Is Israel an Attacker or a defender?

[Federalist Territories]

Surely if Israel was actively attempting the " war of genocide" that some people claim it is, then it could have wiped out the population of Palestine years ago? What it is doing now is not cutting back the population of Palestinians, but is inducing international outrage. A nation with (presumably) full WMD capability would be amply capable of ensuring genocide.
And to name an entire nation as a aggressor would be wrong, incorrect and misleading. Governments and policies change. When is taking the "military initiative " an "unprovoked action" and when are "purely defensive strategies" actually being a sitting duck?
Maybe a number of threads looking at the current government and military actions of Israel is much more effective and useful. Just a thought...

The rules of war changed, now we practice civilized warfare which is like fishing with a slingshot, or playing paintball with no gun, you just throw the paint balls. It's a handicap, a humanitarian war, the two concepts do not go together. War should always be considered the last option not because it is just war, but because people die, combatants and non-combatants alike. It is easy to accuse any nation of committing evil acts but there is a difference between genocide and collateral damage. I would of turned Fallujah into a crater because the civilians were harboring the enemy and would not assist our forces, they themselves become the enemy. Israel hits civilian targets from time to time, no doubt, why? Because Hamas fires rockets from civilian locations, they hide out among civilians, they establish headquarters in the middle of residential area's. People will die. That's war, a concept created by man to amplify our greatest evils, good or bad intention becomes irrelevant, you sacrifice your soul or for you atheists, your virtues for what you perceive to be the greater good. There is no right or wrong in war, one man's hero is another man's villain.

[Innsmothe]

Surely if Israel was actively attempting the " war of genocide" that some people claim it is, then it could have wiped out the population of Palestine years ago? What it is doing now is not cutting back the population of Palestinians, but is inducing international outrage. A nation with (presumably) full WMD capability would be amply capable of ensuring genocide.
And to name an entire nation as a aggressor would be wrong, incorrect and misleading. Governments and policies change. When is taking the "military initiative " an "unprovoked action" and when are "purely defensive strategies" actually being a sitting duck?
Maybe a number of threads looking at the current government and military actions of Israel is much more effective and useful. Just a thought...

The rules of war changed, now we practice civilized warfare which is like fishing with a slingshot, or playing paintball with no gun, you just throw the paint balls. It's a handicap, a humanitarian war, the two concepts do not go together. War should always be considered the last option not because it is just war, but because people die, combatants and non-combatants alike. It is easy to accuse any nation of committing evil acts but there is a difference between genocide and collateral damage. I would of turned Fallujah into a crater because the civilians were harboring the enemy and would not assist our forces, they themselves become the enemy. Israel hits civilian targets from time to time, no doubt, why? Because Hamas fires rockets from civilian locations, they hide out among civilians, they establish headquarters in the middle of residential area's. People will die. That's war, a concept created by man to amplify our greatest evils, good or bad intention becomes irrelevant, you sacrifice your soul or for you atheists, your virtues for what you perceive to be the greater good. There is no right or wrong in war, one man's hero is another man's villain.

Tyrants make their own enemies and their own murderers., this is why empires fall.
Tyrannical warfare would only spell foreign condemnation and label the USA/Israel the new USSR/4th Reich

[Buffett and Colbert]

The rules of war changed, now we practice civilized warfare which is like fishing with a slingshot, or playing paintball with no gun, you just throw the paint balls. It's a handicap, a humanitarian war, the two concepts do not go together. War should always be considered the last option not because it is just war, but because people die, combatants and non-combatants alike. It is easy to accuse any nation of committing evil acts but there is a difference between genocide and collateral damage. I would of turned Fallujah into a crater because the civilians were harboring the enemy and would not assist our forces, they themselves become the enemy. Israel hits civilian targets from time to time, no doubt, why? Because Hamas fires rockets from civilian locations, they hide out among civilians, they establish headquarters in the middle of residential area's. People will die. That's war, a concept created by man to amplify our greatest evils, good or bad intention becomes irrelevant, you sacrifice your soul or for you atheists, your virtues for what you perceive to be the greater good. There is no right or wrong in war, one man's hero is another man's villain.

Tyrants make their own enemies and their own murderers., this is why empires fall.
Tyrannical warfare would only spell foreign condemnation and label the USA/Israel the new USSR/4th Reich

Not to mention the fact that the rules and regulations that have been put into place have successfully made war more humane. His insistence on their obsolescence indicates to me that he has disturbing opinions about how war should be conducted. It's not a statement of "fact," as he seems to claim.

