# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Army veterans reveal how they gunned down innocent Palestinian families

## Flagg

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...a-1649527.html

_"A second squad leader, who described the killing of the elderly woman, says he argued with his commander over loose rules of engagement that allowed the clearing out of houses by shooting without warning residents beforehand. After the orders were changed, soldiers had complained that "we should kill everyone there [in the centre of Gaza]. Everyone there is a terrorist." The squad leader said: "To write 'death to the Arabs' on walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing: To understand how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics."
_
_Ehud Barak, Israel's Defence Minister, said: "I say to you that from the chief of staff down to the last soldier, the most moral army in the world stands ready to take orders from the government of Israel. I have no doubt that every incident will be individually examined."_

The most moral army? How I laugh at that, and how I laugh at the claim that each 1,434 "incidents" will be investigated.

----------


## reardbandit

Don't believe everything you read. There is a lot of anti-military, anti-Semitic propaganda out there. The IDF is a fine fighting force, always has been. That nation has fought for every inch of ground from the word go, with the IDF always there wth their front towards the enemy, even if they are surrounded by them.

----------


## Flagg

> Don't believe everything you read. There is a lot of anti-military, anti-Semitic propaganda out there. The IDF is a fine fighting force, always has been. That nation has fought for every inch of ground from the word go, with the IDF always there wth their front towards the enemy, even if they are surrounded by them.



I know what you are saying, but these claims are supposedly coming from Israeli Soldiers themselves. But would the IDF be the mighty force it is if it wasn't for the US funding them? It would be interesting to see how mighty they would be if they had to stand on their own two feet.

At the end of the day, people can say "Well Hamas shouldn't have hid behind innocent targets", but I find it very hard to believe that with 1400 + people killed, Hamas was hiding behind every single one of those people. And besides, they still shot through innocents to get to the target. They still pulled the trigger.

----------


## Keenstyle1

It's called casualties of war. In the beginning of every invasion the picture is never pretty. The young soldiers with no combat under their belt will always scream murder in the beginning. I've seen them deny orders after they've been traumatized. But after initial invasions the officers will come in and things will get organized and the enemy will be more clearly identified. You have to make out alive, it's a soldiers job to live.

When there is war, innocent women and children die.

----------


## Flagg

> It's called casualties of war. In the beginning of every invasion the picture is never pretty. The young soldiers with no combat under their belt will always scream murder in the beginning. I've seen them deny orders after they've been traumatized. But after initial invasions the officers will come in and things will get organized and the enemy will be more clearly identified. You have to make out alive, it's a soldiers job to live.
> 
> When there is war, innocent women and children die.



Yeah, im also aware of that...but lets be honest. That wasnt a war. A war are when two sides are blasting away at each other. The whole Gaza event was completely one sided. If that was a War, what did the IDF actually win or achieve? It looked to me like Israeli soldiers doing what they want. And, for every innocent killed I wonder how many Hamas were killed? Do you think 1400 innocents killed justifies a handful of dead fanatics? These reports are stating that some of these soldiers were hesitant themselves about their zero tollerance orders. There are still codes of honour in War, especially achknowledged between the Brits and Germans in North Africa during WW II. Like no fighting at Midday, exchanging presents/ceasefire during christmas. 

There is a difference between War and Genocide.

----------


## subaruwrx04

I served 23 months in Iraq. Never once did I see that any of that shit happen. Hooooorrraaaahhh, Semper Fi..

----------


## reardbandit

I was in Iraq for 12 and another 6 in Afghanistan, and I never saw anything of the sort either. However, not every nation has the C2 capabilities and discipline our armed forces have. As far as the US funding them and if they would be strong, of course they would not if we didn't. But then again, do we really want to lose such a crucial ally in that area over a few billion dollars? I mean, look at the state of our economy. We are throwing money at bank executives to spend on themselves with bonuses, everyone is fleecing the American taxpayer, and all the while Israel fights for it's survival. I think it is a worthy and noble expenditure every time we do anything for Israel.

----------


## Dizz28

^^ I did....n't (subaru)

----------


## subaruwrx04

Shhhhhh.

----------


## BuffedGuy

It is truly unbelievable how some people will defend the IDF. The IDF originated from a terrorist group, the Haganah. They are just living up to that brutal legacy.

As for all those people who say "it's war", umm no. In war, you kill soldiers. If you are a war criminal, then yes, you kill innocents. Virtually any massacre can be justified by saying "it's war."

I also think that the reaction of certain people shows that no matter what Israel or America does--and I do mean *whatever* they may do--it will be excused by these people. It is a horrible double-standard and the epitome of bigotry. Israel and America are excused for anything and everything, whereas the Muslim world must be taken to task for whatever it does. This is the dynamic established by such people. This two-faced hypocrisy can be seen by the fact that Saddam Hussein was taken to task by the West for gassing his countrymen (well, it was used as an excuse to invade Iraq YEARS later), yet America used even worse weapons against the Iraqi people. When the West does it, "oh well, that's war, folks!" When Saddam--a supposed Muslim does it--then "let's get those sons of b*tches."

----------


## spywizard

war is hell, those that get in the way and or support those that hide behind them or stand in front to passively protect/support them will be a casualty or war..

Only the strong make the rules, and can bring others to justice, and only the strong determine what is just..

see how that works??

----------


## Matt

> war is hell, those that get in the way and or support those that hide behind them or stand in front to passively protect/support them will be a casualty or war..
> 
> Only the strong make the rules, and can bring others to justice, and only the strong determine what is just..
> 
> see how that works??


Sad but true and this goes for every day life...

----------


## ufcfighter4

> Sad but true and this goes for every day life...


There is nothing sad about this, what are you talking about????

----------


## eliteforce

The reason you have 'enemies' in _that area_ in the first place is because support for israel-particularly support it's extremest racist policies in the occupied territories, apartheid, political oppression, and ethnic cleansing..for the last 30 years

Why not support them with strings attached? like if they want the billions of dollars they can't have settlements and jewish only roads in the westbank.. the main criticism of US policy is that it has been supporting israel unconditionally since the occupation began in 1967, even as US aid was used to build all these settlements, creating a situation that today cannot be solved except for open ended apartheid. What kind of country or 'regime' 'fights for its survival' through occupation and apartheid? What kind of a country, has another country inside of it?

