News From Gaza
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
- Status
Upsetting, I know but its true.
Most children who are shot are shot in the head, many in their eyes.
“The majority of these [Palestinian] children were killed and injured while going about normal daily activities, such as going to school, playing, shopping, or simply being in their homes. Sixty-four percent of children killed during the first six months of 2003 died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, or from indiscriminate fire from Israeli soldiers.”
- Catherine Cook
Source: These numbers are from Remember These Children, a coalition of groups calling for an end to the killing of children and a fair resolution of the conflict. (View the complete list of the victims, which was last updated on February 1, 2008.)
Its not known so well in west, except by those who go to Palestine:
Last edited:
Todays news:
Israel places pro-peace radio employees in West Bank under House arrest
Israel to deny UN official entry for comparing Israel to Nazis
Not surprised they don't like him.
But he's not the only one:
UN expert: Palestinian terror 'inevitable' result of occupation
By The Associated Press
Israel places pro-peace radio employees in West Bank under House arrest
Israel to deny UN official entry for comparing Israel to Nazis
Not surprised they don't like him.
But he's not the only one:
UN expert: Palestinian terror 'inevitable' result of occupation
By The Associated Press
Last edited:
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
"None of us are free if one of us is chained."
More of the same SAM, more of the same.
More of the same SAM, more of the same.
Quite the contrary - SAM has a lot of "borrowed creditability" in that she backs up her statements with reference. Those attacking her seldom provide any references. - Name calling is so much easier, I guess.
I tend not to give reference also, but just use logic and well known facts. For example, anyone even slightly aware of the defensive systems warships used more than 45 years ago, knows that the early version of the Close In Weapon Systems (Referred to as CIWS by everyone knowledgeable in this field) have had three or four generations of improvement and now the RAF missile is in the process of ending the CIWS rapid fire* multiple-barrel, automatic -radar-controlled guns that tracked their own outgoing rounds to "converge the bullet stream" onto even a supersonic weaving target. Israel could use even the first generation CIWS, now surely sitting in some Israeli warehouse against the crude, subsonic, non-weaving, simply falling from peak altitude rockets fired into Israel from Gaza. They would be a very easy target. - Easier than destroying a peanut with a sledge hammer.
Those well known facts, and simple logic force the conclusion that Israel has need of some reason to have a few Israelis killed annually or at least injured. Possibly I have speculated the reason wrong, but the only plausible one I can think of for Israel letting these crude slow (almost stationary at peak altitude) rockets injure a few Israelis is that Israel needs some justification for its "Slow motion extermination"** plans (or at least for the high kill ratio) retaliatory policy instead of adopting a truly defensive policy - such as I have presented in great details years ago.)
If you can suggest an alternative reason why Israeli prefers HIGH KILL RATIO RETALIATION to a TRUE DEFENSE, I would be sincerely happy to hear it because I like most Jews, admire their cultural emphasis on learning, have lived in a Rabbi's vacation home for a month one summer (as "shick engle" - cleaned the fish we caught on Friday afternoons etc.), but I condemn Israeli's chosen policy.
------------------
* I would recommend using at least the second generation if no modification is made. The first generation did occasionally jam at the 100s of bullets per minute fire rate, but in Israel's application against the Gaza rockets, that fire rate would still be gross "over kill" - a waste of bullets even if 10 times slower firing rate were used and then there is no problem with jamming.
**Israel does seem to have learned from Hitler's mistake - too rapid killing of a defenseless group*** risks provoking the world to action instead of just periodic protests. "Never again" does not refer to a state's policy of extermination (Bedouins have already been exterminated by Israel as a culture - now those still surviving Bedouins are confined in one of the seven "concentration camp" cities Israel has built and surrounds with armed guards.) "Never again" refers to outsiders stopping an extermination. They will not stop Israel, not stop the exterminations occuring in several places in Africa, not in Tibet, etc. "Never again" will the powerful nations of the world stop the extermination of the powerless, if slowly done. Even in the "CNN age," the world will "just watch" any modern version of a "slow motion" extermination. I switch channels when CNN shows those starving or dead kids, don't you, at least at dinner time? Never again.