[Federalist Territories]

The rules of war changed, now we practice civilized warfare which is like fishing with a slingshot, or playing paintball with no gun, you just throw the paint balls. It's a handicap, a humanitarian war, the two concepts do not go together. War should always be considered the last option not because it is just war, but because people die, combatants and non-combatants alike. It is easy to accuse any nation of committing evil acts but there is a difference between genocide and collateral damage. I would of turned Fallujah into a crater because the civilians were harboring the enemy and would not assist our forces, they themselves become the enemy. Israel hits civilian targets from time to time, no doubt, why? Because Hamas fires rockets from civilian locations, they hide out among civilians, they establish headquarters in the middle of residential area's. People will die. That's war, a concept created by man to amplify our greatest evils, good or bad intention becomes irrelevant, you sacrifice your soul or for you atheists, your virtues for what you perceive to be the greater good. There is no right or wrong in war, one man's hero is another man's villain.

Tyrants make their own enemies and their own murderers., this is why empires fall.
Tyrannical warfare would only spell foreign condemnation and label the USA/Israel the new USSR/4th Reich

Depends on how war is fought, if it is fought recklessly, then yes i agree. If i were President, i would not be so eager to go to war, I would not of gone to Iraq, I would at the moment stay out of Iran, the only one i would even consider is Afghanistan and if it were my choice, Afghanistan would be the only war we'd be engaged in since World War II, every other war to me was wrong in intent, unjustified. War should not be fought over political or religious ideology but rather fought only for defense whether it be militarily or economically. Any other reason then i would agree with you.

[Innsmothe]

Tyrants make their own enemies and their own murderers., this is why empires fall.
Tyrannical warfare would only spell foreign condemnation and label the USA/Israel the new USSR/4th Reich

Depends on how war is fought, if it is fought recklessly, then yes i agree. If i were President, i would not be so eager to go to war, I would not of gone to Iraq, I would at the moment stay out of Iran, the only one i would even consider is Afghanistan and if it were my choice, Afghanistan would be the only war we'd be engaged in since World War II, every other war to me was wrong in intent, unjustified. War should not be fought over political or religious ideology but rather fought only for defense whether it be militarily or economically. Any other reason then i would agree with you.

Afghanistan has bee under invasion for years, you are no nearer to finding Osama or violently eliminating Islamic terrorism. (Which is stupid, it's like pouring lighter fluid on a fire.)

[Federalist Territories]

Tyrants make their own enemies and their own murderers., this is why empires fall.
Tyrannical warfare would only spell foreign condemnation and label the USA/Israel the new USSR/4th Reich

Not to mention the fact that the rules and regulations that have been put into place have successfully made war more humane. His insistence on their obsolescence indicates to me that he has disturbing opinions about how war should be conducted. It's not a statement of "fact," as he seems to claim.

Unfortunately these "rules and regulations" are not universally accepted or terrorism would not exist, the genocide in Bosnia would never have occurred, or in Vietnam after America withdrew from the country. I do not have a problem with rules of war, i have a problem when only one side is following them, so if the other side decides to follow the rules of war then i would offer the same courtesy, terrorists, supporters of terrorists or countries to practice excessive brutality like Iran, Iraq, the Vietcong, North Koreans, the Soviets in the past deserve the same brutality they enact on others.

[Innsmothe]

Not to mention the fact that the rules and regulations that have been put into place have successfully made war more humane. His insistence on their obsolescence indicates to me that he has disturbing opinions about how war should be conducted. It's not a statement of "fact," as he seems to claim.

Unfortunately these "rules and regulations" are not universally accepted or terrorism would not exist, the genocide in Bosnia would never have occurred, or in Vietnam after America withdrew from the country. I do not have a problem with rules of war, i have a problem when only one side is following them, so if the other side decides to follow the rules of war then i would offer the same courtesy, terrorists, supporters of terrorists or countries to practice excessive brutality like Iran, Iraq, the Vietcong, North Koreans, the Soviets in the past deserve the same brutality they enact on others.

Following those rules gives you thmoral high-ground?
Else you couldn't;t tell who was more worthy of condemnation, the instigator or the savior....

