^^^ Sweet. Figured as much.

1/5/2009 5:05:26 PM

two for the jew

1/5/2009 5:05:31 PM

Quote :

"two for the jew "

nice

1/5/2009 5:07:24 PM

i like how hamas purposely puts civilians in the line of fire so they can be killed when israelis attack military targets

1/5/2009 5:17:38 PM

asymmetric warfare worked for Americans in 1776-1779

learn it, live it, love it.

1/5/2009 5:28:58 PM

that comparison is retarded.

1/5/2009 6:06:02 PM

Hamas Charter Preamble: "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."

That pretty much explains the root of the problem to me.

1/5/2009 6:36:30 PM

^^^^
Source? I've seen it referenced but never from a source that I recognize as credible. I've never been to Gaza, but I wouldn't imagine there's very much room to spread out.

Also, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians.
I'm not sure how this may relate to the current violence. I just found it post-worthy since I hadn't seen this mentioned in the news, most likely due to the presidential election coverage at the time.

1/5/2009 6:57:58 PM

Quote :

"Source? I've seen it referenced but never from a source that I recognize as credible."

Eh, they routinely use Mosques and apartments for weapon storage and other nefarious things. Just do a quick search and you will find that, of course that is Israel saying that, and of course the Palestinian groups are like, no of course we don't put weapons in mosques.

1/5/2009 7:03:05 PM

Precisely. I certainly understand the argument and find it believable. However, I would hesitate to reference it as fact without some type of independent and credible report backing it. I wouldn't trust Israel or Hamas on the subject.

I don't feel that it helps anyone's understanding of the situation by referencing statements made by one government or another as fact, when there's very little substantiated evidence supporting those allegations.

I would expect Hamas to lie about it. I would expect Israel to lie about it. That's what governments do.

1/5/2009 7:22:31 PM

Quote :

"that comparison is retarded"

oh really? care to elaborate why? or is that the extent of your insightful commentary.

the comparison is not entirely precise, but major points are true. american "patriots" engaged in asymmetric warfare against the british regulars, and were denigrated for for it as engaging in "barbaric warfare"... For instance, during the Revolution, American patriots routinely hid munitions in schools and churches.

even as late as World War II, the United States Military hid heavy armaments in churches. I know this for a fact. I have been to St. Mark's Cathedral in Seattle, and there are scars on the walls where anti-aircraft guns were moved in and out. The US Army used this Episcopal cathedral for several years to store armaments and as an anti-aircraft training depot.

But no... anyone *else* who does anything to try and even the odds against an enemy that outnumbers and outguns them is automatically evil. Never mind the fact that the Israelis will kill women and children without pause.

1/5/2009 7:31:02 PM

^ I don't think they're necessarily saying it's "bad" to do that, but do they really have a right to bitch when a mosque is blown up?

But, Hamas is grossly outgunned by Israel. They can't win by fighting "fair" they HAVE to either fight dirty or surrender (or negotiate). And obviously, after decades of this, they're not surrendering.

1/5/2009 7:55:21 PM

Quote :

"i like how hamas purposely puts civilians in the line of fire so they can be killed when israelis attack military targets"

With just over 10,000 people/square mile, Gaza has one of the highest rates of population density in the world.

1/5/2009 11:46:22 PM

^ SWEET JESUS! EQUIVOCATE, EQUIVOCATE, EQUIVOCATE!

Hamas has admitted that it uses human shields, for fuck's sake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTu-AUE9ycs

1/6/2009 12:18:52 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7812833.stm

According to this Norwegian doctor, ~45% of the 2500 injured have not been fighters, and 20% of the dead have not been fighters (this 20% number is the same i've seen elsewhere).

1/6/2009 12:19:22 AM

^ Um. . .yeah--that's the fucking point. When Hamas uses human shields, people die that shouldn't.

Did you even bother to watch this?

Quote :

"SWEET JESUS! EQUIVOCATE, EQUIVOCATE, EQUIVOCATE! Hamas has admitted that it uses human shields, for fuck's sake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTu-AUE9ycs "

Maybe these images will help. . .







