Zionist piracy

[quadraphonics]

When the probability of Zionist deception after innumerable checks = 1, its not bigotry, its common sense to assume they are lying. It also saves a lot of time wasted in believing their fictional stories

Anyone who knows the first thing about statistics knows that you can't get to probability 1 with a finite number of data points. Not that what you deal in is actually data, but still: at least get the basic premise right if you want your rhetoric to travel.

Anyway, substituting bigotry for homework remains unimpressive. If you have evidence that rockets are not being fired from civilian areas, please present it. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch - which you have shown little hesitation in endorsing the credibility of in the past - say otherwise.

It is also one more reason why its counterproductive for Hamas to fire rockets from civilian centers. The buffer zone would make the rockets even more inefficient.

Targetting efficiency is not a salient concern in the rocket campaign - if it were, they wouldn't bother with said rockets in the first place, since they're patently inefficient as actual military weapons.

Meanwhile, firing from open areas that are closely, actively monitored by Israel (such as the "buffer zones") is a guaranteed way to get yourself shot dead before you can fire the rockets. Which would hardly improve "efficiency."

 

[spidergoat]

Thats an easy question. Its not

...

Thanks, I agree. Can't you see the difference between Gaza and the West Bank? The difference is the Palestinian Authority wants peace, and Hamas wants war to settle old scores.

Abbas: Second intifada was a mistake

 

[StrawDog]

Let's certainly hope that's not the case...Israel surely will not budge...and the Revolutionary Guard will certainly not budge. These 'aid' ships will not be boarded in the same method with paint-ball guns strapped to the backs of Israeli commandos. This is a severe provocation by Iran...and it doesn't bode well for any continued peace in the Middle East. If the ship doesn't turn back, there will be casualties...I pray dearly it ends at that. If war breaks out I will likely be on the first plane there....

Interestingly, you (and Israel) see provocation in Iran`s behaviour, but are quite blind to provocations in your own (Israel`)s behaviour. :m:

 

[pjdude1219]

It's not acceptable for people in your country to be killed by rockets, no matter what the rate of success.

its the price you pay for wars of conquest. the conquered rarely just accept it.

 

[pjdude1219]

Thanks, I agree. Can't you see the difference between Gaza and the West Bank? The difference is the Palestinian Authority wants peace, and Hamas wants war to settle old scores.

Abbas: Second intifada was a mistake

Everyone wants peace the only question is the terms. both palestinians groups want peace and justice for the palestinian people they just see how to do so differently.

 

[quadraphonics]

Everyone wants peace

Everyone says they want peace. But if you listen to people long enough, you start to notice that what most of them are actually talking about is not "peace" but "victory." They think of peace as what happens naturally after they've destroyed their enemies and siezed total control of the situation.

Which, sure, is something they want. But it would be perverse to say that such people want to make peace.

This goes for everyone, in general, not just this particular conflict.

 

[pjdude1219]

Everyone says they want peace. But if you listen to people long enough, you start to notice that what most of them are actually talking about is not "peace" but "victory." They think of peace as what happens naturally after they've destroyed their enemies and siezed total control of the situation.

Which, sure, is something they want. But it would be perverse to say that such people want to make peace.

This goes for everyone, in general, not just this particular conflict.

hence the phrase everyone wants peace the only question the terms.

 

[spidergoat]

its the price you pay for wars of conquest. the conquered rarely just accept it.

The word conquest doesn't apply to people that have nowhere else to go.

 

[quadraphonics]

hence the phrase everyone wants peace the only question the terms.

To that point: I briefly considered shelving my comment over exactly such an objection.

But at some point a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. When the "terms" in question are understood to be unacceptable to begin with, one can no longer claim to sincerely want to make peace. In that case, the terms are simply a list of concessions to be extracted from the enemy once victory is attained. And that's the agenda of any party producing such terms: they want victory attained through war. That is the opposite of peace.

 

[pjdude1219]

To that point: I briefly considered shelving my comment over exactly such an objection.

But at some point a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. When the "terms" in question are understood to be unacceptable to begin with, one can no longer claim to sincerely want to make peace. In that case, the terms are simply a list of concessions to be extracted from the enemy once victory is attained. And that's the agenda of any party producing such terms: they want victory attained through war. That is the opposite of peace.

i can agree with that though I feel in regards to the topic at hand we would have differing views on who terms for equal a desire for war.

 

[pjdude1219]

The word conquest doesn't apply to people that have nowhere else to go.

Actually it does. playing semantics will only make you look more craven and hateful instead of less. If it was taken through military efforts based on the desire to take from another people because you want it its conquest no matter what the circumstances are. all normal people accept this. hell several science fiction works have dealt with this with no one questioning the reasoning that it isn't conquest and ok simply because they have no where else to go is completely bullshit. people generally understand that taking things from others through military force is conquering and conquest is a nono though for some reason in this case you seem to have problems with. I'd say it was guilt but given your bigotry I'd say that is precluded.

 

[spidergoat]

It's an important point, they were not conquerors. They were, for the most part, refugees from the war in Europe.

 

[pjdude1219]

It's an important point, they were not conquerors.

its either semantics or a bald face lie. its irrelevant.

They were, for the most part, refugees from the war in Europe.