[Federalist Territories]

Depends on how war is fought, if it is fought recklessly, then yes i agree. If i were President, i would not be so eager to go to war, I would not of gone to Iraq, I would at the moment stay out of Iran, the only one i would even consider is Afghanistan and if it were my choice, Afghanistan would be the only war we'd be engaged in since World War II, every other war to me was wrong in intent, unjustified. War should not be fought over political or religious ideology but rather fought only for defense whether it be militarily or economically. Any other reason then i would agree with you.

Afghanistan has bee under invasion for years, you are no nearer to finding Osama or violently eliminating Islamic terrorism. (Which is stupid, it's like pouring lighter fluid on a fire.)

In the way it is fought right now yes, we are getting nowhere. Terrorism is not a style of tactical warfare that relies on how much damage you can do, but it is truly a psychological warfare. The only way to even counter that is psychological, 300,000 troops will do nothing to hinder radical islam, it will not happen. It's about making an impression into the minds of the enemy thats why i said that i would only "consider" going into Afghanistan. My strategy would be much different. I would think radical islam is no different from the Japanese in World War II when Kamikeze's became the biggest threat to US forces. How do you fight an enemy who is not afraid to die? We found the answer, i am sure we could think of something.

[Innsmothe]

Afghanistan has bee under invasion for years, you are no nearer to finding Osama or violently eliminating Islamic terrorism. (Which is stupid, it's like pouring lighter fluid on a fire.)

In the way it is fought right now yes, we are getting nowhere. Terrorism is not a style of tactical warfare that relies on how much damage you can do, but it is truly a psychological warfare. The only way to even counter that is psychological, 300,000 troops will do nothing to hinder radical islam, it will not happen. It's about making an impression into the minds of the enemy thats why i said that i would only "consider" going into Afghanistan. My strategy would be much different. I would think radical islam is no different from the Japanese in World War II when Kamikeze's became the biggest threat to US forces. How do you fight an enemy who is not afraid to die? We found the answer, i am sure we could think of something.

Nuking them would only increase your problems, Pakistan, India, Iran, Georgia Russia and some ex-soviet countries, also possibly china, would declare war since they would be effected by the blasts.

[Federalist Territories]

Unfortunately these "rules and regulations" are not universally accepted or terrorism would not exist, the genocide in Bosnia would never have occurred, or in Vietnam after America withdrew from the country. I do not have a problem with rules of war, i have a problem when only one side is following them, so if the other side decides to follow the rules of war then i would offer the same courtesy, terrorists, supporters of terrorists or countries to practice excessive brutality like Iran, Iraq, the Vietcong, North Koreans, the Soviets in the past deserve the same brutality they enact on others.

Following those rules gives you thmoral high-ground?
Else you couldn't;t tell who was more worthy of condemnation, the instigator or the savior....

Like i said, there is no room for morality in war, the self righteous die and everyone is a villain to someone. One man's hero is another man's villain. In order to kill a monster, you must become one, it is a moral question, you go to war to kill another person, to your side, your a patriot, your a hero, the other side, your a murderer and villain. Morality is point of view, perception that others view you in, what good is the moral high ground when you die? I remember one scene in Saving Private Ryan where they spared the german and the damn nazi came back and killed half of them at the end and the one man who fought to spare the nazi's life was the one to kill him in the end. Now, that is fictional, but the moral example is interesting. Would they have survived if they just pulled the trigger.

[Federalist Territories]

In the way it is fought right now yes, we are getting nowhere. Terrorism is not a style of tactical warfare that relies on how much damage you can do, but it is truly a psychological warfare. The only way to even counter that is psychological, 300,000 troops will do nothing to hinder radical islam, it will not happen. It's about making an impression into the minds of the enemy thats why i said that i would only "consider" going into Afghanistan. My strategy would be much different. I would think radical islam is no different from the Japanese in World War II when Kamikeze's became the biggest threat to US forces. How do you fight an enemy who is not afraid to die? We found the answer, i am sure we could think of something.

Nuking them would only increase your problems, Pakistan, India, Iran, Georgia Russia and some ex-soviet countries, also possibly china, would declare war since they would be effected by the blasts.

I never said anything about nuking anybody, i was pointing the magnitude of what we had to do to break the will of Japan. I am not saying "Oh well it worked on Japan, let's drop a nuke on Afghanistan and rattle the cage" no. What i was saying is we have to go about it differently then we are now, something more extreme i'd say but nothing involving nukes.