. . .maybe not.


[Edited on January 6, 2009 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

1/6/2009 12:57:48 AM

Yeah use of human shields is the lowest, most scumbag thing they can do, right?

1/6/2009 1:04:14 AM

^ You are a stupid fucking idiot troll. Israel does not use human shields and you fucking know it--that picture is nothing but propaganda.

In contrast, Hamas has admitted that it uses human shields. In addition, Israel has called off strikes in the past to avoid civilian casualties--civilians that HAMAS put in danger.

Human shield deters Israel strike

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6162494.stm

Israel withdrew form Gaza and what did they get for it? About 6,000 rockets fired into populated areas--I hope Israel glasses the fucking place. And if it were the United States, an overwhelming majority would be calling for exactly same thing.

I'm not going to respond to you on this subject anymore, actualmoron. You are a fucking buffoon of the worst sort.

PS: The "source" for the image that actualmoron used above--and tried to obscure--is Uruknet. Evidently, Google has received numerous complaints about Uruknet concerning propaganda and anti-U.S. views. The site was apparently taken off Google News links.

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/google-replies-to-uruknet-with-lies/

FYI.

[Edited on January 6, 2009 at 1:38 AM. Reason : PPS: ]

1/6/2009 1:27:31 AM

1/6/2009 2:03:34 AM

Joe, I said the comparison was retarded because there is a big difference in revolutionary war soldiers using guerrilla tactics on the British army and Hamas attacking civilians and using there own civilians as shields. I could care less about the storage of weapons in churches so long as those churches are not filled with civilians.

1/6/2009 4:57:54 AM

The Arab world wants to see Palestinian civilians suffer. The more that Palestine hurts, the worse Israel looks to the rest of the world. Iraq and Iran want the situation to get bloodier so that they have an excuse to wipe Israel off the map. The Arab League keeps "protesting" the actions of the Israeli military, but are doing nothing to help "their people."

And about that protest at the Belltower yesterday...a massive group asking cars to honk does nothing but create noise, not solutions. Just a big waste of time.

1/6/2009 7:25:14 AM

Quote :

"About 6,000 rockets fired into populated areas--I hope Israel glasses the fucking place. And if it were the United States, an overwhelming majority would be calling for exactly same thing."

Sure. We've directly killed tens of thousands in Iraq, and they didn't even attack us. The US population supposedly supported dropping additional atomic bombs on Japan in World War II. We're not known for our national morality.

Quote :

"And about that protest at the Belltower yesterday...a massive group asking cars to honk does nothing but create noise, not solutions. Just a big waste of time."

Yes, TWW is famous for its disdain of protests and protesters. But such actions do make a difference, albeit a small one. Folks take notice. The world runs on publicity. And if was like the events here, the protests did offer suggestions. Ending aid to Israel, for example.

1/6/2009 11:35:51 AM

okay, Rep18. I see your point.


DNL, you just won this thread.

1/6/2009 11:56:07 AM

Quote :

"Joe, I said the comparison was retarded because there is a big difference in revolutionary war soldiers using guerrilla tactics on the British army and Hamas attacking civilians and using there own civilians as shields. "

i thought the comparison with regards to assymmetric warfare was fair.

1/6/2009 1:08:27 PM

I'm scared, I can't even begin to explain it. I haven't slept since the shit hit the fan a week and a half ago. I have family and friends just over 40km from Gaza, which has been the upper limit of rocket launches, but who knows when they will be able to reach 60.

1/6/2009 2:48:05 PM

Just because the Israeli gov't offers money for you to go squat on the Palestinians' land, doesnt mean you have to take them up on it.

in other words, when you put yourself in the middle of hundreds years' worth of religious warfare, don't be surprised when the various factions start pulling out weapons.

1/6/2009 4:00:35 PM

pretty harsh on the guy there Joe.