The reason the state of the US economy is so bad because of these wars america is fighting that have no end.. support for israel and related oppressive policies (like blockading iraq) causes america to have a 'terrorism' problem, america responds to the terrorism by invading iraq and more oppression, it then tries to get out of this mess by fighting war and trying to 'develop' these oppressed countries at the same time--something so expensive that it bankrupts the economy .. apparently the reason this is all happening is because america needs "crucial allies" in "that region" because there is oil in that region .. like america can't just buy oil on the open market like everyone else, it needs to have allies and enemies there.. the whole thing is a sham and it has nothing to do with oil or strategic this and that.. like in the 1960s vietnam was supposedly this big 'strategic' thing..

and the US military has committed atrocities like that, atrocities are part of an oppressive occupation.. that one where they raped that girl murdered her family then burned her , or when a vehicle was hit by a roadside killing one soldier and the rest of them go door to door killing everyone they see, and who knows what hasn't been reported or what was reported and dismissed because the victims didn't have evidence.. putting snipers in urban areas with orders to kill anyone who violates curfew... 







> But then again, do we really want to lose such a crucial ally in that area over a few billion dollars? I mean, look at the state of our economy. We are throwing money at bank executives to spend on themselves with bonuses, everyone is fleecing the American taxpayer, and all the while Israel fights for it's survival. I think it is a worthy and noble expenditure every time we do anything for Israel.

----------


## Keenstyle1

ok, It wasn't a war, it was an invasion. It was an invaision to rid out the missile sites that were hurling missiles into Israel. The Palestine people did one thing wrong, they voted for Hamas. They're killing themselves.

----------


## eliteforce

before they voted for hamas they voted for fatah, that also got them destruction and death (remember Jenin?) all the Palestinian groups are basically the same in that they will resort to militancy when there is no clear and imminent plan for israel to end the occupation, and when the resist the aphartied and occupation, israel controls the violence with punitive military attacks and additional restrictions..but you can't blame the people for continuing the fight for their equal rights as human beings, if they _weren't_ resisting it, then they surrender to the most disgusting oppression we have seen post wwII ..

----------


## BuffedGuy

> war is hell, those that get in the way and or support those that hide behind them or stand in front to passively protect/support them will be a casualty or war..
> 
> Only the strong make the rules, and can bring others to justice, and only the strong determine what is just..
> 
> see how that works??


There is something called the Geneva conventions. The war-mongers should learn to honor their word. As signatories of the Geneva convention, surely they should abide by it? Or is their word meaningless? Why did they become signatories if they never intended to abide by it because "war is hell" ?

This here is a golden reply by EliteForce:




> *before they voted for hamas they voted for fatah, that also got them destruction and death (remember Jenin?)* all the Palestinian groups are basically the same in that they will resort to militancy when there is no clear and imminent plan for israel to end the occupation, and when the resist the aphartied and occupation, israel controls the violence with punitive military attacks and additional restrictions..but you can't blame the people for continuing the fight for their equal rights as human beings, if they _weren't_ resisting it, then they surrender to the most disgusting oppression we have seen post wwII ..


The bold part above completely refutes the argument put forth by Keenstyle. Blows it completely out of the water.

Great response, EliteForce. 

The entire plan of the Israelis was to box in the Palestinians so that the only possible response by the colonized would be to lash out in desperation, thereby retroactively justifying the invasion in the first place.

It is well-known that there is nothing the Palestinians could do that would quench the thirst Israel has for Palestinian land. They want their Eretz Israel.

----------


## JiGGaMaN

> Yeah, im also aware of that...but lets be honest. That wasnt a war. A war are when two sides are blasting away at each other. The whole Gaza event was completely one sided. If that was a War, what did the IDF actually win or achieve? It looked to me like Israeli soldiers doing what they want. And, for every innocent killed I wonder how many Hamas were killed? Do you think 1400 innocents killed justifies a handful of dead fanatics? These reports are stating that some of these soldiers were hesitant themselves about their zero tollerance orders. There are still codes of honour in War, especially achknowledged between the Brits and Germans in North Africa during WW II. Like no fighting at Midday, exchanging presents/ceasefire during christmas. 
> 
> There is a difference between War and Genocide.


i dont usually come around here because bickering over the internet solves nothing. nevertheless, you have no proof 1400 innocent people were killed or a handful of fanatics were killed. in fact, hamas media ban in gaza prevents anyone from really knowing anything aside from what suits their ends.

Also, you left out a crucial piece of information from the article (not that i think the independent is a real newspaper anyhow): That each home was given 5 minutes to exit before troops entered. they didnt have to die...


also your note of 'codes of honour' in war is completely retarded. go to any warzone and stop shooting mid day or give someone a present see how long you live.

----------


## BuffedGuy

> i dont usually come around here because bickering over the internet solves nothing.


It has nothing to do with the fact that you know you will lose in debate, right?  :Smilie: 




> nevertheless, you have no proof 1400 innocent people were killed or a handful of fanatics were killed.


Your argument is similar to what the anti-Semites say: "there is no proof that 6 million Jews were killed."

When it comes to dead Jews, then you balk at anyone even doubting the number (and rightfully so). But when it comes to dead Gentiles--especially those heathen terrorist loving Muslims (and ESPECIALLY the "cockroach" Palestinians)--then suddenly you can't believe anything! Suddenly you don't know anything!

The spokesman for the Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, placed the estimate at 1,400 dead Palestinians.

How on earth do you have any credibility when you claim that only a "handful" were killed? I can understand if you--in your bigoted ways--would say that all 1,000 were terrorists (since that is the Zionist thing to do!)--but to deny the facts altogether and say that only a "handful" died...!!! You are quite the joker.

Perhaps we should say only a handful of Jews died in the Holocaust then? 




> in fact, hamas media ban in gaza prevents anyone from really knowing anything aside from what suits their ends.


Ummm...can you give proof that Hamas banned the media in Gaza? 

