to the school?
and if so why not use more accurate weapons such as gunfire? (even send in troops for this particular case)

also the UN claims it advised the IDF several times - 17 calls iirc - that this was a UN school with many civies in it, is that true?
if so was the IDF already aware that it was firing at (or next to?) a UN building or not?
if so was it aware that there were many civies in it?
if so did they warn the UN personnel about the incoming bomba or not?
if so is that enough questions?
(feel free to add more, any1. just wanna know the facts once & for all ffs. this is the UN we're talking about, no joke this time)

[Falcon Horus]

also the UN claims it advised the IDF several times - 17 calls iirc - that this was a UN school with many civies in it, is that true?

From UNifeed --> http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unife...school-attack/

There's a video, and a transcript.

Excerpt from the transcript to answer your question:

Pierre Krahenbuhl UNRWA Commissioner-General:
"We had repeatedly informed the Israeli Defense Forces about this particular school. We had notified it because it was important to protect it. And also because the people who were in this school where there because they had received instructions from the Israeli Defense Forces to leave the areas where they lived in and therefore they were sheltered in that premise, hoping and expecting there to be safe and protected. And the fact that they weren't is unacceptable. And in the strongest possible terms I issue today a condemnation of the Israeli shelling of the school as representing a serious violation of international law."

[aretood2]

[QUOTE=KEK;14240015][QUOTE=aretood2;14239920]Power Plants have been valid military targets since...well...since they have existed. In fact, they were actually targeted by the US and UK in Iraq. Had WMD's been located in hospitals and schools ready to fire on Advancing British and American troops, you can bet six ways to Sunday that they would have been quick targets in a heartbeat. There is nothing exceptional about Israel's bombing. [/COLOR]

Yes, because the primitive rockets that Hamas tries to use are really comparable to the imminent threat of a WMD.

A WMD? What WMD? The only nation in the area using them is Syria, so I am lost here.

The Irish aren't our citizens, and plenty of the attacks were originating there, with no love lost between us at the time. The difference is Britain wasn't governed by someone like Netanyahu at the time, who has a vested interest in keeping hostilities going to keep his popularity up, much like Putin. That is to say, Britain wanted a peaceful two state solution, and the Israeli government doesn't.

The Unionists wanted to be. It's also misleading to use this example since the republicans didn't want to kill all British people and destroy the United Kingdom. Not to mention that British involvement was more of an intervention to a "Local" civil war between Unionists and Republicans. It'd be more like if Fatah was 1,000 times friendlier and they started fighting with Hamas in Gaza. Sure, there'd be some attacks against Israel for supporting Fatah (once again, if they were a thousand times nicer).

In that case, I doubt that Israel would have to worry about hundreds of rockets raining down upon Israel. And it's only been until recently that Israel has any defense for those rockets. There were no such rockets or constant attempts to kill British children, elderly, sick etc on behalf of the republicans. There were some bombings and terrorist activities, but when compared to the threat posed by Hamas, they weren't that bad to begin with.

Had it been the French fighting the British it would be a war, not the one-sided affair we see in Gaza. Whether you believe Israel are justified in what they're doing or not, how you can believe that these are the pragmatic steps that a nation seeking peace would take I have no idea.

The point of wars, for militaries, is to insure that the conflict is one-sided. When countries are of equal strength and go to war...well...ever heard of the 100 years war? The Iran/Iraq war wasn't very pretty. The World Wars were bloody. And even when a conflict is one-sided like in Afghanistan or Iraq, it doesn't make it that much better either. So the point is to strike fast with superior technology, numbers, and speed to end the war decisively and quickly without a prolonged conflict. Which is why nations tend to always want to build bigger and better war things.

War isn't a nice little game were we all have to sit together and make sure things are fair. I think that's a dangerous mindset that makes it all to easy for people to forget the realities of war. It's like romanticizing it...it's exactly that. A war between France and the UK would involve both countries trying to make it one-sided...cause...that's the point.

So essentially, you are mad that Israel is winning in a conventional sense? It's not that I cheer for Israel, it's just that I don't see a case, a factual actual case. for what I can only call "Israeli Exceptionalism," it being the belief that somehow Israel's handling of the conflict is somehow worse than anything western nations would do because of some weird unknown reason and that palestine has the higher moral ground.

All true, but there it sits, what do you do?

What do you mean?

I think it's pretty disgraceful to be honest.
I also think it is entirely unsurprising, unfortunately as well.

Could part of the reason be that people just whitewash Hamas by saying "It goes without saying" and thus not mention their goals, tactics, and how Palestinian corruption adds to the conflict and how Hamas got into power in Gaza via popular vote (In fact, it made history by being the first Islamic group to win power in a democratic election in the area)?

The joys of mis-information, ignorance, and a free society. Would you choose to stifle their opinions, no matter how much you disagree with them? Lets face it though, most comments you find on news sites are like youtube comments

I would choose to have the media fully inform the public by not throwing out valuable information because "it goes without saying." By not giving token "I blame both sides" none sense and actually stating why and how Hamas and Palestine are also to blame.

And as for youtube comments...we aren't talking about just internet nuts. We are talking about well known celebrities with audiences in the millions taking Hamas' side calling Israel genocidal and so on. We are talking about entire nations in Latin America that have no idea what Hamas is, how it got into power, and its goals but still saying the same thing about Israel (tl;dr version of what they believe: Israel is evil, Hamas is a victim).

Latin countries, except a few like Mexico and Colombia, have even cut deplomatic relations with Israel. Interesting that nations that are dealing with conflict domestically like Mexico and Colombia would keep their ambassadors in Israel. It kind goes with what Womble was saying about how Europeans don't quite get it.

Other nations down there are also playing "Follow the leader." The leader being Venezuela who has specific reasons to do that (Israel's ties to the USA). The rest fall somewhere in the middle.

[SoulReaver]

From UNifeed --> http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unife...school-attack/

There's a video, and a transcript.

Excerpt from the transcript to answer your question:

makes no sense
if it was IDF, what do they have to gain from attacking international territory? it's neutral ground

[Falcon Horus]

makes no sense
if it was IDF, what do they have to gain from attacking international territory? it's neutral ground

Except that the Israel, and many other countries I might add, do not recognize Palestine as a country on its own, so Gaza would thus not fall under the "international territory" title. And the UN schools aren't neutral ground.

[SoulReaver]

so Gaza would thus not fall under the "international territory" title.

I meant the UN premises not Gaza

And the UN schools aren't neutral ground.

whose side are they on?

[Falcon Horus]

whose side are they on?

They are neutral troops, but the ground (in this case the schools) isn't neutral.

[SoulReaver]

but the ground (in this case the schools) isn't neutral.

that's what I meant on whose side is the school?

[Falcon Horus]

that's what I meant on whose side is the school?

It's in Gaza territory so Palestinian, I should think.

[SoulReaver]

It's in Gaza territory so Palestinian, I should think.

if embassy of state A is in state B, then the embassy is still considered A territory
besides the UN spokesman in your link did cite a violation of international law & we can reasonably assume the bloke knew what he was talking about



on the other hand if you're right then that UN building was Gaza territory in which case I reckon the target could've been valid after all...

[Falcon Horus]

Source: The Washington Post

This might help --> In Gaza and other war zones, how neutral is the United Nations?