***Not entirely defenseless. - They do occasionally throw stones against the side of the tanks, as some very brave Jews did against Hitler's tanks before the current resistance to occupation etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course I don`t hate myself because I`m jewish, or for any other reason. In fact, since it`s quite obvious that there`s nothing in my post from which one could reasonably conclude this - or that I hate people who aren`t jewish - with as much confidence as you seem to have, I have to wonder where you're remarks are coming from.
Sam doesn`t answer questions as they`re posed by other members. Instead she disrespects them by twisting their intended meaning and cutting and pasting someone elses remarks to deflect the debate in a different direction. Why can`t she just give a straight up answer in her own words? That`s a rhetorical question by the way. Are you aware that in her exchange with me that she admitted her antisemitism with no apologies whatsoever. This happened because I didn`t allow her to escape my basic question which was why is she so incredibly interested in the arab-israeli conflict given that she has no natural ties to it.
36,141 posts...
SAM, remember I was making fun of you like 2-3 months ago about having 20,000 posts? And then when you've reached 21,000 posts about a week later I stopped making fun of you and began advising you to get help for your compulsive behaviour? Well what do you know. It's been 2-3 months and you've amassed another 15,000 posts!
You're worse than a MMORPG addict... stop before it's too late!!!
SAM, remember I was making fun of you like 2-3 months ago about having 20,000 posts? And then when you've reached 21,000 posts about a week later I stopped making fun of you and began advising you to get help for your compulsive behaviour? Well what do you know. It's been 2-3 months and you've amassed another 15,000 posts!
You're worse than a MMORPG addict... stop before it's too late!!!
worse than a mmorpg addict lol
Keeping you on your toes, am I?
Not really... there really is no point to bother with you. You're too much... you know what I mean? Churchill said, "a fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject." You're a fanatic, and a compulsive one at that. I'm neither
I just hope it's not too late for you...
Glad to see that you too think this is both important and courteous. I always try to answer direct questions, if they are clear and serious. I have asked Mr. Spock at least ten times what is wrong with my defensive plan, designed to reduce the killings, probably to zero of all who are truly innocent. So I will now directly ask you:
What is so wrong with the plan I suggested long ago:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1124159&postcount=115
That the current high-kill-ratio RETALITORY policy is better for Israel than a truly DEFENSIVE plan?
I know my plan is not perfect, but does seem to have a chance. The current plan, like the US invasion of Iraq, is just making the problem worse; turning more people against Israel, even Israelis against Israelis - See current issue of the Economist - There is special section with about 8 articles on the government of Israel and it internal problems.
I fear for Israeli's next decades. It is not the nuclear danger of an Iranian bomb I fear. - As in the MAD era of mutual US-USSR deterrence, both have too much to lose - There are no "winners" in a nuclear war, only losers.
What I fear is the disperate state of the "half exterminated" Palestinians. They may conclude that at least they can take Israel to hell with them. - I.e. disperse some highly-lethal, highly-contagious dust or spray (Ebola?) from Tel Aviv high-rise windows.
Certainly there are "martyrs" who would willing contract Ebola in Africa, and travel to a biological lab in Iran or elsewhere for the Ebola virus to be "weaponized" and produced in Kilo-gram quantities. There are others willing to become sick as they throw it out the window in Tel Aviv.
Israel does not really want to drive the Palestinians to this national murder/suicide extreme. The cost of making the "Ebola Bomb" is surely less than 0.1% of the cost of making a nuclear one - and much easier to hid its development from US spy satellites etc. Unfortunately, if the Palestinians lack the biological knowledge and skill to develop it, there are several nations that do not and would be happier if the Mid East were rid of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Anyway, as you strongly believe direct question deserve a reply, I again ask:
Why is the current retaliatory plan preferred to a defensive one that could avoid killing innocent on both sides?