It is Israel who banned the media in Gaza:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009...ated-over-gaza

Is it upside down day again?




> Also, you left out a crucial piece of information from the article (not that i think the independent is a real newspaper anyhow): That each home was given 5 minutes to exit before troops entered. they didnt have to die...


There are two issues here:

First, Israel has created more refugees than any other country on the earth. There are nine MILLION Palestinian refugees in the world. One out of every four refugees in the world is Palestinian. So the issue is not simply just killing. It is also about creating refugees: destroying the homes of people, and running them out of their land. This number--9 million--should put the issue into perspective. This is what your colonial Zionism has done. Yitzhak Rubin, a former Israeli prime minister, said about Ben Gurion (another Israeli Prime minister):
"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said* 'Drive them out!'"* (Yitzhak Rabin remembering the establishment of Israel in 1948, 23 October 1979)
Second, five minutes to leave your house or you will be blown up? So let's say I was a soldier and I said "I am going to blow your house up in five minutes." Inside that house are women and children and old men. Let's say they don't leave after five minutes. Then I am justified in killing them all? Even the babies who "refused" to leave? Really? That is purity of arms to you? What kind of deranged world do you live in?

----------


## j4ever41

putting snipers in urban areas with orders to kill anyone who violates curfew...

yeah i will go along with that one. if you think that our economic times are result of war you are misguided.

----------


## eliteforce

There is alot of 'fog' in war and I'm not going to bother trying to find some indisputable source that this happened, all I know is I had read this scenario repeatedly in the Iraq war that the Americans were placing snipers with orders to kill people who violate a curfew, a curfew that was extended for a long period of time while they conduct clearing operations, and that the victims of the sniper attacks were unarmed.. I call that policy a blatant war crime but if you want to insist that it never happened then that's your opinion but not indisputable fact.

and if you think the economic 'debt' crises has nothing to do with military and war spending, most of this spending is borrowed money..and that in 2003-2004 the US economy was booming with some quarters that had 8% economic growth, but at the same time the US was running large deficits and borrowing money from foreigners, and at the same time relaxing lending regulations; they just happened to deregulate the banking and debt industry right about the time the wars started so money is flying all over the place..money backed by bad paper..if you think these things are not interrelated than that's your opinion but not mine.

----------


## j4ever41

i am not saying the sniper situation did not happen i am saying i agree with it.

i am not saying that war spending does not have something to do with our debts and situation but you act like it is the sole purpose.

----------


## eliteforce

You agree with it but it's a war crime, putting down a extended curfew and shooting dead anyone that violates it even if they unarmed-what if they are hungry or sick? Their lives are this cheap ? The USM is fighting for their "freedom"? It doesn't even serve a military goal when the higher the non-combatant death rate, the higher the rate that those people become combatants.

----------


## j4ever41

i know you call it a war crime. What would be your plan to clear a parameter and maintain control?

----------


## eliteforce

whatever i'm against occupying these countries in the first place, my original post was a response to posts stating the Americans don't do war crimes thing like the Israelis do , they both do it.

----------


## j4ever41

i expected an answer like whatever.

----------


## *RAGE*

> whatever i'm against occupying these countries in the first place, my original post was a response to posts stating the Americans don't do war crimes thing like the Israelis do , they both do it.


all of you post have been about this kind of subject, Why?

Have you ever been there and if so when and for how long?

Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

If so from what information?

Please explain why you feel this way?

Why would you come to a steroid -bodybuilding website to take about war?

----------


## *RAGE*

> It is truly unbelievable how some people will defend the IDF. The IDF originated from a terrorist group, the Haganah. They are just living up to that brutal legacy.
> 
> As for all those people who say "it's war", umm no. In war, you kill soldiers. If you are a war criminal, then yes, you kill innocents. Virtually any massacre can be justified by saying "it's war."
> 
> I also think that the reaction of certain people shows that no matter what Israel or America does--and I do mean *whatever* they may do--it will be excused by these people. It is a horrible double-standard and the epitome of bigotry. Israel and America are excused for anything and everything, whereas the Muslim world must be taken to task for whatever it does. This is the dynamic established by such people. This two-faced hypocrisy can be seen by the fact that Saddam Hussein was taken to task by the West for gassing his countrymen (well, it was used as an excuse to invade Iraq YEARS later), yet America used even worse weapons against the Iraqi people. When the West does it, "oh well, that's war, folks!" When Saddam--a supposed Muslim does it--then "let's get those sons of b*tches."


this has been talked about till we are blue in the face. It is the same old crap. You said your time was up here so is it?

----------


## Kratos

> this has been talked about till we are blue in the face. It is the same old crap. You said your time was up here so is it?


I think it's in fact not the same old crap. When buff first started posting he was more about educating and understanding of muslims. His message has shifted to one of muslim persecution and whites hating browns. I think his motives have been made much more clear by this shift. His message has changed from acceptance to anger and he contiuously loses his cool and resorts to insults, with a flagrent overuse of the term "bigot".

----------


## *RAGE*

> I think it's in fact not the same old crap. When buff first started posting he was more about educating and understanding of muslims. His message has shifted to one of muslim persecution and whites hating browns. I think his motives have been made much more clear by this shift. His message has changed from acceptance to anger and he contiuously loses his cool and resorts to insults, with a flagrent overuse of the term "bigot".


I could not agree with you more sir. I suspected this from the start and know it has been proven true.

ps.

kratos you can debate with the best

much respected bro.

----------


## eliteforce

It is a subject that I have spent 20 years educating myself on, Zionist ideology is often based on misinformation, when I see it posted- i dispute it, or I dispute things like "we Americans don't commit war crimes like those Israelis do." Yes I have been to Lebanon and visited the refugee camps there, , I have also been to jordan, israel, the west bank, syria and egypt.

"Do you have any clue what you are talking about?" 
Do you really think that you are so much more educated? If you did you wouldn't be asking questions like that.

I have opinions, my opinion is that everything the US does militarily in this region, Iraq, Afghanistan is oppression and cannot be consistent with promoting "freedom and democracy"-you wind up with nothing more than a puppet regime supported by a military government (standard imperialism) especially while the US backs the most oppressive Israeli policy-but not as a direct result, in other words there was no Palestine issue in Vietnam and the war still failed.