No they were people who survived the war in Europe and than for the most part wanted to go to palestine to create a country there damn the majority there who wanted to be left alone and control their own fate. and the fact that they were refugees doesn't preclude them being conquerors they took through military force so be definition and you silly little wants and wishes aside must be considered conquerors.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conquering

what part of the definition says you have to not be a refugee?

 

[quadraphonics]

i can agree with that though I feel in regards to the topic at hand we would have differing views on who terms for equal a desire for war.

I don't think that's the case, actually, other than the implication that such sentiments are necessarily located exclusively in one party or the other.

 

[spidergoat]

The term makes Israel's independence seem like the greedy pursuit of wealth rather than what it was, a valiant attempt to save Jewish culture from genocide.

 

[pjdude1219]

I don't think that's the case, actually, other than the implication that such sentiments are necessarily located exclusively in one party or the other.

I have demands and wishes as a pro palestinian advocate that would be unacceptable to Israel and its supporters which are based in my legalistic view point.

 

[pjdude1219]

The term makes Israel's independence seem like the greedy pursuit of wealth rather than what it was, a valiant attempt to save Jewish culture from genocide.

So in other words you don't want it called what it was because it sounds bad. Well guess it was bad deal with it. There was nothing valiant in it. It was about the greedy want of a state. There was nothing good about it. Jewish culture would have continued with out it. Those of us who have looked at the history know what it was. the naked unadulterated attempt to dispossess and supplant another people for the gain of the Jewish people something that by defini8tion is conquest.

 

[Billy T]

... I wasn't referring to any freedom march. The total number of people in the eight ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla according to the news was 1500 people from 42 countries. ...

That may be correct, but I was quoting the pull down text under your link's video. Here it is:
" "Over the new year 2009-2010, an international group of 1500 men and women from 42 nations went to Egypt to join a Freedom March to Gaza. They did this to protest the current blockade of Gaza. To protest the fact that the people of Gaza live in a virtual prison. To protest the fact that a year after the terror attack by Israeli armed forces destroyed most of their homes, hospitals, schools, and other public buildings, they have no possibility to rebuild because their borders are closed. The would be Freedom Marchers wanted to peacefully draw attention to the predicament of the Palestinian population of Gaza. The Egyptian government, (funded to the tune of $2.1 billion a year, by us, the US tax payers), would not allow the marchers to approach Gaza. How lame is that? And how predictable! I live in the USA and during this time Dec 25th 2009-Jan3rd 2010 I saw no reference to Gaza or the Freedom March or the multi national protesters gathered there. Anyway I was moved, in the circumstances, to record a new version of " We shall overcome". It seems appropriate. Roger Waters "

 

[GeoffP]

When the probability of Zionist deception after innumerable checks = 1, its not bigotry, its common sense to assume they are lying.

But destroys the obligation of introspection, regrettably.

No its not. This is Israel we're talking about. They like to have what they call "buffer zones" and of course they always have it on the territories they occupy.

Yes. There's sort of a reason behind that.

It is also one more reason why its counterproductive for Hamas to fire rockets from civilian centers.

So why do they do it? You don't suppose they have a reason also? :bugeye:

 

[Billy T]

Err... You realize that Gaza rocket launch crews already make it a routine tactic to fire from the cover of civilian housing, right? That they have highly mobile launch systems (easy when the rockets have near-zero accuracy - not much equipment to carry), which they roll into an area, fire off a few shots, and then move elsewhere. By the time your artillery arrives to demolish the unrelated civilian's home and family, the perpetrators are long gone - they're gone before the rockets even land in Israel. ...

Currently Israel may be encouraging this. (That is not to say it would not be done without Israel's encouragement) After the family picnic on the beach was killed by Israel artillery shell, Israel held several press conference (One showed map of where 5 or the 6 shells fired that day into that sector had hit and claimed there was a couple of hours difference in when they were fired. In that presentation it was also stated that Israel fired typically 100 shells each day into vacant lots to discourage rockets from being launched and also for routine practice.) For two days after that a totally ludicrous cover story was the official line: Hamas had mined the beach to prevent Israeli invasion - at a time when Israel when anywhere it pleased by land.

While I agree some innocents are likely to be killed via counter battery artillery I don't think the terrorist will get away as quickly as you are suggesting; However, what I am really trying to change in this aspect of my plan is the support the "innocent" population gives to the terrorists.

If you read the plan you will see it calls totally stopping the routine firing without any specific provocations of the "100 shells each day." I.e. under my plan Israel ONLY fires artillery for a max of 5 minutes and ONLY into the location from which the rocket came.

It will not take the innocents more that two or three of weeks with nothing but counter battery fire to understand this new policy and not want the terrorist to set up launchers near their home. I.e. they will make the connection that they get pounded by artillery ONLY because the terrorist fired from near them. - This may lessen their support for the terrorists, compared to the current policy with almost all Israeli artillery fired at randomly chosen points in Gaza, which is also is killing innocents every month, but only makes the news when unusual like the family at a picnic on the beach.

It is also worth noting that all the photos I have seen of launches have come olive groves, or field not near apartment buildings etc. Perhaps the counter battery fire should only last 2 minutes? I am open to suggestions, but want to reduce the current killing of innocents.