Not really... there really is no point to bother with you. You're too much... you know what I mean? Churchill said, "a fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject." You're a fanatic, and a compulsive one at that. I'm neither
Still on the same subject and of the same mind eh?
Billy T said:
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went to read your plan. But after reading the first line in your first step, as my jaw was dropping and the giggle was coming up my stomach, I realized that I should stop reading
I'll just conclude that you're a good person who wants to help people, but you're terribly misinformed.
Have a nice day
Still on the same subject and of the same mind eh?
Yes you are
15,000 posts in 3 months, and you're still parrotting the same ol' talking points
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went to read your plan. But after reading the first line in your first step, as my jaw was dropping and the giggle was coming up my stomach, I realized that I should stop reading
I'll just conclude that you're a good person who wants to help people, but you're terribly misinformed.
Have a nice day
why it would go a long way to make a reasonable peace
I actually went back and finished reading his plan. The rest of it sounds reasonable, but only because it isn't really a peace plan, but rather a protection plan. He suggested to put several layers of defense to stop the incoming rockets, and suicide bombers and shooters including dogs
But that first point was just so funny
It says do this because of that. Well, that didn't really happen, so there's no reason to do this.
Originally Posted by Billy T
Step 1: Apologize and pay compensation for the confiscation of Palestine homes when Israel needed them to house the in flux of European Jews.
I think it is a very well established fact that without justice, peace is impossible. When someone or some nation openly steals something of value the thief cannot expect to enjoy peace. That is why the first step I suggested is to pay for what was confiscated with no compensation, years ago.
For clarity, I should note that my plan is not really a “peace plan.” Peace is much more than just a reduction in the rate of killing innocent people. That is all my plan is trying to achieve, but if that could be achieved, perhaps in a generation or two (for the “hardened haters” to die out) peace might be possible. I have never called it a "Peace plan" It is, as I have always called it, a "Defense plan" as contrasted to the current "high kill ratio" retaliation plan.
I am still waiting for your answer as to why the current retaliation plan is better for Israel than defending Israel?
Step 1: Apologize and pay compensation for the confiscation of Palestine homes when Israel needed them to house the in flux of European Jews.
”Misinformed”? About what? BTW, that too is a direct question. So I am waiting for two answers now. –You are doing what you accused SAM of (and in fact she does not do very often.) I.e. you are refusing to answer direct, serious questions.I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went to read your plan. But after reading the first line in your first step, as my jaw was dropping and the giggle was coming up my stomach, I realized that I should stop reading
I'll just conclude that you're a good person who wants to help people, but you're terribly misinformed. Have a nice day
I think it is a very well established fact that without justice, peace is impossible. When someone or some nation openly steals something of value the thief cannot expect to enjoy peace. That is why the first step I suggested is to pay for what was confiscated with no compensation, years ago.
For clarity, I should note that my plan is not really a “peace plan.” Peace is much more than just a reduction in the rate of killing innocent people. That is all my plan is trying to achieve, but if that could be achieved, perhaps in a generation or two (for the “hardened haters” to die out) peace might be possible. I have never called it a "Peace plan" It is, as I have always called it, a "Defense plan" as contrasted to the current "high kill ratio" retaliation plan.
I am still waiting for your answer as to why the current retaliation plan is better for Israel than defending Israel?
Last edited by a moderator:
Israel cuts off Gaza fuel source
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/04067240-B607-45EC-9E25-26C4A3B0FC7E.htm
Of course one is supposed to ignore why Hamas attacked
Which has been the last straw since Israel has cut off most fuel to Gaza since last September
So now the Palestinians all 1.5 million of them are completely cut off from all fuel supply.
What a joke Israel has become.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/04067240-B607-45EC-9E25-26C4A3B0FC7E.htm
Of course one is supposed to ignore why Hamas attacked
Which has been the last straw since Israel has cut off most fuel to Gaza since last September
So now the Palestinians all 1.5 million of them are completely cut off from all fuel supply.
What a joke Israel has become.
- Status