Why do you come to a steroid site to talk about war? I dunno, i didn't say i never used a steroid, i have used a steroids and antiestrogens a little which is how i wound up here in the first place..




> all of you post have been about this kind of subject, Why?
> 
> Have you ever been there and if so when and for how long?
> 
> Do you have any clue what you are talking about?
> 
> If so from what information?
> 
> Please explain why you feel this way?
> ...

----------


## CSAR

> There is alot of 'fog' in war and I'm not going to bother trying to find some indisputable source that this happened, all I know is I had read this scenario repeatedly in the Iraq war that the Americans were placing snipers with orders to kill people who violate a curfew, a curfew that was extended for a long period of time while they conduct clearing operations, and that the victims of the sniper attacks were unarmed.. I call that policy a blatant war crime but if you want to insist that it never happened then that's your opinion but not indisputable fact.


Where did you repeatedly read these scenarios? Can you give specific sources? The reason I ask is that initial rules of engagement (ROE) for American military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) are almost never as simple as "Kill anyone in violation of the curfew." ROE can be modified as the situation develops, but only after the initial ROE are rendered useless.

The only specific example that approximates such simplicity that I know of came in Fallujah, when Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi visited SEAL snipers prior to the main assault. Allawi asked if the snipers could see any enemy activity and after being told yes, he asked why the SEAL snipers were not engaging. The snipers replied that they weren't being fired upon and didn't see any weapons. Allawi told them that everyone in Fallujah had been given 3 months to leave and any person in town was to be killed. Still, the snipers followed the original rules of engagement as Allawi was not part of their chain of command. The ROE were in effect until the insurgents figured them out and began to work around them. After that, the ROE were modified and eventually dropped as it became apparent there were no civilians in Fallujah.
(http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html)

Personally, I don't believe in rules of warfare and rules of engagement. Such things are usually created by politicians who've never been in combat and feel the need to impose moral restrictions on the most immoral of acts. American and German soldiers singing carols and exchanging gifts during Christmas in WWII is nice, but rare and most likely due to cultural similarities.

----------


## eliteforce

what a dirtbag people like Allowi are.. No i said from the start-this is just stuff I see in news and the reports are often vague, but the sniper attacks are complaints that i heard several times in sunni areas and also in areas where al-sadrs supportsers are.. during the first seige on falluja many people were killed in american bombing shelling before the broke off the seige and that many of them were families caught in the crossfire and hiding in the city..

but at least you defend against the charge of warcrimes instead of saying "yea i agree with doing that" like this other guy did..

i'm not attacking the character of israeli and us soldiers (and I am aware that the cases of rape and/or mass murder are not common practice and only happen in 1 out of many occurrences involving us/israeli soldier contact with civilians) as i am the policy in general in which they are put in these countries as an oppressive force and they wind up at war with the civilian population because a large % of the civilians support the "resistance" as they call it.. and every time the result is consistent and large scale death of that countries people and outright war crimes in some cases.

----------


## j4ever41

csar did put it more elegant than i did,then reason i was straight to the point was i have no interest in attempting to explain something to someone that has no idea about rules of engagement how fluid the situation is.

----------


## j4ever41

Personally, I don't believe in rules of warfare and rules of engagement. Such things are usually created by politicians who've never been in combat and feel the need to impose moral restrictions on the most immoral of acts. American and German soldiers singing carols and exchanging gifts during Christmas in WWII is nice, but rare and most likely due to cultural similarities. 

Thankyou.

----------


## CSAR

> what a dirtbag people like Allowi are.. No i said from the start-this is just stuff I see in news and the reports are often vague, but the sniper attacks are complaints that i heard several times in sunni areas and also in areas where al-sadrs supportsers are.. during the first seige on falluja many people were killed in american bombing shelling before the broke off the seige and that many of them were families caught in the crossfire and hiding in the city


Moqtada al Sadr is 10 times the dirtbag Allawi is. al Sadr went to the headquarters of the 327th Brigade of the 101st Airborne and demanded that he be the conduit for US aid to Iraqis. He did this to enhance his stature, while at the same time he preached violence against the US in his sermons. al Sadr even butchered Abdul Majid al Khoei, a fellow Shi'ite cleric, on the steps of the grand mosque in downtown Baghdad. He did so because al Khoei was more moderate in his beliefs, was extremely popular among Iraqis, and favored by the US. If al Khoei hadn't been murdered by al Sadr, a lot less Iraqis would have been killed and security could have been maintained in what is now known as "Sadr City." 

From my experience in the Middle East, this is typical of most so-called "good Muslims." They are hypocrites of the highest order, who are more than willing to put an AK47 in the hands of a woman or child or to use them as spotters, so they can remain "unarmed" (thus exploiting the ROE against the Americans). Then when that woman or child (ferrying weapons or acting as a spotter) is shot by an American sniper, those same "good Muslims" run to the cameras of al Jazeera wailing, "See what the murderous American invaders have done? They only wish to steal our oil, rape our good Muslim women, and kill our innocent Muslim children."

During the initial Fallujah stand-off, when JDAMs were used, Iraqis were more than happy to parade the supposedly injured "innocents" in front of al-Jazeera's cameras. When American politicians were swayed by these images, the US military scaled back our response. Then, after the insurgents were being eliminated by precision fire from American snipers, the Fallujah city elders and Baghdad delegation from the Iraqi Governing Council complained that Americans were inhumane, killing their foreign "guests", and had to stop shooting. Once again, gullible American politicians were blinded by the hypocrisy of these "good Muslims." Only after aid workers were being kidnapped, tortured, and beheaded by these "good Muslims" did the politicians realize they'd been played for fools.

Americans (especially politicians) are too concerned with our image abroad and wanting everyone to like us. Morals and ROE have no place in war. The Geneva convention has become nothing more than a bunch of worthless rules that are apparently fine to be violated by others, but are conveniently used to remind Americans (and Israelis) that we have to abide by them. Until we forget all this "rules/fairness" nonsense and unleash Hell, we'll continue to be seen as weak and impotent by the International community, especially those in Asia and the Middle East.