1/6/2009 4:19:39 PM

Quote :

"Republican18: Joe, I said the comparison was retarded because there is a big difference in revolutionary war soldiers using guerrilla tactics on the British army and Hamas attacking civilians and using there own civilians as shields. "

Quote :

"Jader:i thought the comparison with regards to assymmetric warfare was fair"

you know, you're right. It is actually a fair comparison.

the American "Patriots" were roundly denigrated by the British government and military for engaging in what were terrorist tactics.

not only did we bomb official government institutions and transport...

but we also engaged in battle without wearing uniforms
we hid our "patriot" fighters by blending in with the civilian population
we disguised our armaments as civilian farm implements
we hid munition stores in churches and schools.

WHY did we engage in such terrorist activities? because we were outclassed and outgunned by an extremely superior military force. there's NO WAY we could have put on blue uniforms and met the British column-for-column on the battlefield

we HAD to hide behind churches and schools, and blend in with the civilians, if we ever hoped to prevail. But even THAT wouldn't have been enough, so we hired germanic mercenaries and engaged the French to subvert the British economically and politically.

so the fact is, what you decry as terrorism, is merely asymmetric warfare by another name -- and our own fucking country was bought and paid for on these very principles.









[Edited on January 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2009 4:44:45 PM

^ I don't think it's unfair to make that comparison, but I think it's important in this situation to realize that this is merely a good rebuttal to one smaller part of the main argument.

If you really want to focus on the above comparison as an argument, we need to remember that the full comparison would be that the US was already it's own sovereign nation being respected as such by England, but then went ahead and attacked the English in their own homes unprovoked.

1/6/2009 5:54:41 PM

wait, what?

do you really think Palestine is "its own sovereign nation?"





[Edited on January 6, 2009 at 7:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2009 7:52:14 PM

Quote :

"Sure. We've directly killed tens of thousands in Iraq, and they didn't even attack us."

GoldenVapid

You are a liar.

U.S. Jets Fire on Iraqi Missile Site

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Dec. 29, 1998 – U.S. fighter jets patrolling the no-fly zone over northern Iraq fired on an Iraqi missile site after it launched surface-to-air missiles at them Dec. 28."

Quote :

"Iraq had announced two days earlier it would fire on any aircraft flying in the no-fly zones established after the Gulf War. The United States and Britain have enforced the no-fly zone in the north since 1991 and in the south since 1992."

Quote :

"Clinton praised the pilots for 'the work they do, the risks they take, the skill and the professionalism with which they do it.'"

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=41722

BTW, have you ever heard of the Gulf War? And did Serbia attack us, dumbass?

1/6/2009 7:52:20 PM

goddammit, oldsaw. quit being a demented old retard with the name changing.




[Edited on January 6, 2009 at 7:55 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2009 7:54:50 PM

Quote :

"WHY did we engage in such terrorist activities? because we were outclassed and outgunned by an extremely superior military force. there's NO WAY we could have put on blue uniforms and met the British column-for-column on the battlefield"

we won several battles head-to-head with British regulars. the patriot guerillas would not have defeated the British on their own. in fact, I would say they would not have made a dent in the British army, only annoyed them. they certainly were not well supplied enough to defeat a force that large and well equiped.

I get your point but you have to admit there are huge differences in warfare to be accounted for here.

Lets take the example of storing supplies in churches and other public places. in 1776, the British are not capable of 'bombing' towns or precise targets. if they suspected an area of harboring supplies for guerillas, they would storm the structure by foot. there likely would be few, if any civilian casualties. the americans would hide their supplies there knowing it would be both hard to find and pretty harmless to the civies around it. Hamas hides their supplies knowing that the Isrealis arent going to storm the structure, they are going to destroy it and cause collateral damage which leaves egg on the face of the Israelis.

there is a different philosphy at work there.

[Edited on January 6, 2009 at 8:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2009 8:34:13 PM

the differences are only by matters of degree. fundamentally the relationship of militarized oppressor to underequipped rebels is the same.

the real difference is that of semantics

WE were "patriots" or "freedom fighters" who used "asymmetric battle tactics"

THEY are "terrorists" or "insurgents" who are "immoral" in their use of "indiscriminate" attacks and "civilian shields"

1/6/2009 8:41:06 PM

you missed my point.

the americans stashing their supplies in a public place did so knowing with about 95% certainty that the civies living in and around the supplies would not be harmed.

hamas stashing their supplies in a public place do so knowing civies will be harmed...in fact hoping they will to make their enemies look bad.

this a HUGE fundamental difference. so is the fact that the americans had a standing, formal army doing most of the fighting.

guerilla tactics are what they are and have been practiced for years. I am not arguing those similarities.