[Innsmothe]

Following those rules gives you thmoral high-ground?
Else you couldn't;t tell who was more worthy of condemnation, the instigator or the savior....

Like i said, there is no room for morality in war, the self righteous die and everyone is a villain to someone. One man's hero is another man's villain. In order to kill a monster, you must become one, it is a moral question, you go to war to kill another person, to your side, your a patriot, your a hero, the other side, your a murderer and villain. Morality is point of view, perception that others view you in, what good is the moral high ground when you die? I remember one scene in Saving Private Ryan where they spared the german and the damn nazi came back and killed half of them at the end and the one man who fought to spare the nazi's life was the one to kill him in the end. Now, that is fictional, but the moral example is interesting. Would they have survived if they just pulled the trigger.

Sacrifice is an ideal to most groups.
And for some it is the only path to the afterlife.
Plus, not turning the surrounding nations into potential enemies is a good reason to spare the people.
Even the largest beast can fall to multiple smaller ones.

[Terishany]

Terrorists from Gaza launch rockets and suicide bombers into Israel, and Israel fights back and all of a sudden they are the bad guy?
Hmm...

[Innsmothe]

Terrorists from Gaza launch rockets and suicide bombers into Israel, and Israel fights back and all of a sudden they are the bad guy?
Hmm...

One, They block all food water and Aid into Gaza, causing most of the aggression.

When they seek to break the siege, they are culled like animals with illegal weaponry.

As the son of a German Jew, I say they are no better than the Nazi's.

[Chamberliania]

I am not a zionist but I support Israel's actions.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..

All their actions? So you support colonialism.....?

Just saying, there is some good to be said for colonies...

[Chamberliania]

I am not a zionist but I support Israel's actions.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..

All their actions? So you support colonialism.....?

Just saying, there is some good to be said for colonies...

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

Terrorists from Gaza launch rockets and suicide bombers into Israel, and Israel fights back and all of a sudden they are the bad guy?
Hmm...

One, They block all food water and Aid into Gaza, causing most of the aggression.

When they seek to break the siege, they are culled like animals with illegal weaponry.

As the son of a German Jew, I say they are no better than the Nazi's.

But the Nazis didn't cry for mommy when they got a bad international rep.

[Innsmothe]

One, They block all food water and Aid into Gaza, causing most of the aggression.

When they seek to break the siege, they are culled like animals with illegal weaponry.

As the son of a German Jew, I say they are no better than the Nazi's.

But the Nazis didn't cry for mommy when they got a bad international rep.

Heh, Nazi's in diapers.

[Apollonesia]

.

[Innsmothe]

One, They block all food water and Aid into Gaza, causing most of the aggression.

When they seek to break the siege, they are culled like animals with illegal weaponry.

As the son of a German Jew, I say they are no better than the Nazi's.

You are really crossing the line here, mate. When Israel ruthlessly murders 11 million innocent Palestinians, then say that.

I meant in their methods and morality they are comparable. They haven't reached that low.


Yet.

[Apollonesia]

Still not. That is one gigantic exaggeration. Of course you'd think so, because you're ant-Zionist and anti-Israel. Germany wasn't surrounded by countries that wanted to obliterate it. Israel ≠ Nazi Germany

[Innsmothe]

Still not. That is one gigantic exaggeration. Of course you'd think so, because you're ant-Zionist and anti-Israel. Germany wasn't surrounded by countries that wanted to obliterate it. Israel ≠ Nazi Germany

France, Russia, And before WWI, Austria.

[Apollonesia]

Germany wasn't in the amount of danger that Israel is in. No terrorist attacks, nothing like that. Completely different.

[Innsmothe]

Germany wasn't in the amount of danger that Israel is in. No terrorist attacks, nothing like that. Completely different.

Except it was bankrupt, had a restricted armed force and angry citizens.

plus Israel is breeding terrorists by besieging Palestine.

If they stopped the siege, but increased border patrols and invested in precision arms, slaughter won't be necessary.

[Geniasis]

In order to kill a monster, you must become one

Oh come on. Even the grandaddy of nihilism didn't buy into that.

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

You are really crossing the line here, mate. When Israel ruthlessly murders 11 million innocent Palestinians, then say that.

Show me this imaginary line. I want to see it.