----------


## eliteforce

al-Sadr may be, but he has a consistent and unyielding message-that the US occupation of his country must end-in it's entirety , not like these illegitimate puppet rulers like maliki or allowi that want it to prop them up forever..their traitors, vichy rulers

nationalist guerrillas are never pretty, the vietcong were brutal but they were ultimately right when they insisted on national liberation / end to occupation and foreign domination.

don't give me this "we must unleashe hell" crap when there are half a million dead iraqis and less than 5000 dead invaders.. with countries in that region armed with nuclear weapons and with Iran having ICBMs and strategic submarines.. and in the past , harsher tactics have not made these types of wars successful.

----------


## CSAR

al Sadr has not been consistent and unyielding. The only thing consistent about al Sadr is his inconsistency:

1. One minute he preaches violence against the US, the next he orders his "army" to cease hostilities. He changes his mind whenever he feels he can gain political favor.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3811215.stm
http://www.newsweek.com/id/96370/output/print

2. On more than one occasion, he has pledged his support to help form a new Iraqi government and then changed his mind when he doesn't get what he wants. 
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...conference.htm

3. His Mahdi "army" has been responsible for a good portion of sectarian bloodshed in Iraq.
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...0.html?cnn=yes
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.as...ontentID=10668

4. He has lost control over a significant portion of his "army." 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-in-Iraq.html

5. He runs and hides in Iran whenever he feels threatened. When the surge began, he tucked his tail between his fat little legs and made a run for the border, because he was scared the US would arrest him.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

6. He lacks the religious education and degrees required by Shi'a doctrines. Thus he cannot claim the title of mujtahid nor can he issue fatwas. While he was a student at the Najaf Hawza he was known as "Mulla Atari", because he preferred playing video games over studying the Quran.
Nasr, V. (2006). _The Shia Revival_, p.192


Only half a million dead Iraqis and less than 5,000 dead invaders? The former should be much higher, while the latter should be much lower. I guess we're not doing our job right.

----------


## eliteforce

nice research, what a jerk that guy is.. BUT let me be redundant 
..he and other insurgent groups have a consistent message-that the US occupation of his country must end-in it's entirety.. that is paramount .. things like he lacks religious education- his followers are not gonna be overly concerned with that..

the iraq war was sold as a thing to 'make America safe' when it kills as many people as if the place was nuked, and it spurs to Iran to develop ICBM technology and nuclear weapons and for Pakistan to make more of them.. and the 'war on terror' (afghan&iraq wars) bankrupts America..there's a disconnect there

and if your an American military person, you should be warned against these politics-later they will take your pension or your entitlements or your va medical care or whatever.. the more resources America wastes on these conflicts the worse it's future, America has been falling behind other countries in infrastructure, housing, education, standard of living.. 
and what do you think is gonna happen in that country in 2012 when the occupation is supposedly going to end?

----------


## j4ever41

nobody took my va ( i think thats hopeful wishing on your behalf ) ,by the way what elitforce are you or have you been a part of?

----------


## eliteforce

there not taking it now, later when your older-then they'll take it..remember the problems vietnam veterans had in the 70s and 80s and i think this time it'll be worse.. 
me-no military .

----------


## CSAR

> nice research, what a jerk that guy is.. BUT let me be redundant 
> ..he and other insurgent groups have a consistent message-that the US occupation of his country must end-in it's entirety.. that is paramount .. things like he lacks religious education- his followers are not gonna be overly concerned with that..


From my research on the topic, I don't think the US expected to be in Iraq this long. I'll be perfectly honest, I don't agree with the decisions that were made to invade Iraq and with the decisions that were made afterwards. The original plans were to get in, remove Saddam, let the Iraqis take over, and get out. Obviously, significant errors in judgement were made. However, there is a direct correlation between the activities of the insurgents and length of US occupation. Finally, Iraqis have recognized the the insurgents for what they are and are actually working with US forces to make their cities and towns safer. That, combined with the surge has enabled the situation to improve. Because of this, the US was finally able to set a deadline for withdrawl. Believe me, we don't want to be there anymore than you don't want us there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7945558.stm 




> the iraq war was sold as a thing to 'make America safe' when it kills as many people as if the place was nuked, and it spurs to Iran to develop ICBM technology and nuclear weapons and for Pakistan to make more of them.. and the 'war on terror' (afghan&iraq wars) bankrupts America..there's a disconnect there


The Iraq war was sold in a number of ways, not just to provide greater security for the US. And I disagreed with all of them. I fail to see any logic in mentioning nuclear weapons here. The only situation in which I can envision a nuclear weapon being used in the Middle East is if Iran develops one and Israel decides to prevent it. Then we might see something, but I don't believe it will happen. Iran knows what Israel's response will be and they don't want any part of it. Also, you fail to grasp the kill ratio of a single warhead from a modern MIRV or even that from a nuclear-tipped Tomohawk cruise missle. You can't compare the number of Iraqis killed by conventional warfare (also killed by foreign insurgents or homegrown thugs like al Sadr's Mahdi "army") to the potential number of dead from a nuke. It's like comparing a single match to a flame thrower. In addition, ICBMs really aren't going to do Iran much good. An ICBM can't sit indefinitely, nor can it be launched at a minute's notice. The fuel they use is corrosive, so they have to be fueled just prior to launch. We've got naval vessels equipped with tactical nukes (ready to launch at the push of a button) right off Iran's coast. An ICBM that takes 30 minutes to fuel won't do much good when we can take them out in under 15. So really, what's the point for Iran to make idle nuclear development threats other than for Ahmadinejad to appear on al Jazeera and maybe score some brownie points?




> and if your an American military person, you should be warned against these politics-later they will take your pension or your entitlements or your va medical care or whatever.. the more resources America wastes on these conflicts the worse it's future, America has been falling behind other countries in infrastructure, housing, education, standard of living.. 
> and what do you think is gonna happen in that country in 2012 when the occupation is supposedly going to end?


I am and I'm not worried in the least. As for what's going to happen to Iraq in 2012, that's up to the Iraqis. I can say what I hope will happen, but I have no idea as I lack the ability to see 3 years into the future. But I hope for peace, if for no other reason than to give US forces a break from being mishandled, misused, and mistreated by politicians back home.