[Edited on January 6, 2009 at 8:50 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2009 8:50:16 PM

for one thing, "americans" did not -- in any way, shape, or form -- have a standing formal army prior to the revolution.

for another, the difference you try to paint between us and them, and the manner in which we were stashing weapons in schools and churches and family farms, and having our own insurgent/terrorist fighters milling about with the civilians ... you fail to recognize is that our population was less dense by orders of magnitude.

on the basis of that fallacy, you then compare 18th century warfare across the entire eastern continental seaboard, with 20th century warfare in dense urban areas measured in the tens of square miles ... but then saying that the difference in the "likelihood" of civilian casualties makes us somehow more moral than them?

yeah. okay fine. Americans truly are blessed by God. Sure sucks to be anyone else.







[Edited on January 6, 2009 at 9:04 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2009 8:59:41 PM

u mad?

I know we didnt have an army before the revolution. I thought we were talking about the revolution. I clearly said 1776. I also clearly acknowledged the existence of similar tactics used by the Americans against the Brits.

yes I am comparing 18th century fighting against 20th century fighting because thats germaine to the argument.

you cannot argue the fact that american civilians were NOT being blown to bits by the British. this is because Americans KNEW the Brits would not do it. I say we wouldnt have stashed our supplies if we thought American civies would be killed by proxy. I guess you are saying we would have. however, the fact remains that this didnt happen. this is common practice by Hamas. they hide their weapons among the public to bait the Israelis into collateral damage. Americans stashed their weapons among the civies for quick access to them as well as the fact they were good hiding spots. can you not even concede this point? are you that stubborn? this is more than a matter of degree.

1/6/2009 9:07:27 PM

Quote :

"they hide their weapons among the public to bait the Israelis into collateral damage"

and you believe everything the Israeli govt tells you about the Palestinians, i see.

1/6/2009 9:17:29 PM

are we really comparing early America to the Palestinians and hamas

are we really comparing Israel to the old British

really?


really?

1/6/2009 9:21:18 PM

not like you imply. but the fact is, we both engaged in asymmetric warfare against our oppressors.

we won, so we wrote ourselves into the history books as "patriots". Israel currently defines the Palestinian side, so they're called "terrorists"

1/6/2009 9:23:49 PM

Quote :

"and you believe everything the Israeli govt tells you about the Palestinians, i see."

nicely played. when in doubt, go to the conspiracy theory

for your information, I dont get my news from the Israeli government. I get it from FAUXNEWS and the BBC and NPR

I also have a moderate ability to process information. I can see that whenever there is an Israeli airstrike on a suspected Hamas target, legit or not, the dead civies and crying mothers are front/center page in the newspaper. my small brain also tells me that the Israelis have nothing gain by these images, while Hamas has a lot to gain by them. pretty simple.

1/6/2009 9:26:37 PM

okay.

so please present your evidence that the Palestinians purposely "put" civilians in harms way, with the intention to cause civilian casualties for P.R. Explain please how this is not a function of having a population density of 4000 people per square Km in the Gaza strip (2004)

1/6/2009 9:34:05 PM

population density is certainly an issue, but it still has nothing to do with your comparision with the americas during the revolution. the brits werent carpet bombing philly.

oh and a quick google search shows more than few results...here are a couple of writers who agree with me.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped0105krauthammerjan05,0,6003230.story

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/hamas-is-responsible-for_b_155261.html

now you go find some that DONT think this is the M.O. of Hamas.

1/6/2009 9:57:16 PM

Quote :

"we won, so we wrote ourselves into the history books as "patriots". Israel currently defines the Palestinian side, so they're called "terrorists""

That is an absurd comparison. Did American patriots target British civilians? Did they blow themselves up in crowded English markets. Did they torture captured British soldiers?