----------


## eliteforce

*ICBMs really aren't going to do Iran much good. An ICBM can't sit indefinitely, nor can it be launched at a minute's notice. The fuel they use is corrosive, so they have to be fueled just prior to launch.*

well than why does the US, Russia, and China have so many of them? Solid fuel maybe?.. I thought the suspicion is that they want to develop nuclear weapons so they don't wind up like iraq..maybe they would have had the program anyways or maybe the purpose is just to impress like the space programs in the 1960's.. but clearly the iraq war didn't _scare_ them into abandoning wmd and most likely accelerated programs in countries like nkorea and iran.

So, the wars in iraq and afghanistan motivate terrorists when there is a high level of deaths in those countries as a result of the country being invaded and occupied, scares other countries into developing wmd, and creates a financial crises. 

The US governments response to this situation with it's new "change" president.. more and indefinite occupation and continued support for the 'puppet' regimes that will surly collapse as soon as the occupation ends.

The neo-con theory is that if the occupations end and "jihadists" take over, it will _embolden_ terrorists to come to America and kill indiscriminately.

My opinion is just the opposite, that 9/11 type terrorism is a revenge thing, not an attempt by radical islamists to convert Americans to islam or to 'conquer' foreign lands by terrorism.

----------


## Kratos

Have you ever heard of the atoms for peace program eliteforce? It was a program lauched in the early 1950's that supplied equipment and information to schools, hospitals, and research institutions within the U.S. and throughout the world. The US didn't want other nations living in fear of the United States nulear capacity, and provided countries with the technology to harness nuclear and encouraged peaceful uses.

"It is with the book of history, and not with isolated pages, that the United States will ever wish to be identified. My country wants to be constructive, not destructive. It wants agreement, not wars, among nations. It wants itself to live in freedom, and in the confidence that the people of every other nation enjoy equally the right of choosing their own way of life." 

"To the making of these fateful decisions, the United States pledges before you--and therefore before the world--its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma--to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life." 
--quotes from president Eisenhower

Encouragement, support and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program started in the 1950's and continued until the 1979 Islamic revoloution. We didn't have any problem with Iran having a nuclear program when a solid and non-radical gvmt was in place. The revoloution put an extreme gvmt into power and ended a 2500 year monarchy.

The 1979 revoloution included 52 U.S. embassy diplomats being held hostage for 444 days. When you take diplomats hostage, it's a declaration of war on diplomacy itself.

----------


## Kratos

Of course occupation end will have consequenses for America. This isn't a movement you can satisfy, it's totally irrational and motivated by hate. People were chearing and dancing in the streets when the twin towers fell. It's a lot easier to motivate people to fight in a war they have a chance of winning.

----------


## Kratos

How do you propose we fight against terrorism? We can't go within their borders to fight them because that would be an invasion.

Or because terrorism is difficult to fight and holds no boundries to the rules of engagement, we run up the white flag when faced with it.

Yet you condemn these soldiers for civilian casualties in the crossfire of war as justification for further retribution.

You don't see the hypocracy in that?

----------


## quarry206

For some of the people posting on this thread all i can say is war is a terrible thing.. thats what makes it war.. and the honest truth is history is writtin by the winners...

BUT, don't judge that actions of soilders unless you have been there. alot of times nomatter how much training you give a young soilder when real rounds start flying at his head things go wrong. bullets fly in all directions for miles. and yes nomatter how great the force nomatter how elite the unit.. 9 times out of 10 in urban fighting people will die that had nothing to do with the fight... its a fact of life and it sucks but it happens...-

----------


## *RAGE*

> For some of the people posting on this thread all i can say is war is a terrible thing.. thats what makes it war.. and the honest truth is history is writtin by the winners...
> 
> BUT, don't judge that actions of soilders unless you have been there. alot of times nomatter how much training you give a young soilder when real rounds start flying at his head things go wrong. bullets fly in all directions for miles. and yes nomatter how great the force nomatter how elite the unit.. 9 times out of 10 in urban fighting people will die that had nothing to do with the fight... its a fact of life and it sucks but it happens...-


very well put bro..

----------


## Kratos

> before they voted for hamas they voted for fatah, that also got them destruction and death (remember Jenin?) .





> This here is a golden reply by EliteForce:
> 
> The bold part above completely refutes the argument put forth by Keenstyle. Blows it completely out of the water.
> 
> Great response, EliteForce. 
> l.


Before they voted for one terrorist organization they voted for another.  :Hmmmm: 
great post, I agree

remember Jenin...you mean a place turned over then reclaimed because it became over run with terrorists. A place where no less than 30 suicide bombing attacks originated from and was totally over-run by militant militia. Didn't you tell me in the other thread any suicide attacks from the west bank after turn over would mean Israel would be justified in military assault and it would be accepted by Muslims? If anything you just proved my point that it would result in a bloody battle and contiue justification for agression.

----------


## eliteforce

well attacking Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and Kabul falling to Afghan northern alliancce militias with some help from American bombing and small american ground units to support them was internationally supported..it went wrong when NATO started pouring in troops after the Taliban had already been ousted and then setting up this "democracy" with president karsai..a puppet regime-that went to far and ofcource so did the iraq war..in other words if you get bombed by terrorists, look for something to bomb or look for this small group of people who did the act, rather than punishing an entire nations civilian population with a genocidal occupation.




> How do you propose we fight against terrorism? We can't go within their borders to fight them because that would be an invasion.


and the terrorist,terrorist, terrorists post you keep making.. in the other thread you basically admitted that israel was a racist aphartied state, oppresive, non-democratic, and that it can never be free or democratic because a 2 state solution "won't work" and in a 1 state solution israel won't be a 'jewish state' even though you could never explain _why_ a 2 state solution won't work, only to call the Palestinians terrorists over and over again- the 2 state solution won't work because the Palestinians are 'terrorists' - a racist view..

The American government supports Israel because of "shared-democratic values", because it is considered by America to be a democracy, if it is not democratic , if it is oppressive-it doesn't recognize individual human rights , then that makes these Fatah, and other militants "freedom fighters" . Since America seems to define terrorism as attacks against a "democracy".

and my comment that you are rebutting was in response to someone suggesting that the people in Gaza had brought these war crimes unto themselves because they "voted for Hamas".. I mentioned Jenin


I told you in the other thread that if Israel withdrew to it's 1967 borders, and then Hamas blew-up a bus in telavaiv anyways, then Israel would have the option of re-invading the west bank, that they have nothing to lose if they were serious about a peace process.. your describing the jenin operation in which israel had Sharon governemt and was expanding settlements, apartheid and occupation. this seems to be a argument tactic you use..pretending that the occupation isn't there or that you don't know what it is..it's a silly argument often used by right wing israeli advocates.. asking "What occupation?"

----------


## j4ever41

me-no military 


i knew that answer before you gave it.

----------


## Kratos

> and my comment that you are rebutting was in response to someone suggesting that the people in Gaza had brought these war crimes unto themselves because they "voted for Hamas".. I mentioned Jenin
> 
> 
> I told you in the other thread that if Israel withdrew to it's 1967 borders, and then Hamas blew-up a bus in telavaiv anyways, then Israel would have the option of re-invading the west bank, that they have nothing to lose if they were serious about a peace process.. your describing the jenin operation in which israel had Sharon governemt and was expanding settlements, apartheid and occupation. this seems to be a argument tactic you use..pretending that the occupation isn't there or that you don't know what it is..it's a silly argument often used by right wing israeli advocates.. asking "What occupation?"


The city of Jenin had developed a large and varied terrorist infrastructure and had exploited the proximity of Jenin to carry out mass murder attacks since turnover to the palistineian authority.

Hamas


9 September 2001 - A suicide attack in Nahariya, 3 Israelis killed and 48 wounded, the attacker was an Israeli Arab from the Galilee. 
19 March 2002 - A shooting attack in Hamam Al Maliach (Jordan Valley), an IDF officer was killed and 3 Israelis were wounded. 
31 March 2002 - Suicide attack in Haifa, leaving 15 Israeli civilians dead and 33 wounded. The attacker was from Jenin refugee camp, and had an Israeli ID card.

Palestinian Islamic Jihad


16 July 2001 - A suicide attack at the Binyamina railway station killing 2 Israelis and wounding 10. 
28 October 2001 - A shooting attack in Hadera killing 4 Israelis and wounding 42. 
29 November 2001 - A suicide attack at a junction near an army base near Pardes Hanna killing 3 Israelis and wounding 9. 
25 January 2002 - A suicide attack at the old Central Bus Station in Tel Aviv leaving 23 wounded (in cooperation with Fatah). 
5 January 2002 - A suicide attack in Afula, killing one Israeli and wounding 15. 
20 March 2002 - A suicide attack in a bus in Wadi Ara, killing 7 Israelis and wounding 28. 
10 April 2002 - A suicide attack at the Yagur junction, killing 8 Israelis and wounding 20.

Fatah


1 February 2001 - The murder of Lior Ataya. 
28 April 2001 - Shooting at a car near Umm al Fahm, killing one Israeli civilian and wounding another (female). 
28 June 2001 - Shooting at a vehicle near Ganim; one woman was killed. 
11 September 2001 - Shooting at "Bezek" workers near Shaked and detonation of a charge at an IDF force that was carrying out searches in the area. An Israeli civilian and 4 soldiers were wounded. 
9 March 2001 - Shooting at an Israeli vehicle near Yabed. An Israeli civilian woman was killed. 
4 October 2001 - A terrorist disguised as a soldier fired at Israeli civilians in the central bus station in Afula. 3 civilians were killed and 14 wounded. 
27 October 2001 - Infiltration to the settlement of Me Ammi and laying of a charge there. There were no casualties. 
27 November 2001 - A joint PIJ and Fatah suicide attack, in which terrorists fired at civilians in the Afula central bus station. 2 Israeli civilians were killed and 50 wounded. 
8 February 2002 - Masterminding of a joint PIJ and Fatah suicide attack aimed at Tel Aviv. The attack was prevented when the squad was intercepted in Jenin, when the terrorists detonated the explosive belt in their possession. 
12 March 2002 - Shooting at an Israeli vehicle on the road to the village of Katsir; one Israeli was severely wounded and 2 lightly wounded. 
21 March 2002 - A suicide attack in a Jerusalem cafe, killing 3 Israeli civilians and wounding 71. 
30 March 2002 - A suicide attack in a Tel Aviv cafe, killing one Israeli civilian and wounding 45.

At no point did the Palestinian Authority take a single step to prevent these attacks from taking place.

What is it exactly you want us to remember about Jenin?

That there were Muslim civilians killed in the reclaiming of Jenin? I know, very sad. I would never say innocents should die because of political climate.

Yet you assert retaking the West bank would mean minimal casualties and the "Israeli army remains capable and has nukes." WTF, of course people would get killed should they need to takeover the west bank post handing over to the Palestinian Authority.

And not only that, but that it would be acceptable to the muslim world and wouldn't breed further terrorism, because they would know they had it comming. I can't call bullshit loud enough.

----------


## Prada

> well attacking Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and Kabul falling to Afghan northern alliancce militias with some help from American bombing and small american ground units to support them was internationally supported..it went wrong when NATO started pouring in troops after the Taliban had already been ousted and then setting up this "democracy" with president karsai..a puppet regime-that went to far and ofcource so did the iraq war..in other words if you get bombed by terrorists, look for something to bomb or look for this small group of people who did the act, rather than punishing an entire nations civilian population with a genocidal occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> and the terrorist,terrorist, terrorists post you keep making.. in the other thread you basically admitted that israel was a racist aphartied state, oppresive, non-democratic, and that it can never be free or democratic because a 2 state solution "won't work" and in a 1 state solution israel won't be a 'jewish state' even though you could never explain _why_ a 2 state solution won't work, only to call the Palestinians terrorists over and over again- the 2 state solution won't work because the Palestinians are 'terrorists' - a racist view..
> 
> The American government supports Israel because of "shared-democratic values", because it is considered by America to be a democracy, if it is not democratic , if it is oppressive-it doesn't recognize individual human rights , then that makes these Fatah, and other militants "freedom fighters" . Since America seems to define terrorism as attacks against a "democracy".
> 
> and my comment that you are rebutting was in response to someone suggesting that the people in Gaza had brought these war crimes unto themselves because they "voted for Hamas".. I mentioned Jenin
> ...