They are terrorists because they target civilians to produce terror in civilians in order to try and achieve their goals.

1/6/2009 10:06:50 PM

joe knows he is making a ridiculous argument. he conceded such earlier.

1/6/2009 10:13:50 PM

Quote :

"in other words, when you put yourself in the middle of hundreds years' worth of religious warfare, don't be surprised when the various factions start pulling out weapons."

#1 - This is not religious warfare. Muslims and Jews are not natural enemies. The terrorist actions taken during this conflict are against Jewish and Islamic law. This is a political battle over borders and land ownership.

#2 - Hundreds of years? There wasn't a fight until the British peaced out and set this whole mess up in 1948. On and off for the better part of 61 years now, not hundreds.

1/6/2009 11:25:11 PM

Quote :

"Did American patriots target British civilians?"

they sure as hell did. Patriots targeted Loyalists and Tories at their homes and businesses.



.

1/7/2009 12:04:10 AM

correct me if i'm wrong, but ^ would have happened before the bill of rights was written.

maybe it was wrong... but not against the constitution?

1/7/2009 12:52:49 AM

OK, let's clear this up: during the Revolutionary War, United States military and paramilitary forces did all of these things:

Quote :

"but we also engaged in battle without wearing uniforms we hid our "patriot" fighters by blending in with the civilian population we disguised our armaments as civilian farm implements we hid munition stores in churches and schools."

We also routinely terrorized, tortured, chased out, and killed loyalist civilians, who fled the country en masse as soon as we won because they were terrified for their lives.

But there are some very important factors here. Namely, the fact that we did those things MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO.

Americans did the things joe_schmoe takes such delight in describing before there was a Constitution or a Bill of Rights. We did them before there were international conventions on the conduct of war, or international law in general.

We did them at a time when it was still considered morally acceptable in many places to practice chattel slavery and slaughter indigenous people. A time when our knowledge of the world was so limited that we thought that trees should be cut down in public places because they made the air "unwholesome."

Times have changed a lot since then. And more importantly, let's focus on what American revolutionaries didn't do that Hamas is doing right now. Some of these things make a pretty big difference.

We did not routinely use women and children as human shields, or as any other means of discouraging, absorbing, or misguiding enemy fire. We did not use (or have access to) weapons of such indiscriminate lethality as those possessed by Hamas and Hezbollah. When England finally gave up and said, "OK, we're leaving, here's a truce," we did not immediately attack them again as soon as they left. (At least we waited until 1812) And so on.

Quote :

"But even THAT wouldn't have been enough, so we hired germanic mercenaries and engaged the French to subvert the British economically and politically."

Hiring mercenaries was something that the British did rather more than we did, and engaging other nations politically to assist you in a conflict is pretty common. Neither are asymmetrical warfare or terrorism by any standard.

Mostly it boils down to this:

Quote :

"so the fact is, what you decry as terrorism, is merely asymmetric warfare by another name"

That's very debatable in a lot of circles. I think many people would generally agree that terrorism is a subset of asymmetrical warfare, but the two are not as interchangeable as you make them out to be. "Asymmetrical warfare" has a broad but clear definition; "terrorism," on the other hand, is a pretty nebulous term.

Quote :

"the differences are only by matters of degree. fundamentally the relationship of militarized oppressor to underequipped rebels is the same."

You keep saying this and going on with your tired "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" rant, but you never come anywhere near proving your first point. There are clear differences in the tactics, their intentions, and their effects. In fact, even in one of your next sentences, you add "indiscriminate," which of course is a huge part of it. Using sneaky tactics to shoot soldiers is one thing; using sneaky tactics to shoot civilians/get civilians shot is something else entirely.

[Edited on January 7, 2009 at 2:51 AM. Reason : oh noes I hope this isn't too dense for joe to read]

1/7/2009 2:51:21 AM

^ When properly directed, Grumpy, your penchant for pleonasm (or accumulatio) as a rhetorical device can me most efficacious and never ceases to entertain.

1/7/2009 3:49:29 AM