You are correct about Karzai, he is a propped up puppet. 

As far as Israel, I wouldn't make it out as simplistic as saying they have shared "democratic values". Its much more complex then that and it starts on American soil and politics. Albeit I think you understand that without me having to explicitly elaborate on that.  :Smilie:

----------


## Kratos

> and the terrorist,terrorist, terrorists post you keep making.. in the other thread you basically admitted that israel was a racist aphartied state, oppresive, non-democratic, and that it can never be free or democratic because a 2 state solution "won't work" and in a 1 state solution israel won't be a 'jewish state' even though you could never explain _why_ a 2 state solution won't work, only to call the Palestinians terrorists over and over again- the 2 state solution won't work because the Palestinians are 'terrorists' - a racist view..


Do you have any idea how many specifics and historical quotes and references I have provided for you to justify my point of view. How much harder it is to provide you with a justified intelligent opinion and how easy it is for you to throw around the term racist???

You and buffguy play the race card far too often. Terms like bigot and racist are so easy to say. Prove it! It's a blind unprovoked insult to my character, and you're god-damn right I resent it. I give you facts while you call me a racist.

You're a racist because you won't allow me an opinion!

Furthermore, I could give two shits if there is a jewish state or not. I like everyone in the US would like to see this conflict put to an end, without a war.

Funny how I filled nearly two pages on why a two state soloution wouldn't work. And then you have the balls to come here and say I never told you WHY.

----------


## reardbandit

> al Sadr has not been consistent and unyielding. The only thing consistent about al Sadr is his inconsistency:
> 
> 6. He lacks the religious education and degrees required by Shi'a doctrines. Thus he cannot claim the title of mujtahid nor can he issue fatwas. While he was a student at the Najaf Hawza he was known as "Mulla Atari", because he preferred playing video games over studying the Quran.
> Nasr, V. (2006). _The Shia Revival_, p.192
> .


Love this post. I did not quote all of it because of the length. However, I wanted to make a point.

I am pleased to see that someone outside of my group of friends that were there with me realizes that Sadr IS NOT a legitimate Islamic cleric of any kind. He does not have the proper religious education to issue any sort of fatwa. He dresses and acts like a sheik, but he is not one. He is a goon himself. His father was a great man, so everyone assumes he is as well. He is an underachieving kid who is riding daddy's coattails. 

elitforce, I don't mean any disrespect dude, but it kinda sounds like you speak from an academic perspective, not from a boots on the ground perspective. I seen you had been to a couple of different Arab nations, visited some refugee camps, etc. So did George Clooney in Darfur, but that doesn't make him any more qualified to talk about it. You need to live there bro, live amongst the people, get a real feel for the situation.

Airborne all the way

----------


## eliteforce

*[ says KRATOS]prove it!*..
well Palestinians are confined to scattered bantustans which comprise no more than 10% of the country, (less if you include the occupied golan heits, they are banned from using jewish roads, they can't vote or be represented in the government, their houses in e jerusalem are demolished because they're not jewish, they're canned from the national healthcare system, they can't travel from canton to canton..thats an unfair system because of their race or political persuation..oppresion, racist, prejudiced .. some terms strike more of a nerve than others.. 
You don't care about a jewish state? i never heard you suggest bi-nationalism so i assume your against a 1 state solution and your against a 2 state solution, and the reason you against it is basically "because Palestinians are terrorists"-that's all you ever said!, then you make a list of all these terrorist attacks-again, that happened during this very oppressive occupation.
so your either pro-racist or pro-oppression .. there's not a big difference since the kind of oppression Israel uses is exactly the same kind used in SAfrica or an extreme type of segregation ..

I was in lebanon for several months in the 1990's, i saw the Syrian Army on the streets of beirut and went down to the south to see the situation down there as far as tyre, yes i get an academic view but the people who live their don't agree with your politics so whats the point of that? "If I lived there.." I would think that would make me even more pro-peace.
I think it does make him(GC) more qualified to talk about it as opposed to if he had not visited it.
and my positions don't necessarily make me "anti-airborne" or anti-military i'm just against the deployment in both iraq and afghan at this time .. In 1991 I agreed with the deployment to Kuwait because it was backed by all the arab countries including Syria, and the Kuwaiti's saw Iraq as the oppressor, not the US; once Iraq was driven out there was no chance of an insurgency against the government and the USM was swiftly removed from the streets and drawn back to an airbase with only 5000 left behind..although I think those 5000 and the ones left behind in Saudi Arabia should have been removed a couple years later and there should have never been a blockade..The US seems to not know when to stop..

----------


## Kratos

> *[ says KRATOS]prove it!*..
> well Palestinians are confined to scattered bantustans which comprise no more than 10% of the country, (less if you include the occupied golan heits, they are banned from using jewish roads, they can't vote or be represented in the government, their houses in e jerusalem are demolished because they're not jewish, they're canned from the national healthcare system, they can't travel from canton to canton..thats an unfair system because of their race or political persuation..oppresion, racist, prejudiced .. some terms strike more of a nerve than others.. 
> You don't care about a jewish state? i never heard you suggest bi-nationalism so i assume your against a 1 state solution and your against a 2 state solution, and the reason you against it is basically "because Palestinians are terrorists"-that's all you ever said!, then you make a list of all these terrorist attacks-again, that happened during this very oppressive occupation.
> so your either pro-racist or pro-oppression .. there's not a big difference since the kind of oppression Israel uses is exactly the same kind used in SAfrica or an extreme type of segregation ..


I resent the fact that you use fuzzy logic and ignorance to argue for my ignorance.

I'm against radical Islam destroying millions of lifes so I must be pro-racist or pro-opression.

At what point did I ever assert the current conditions of Israel were fair, and un-oppressive. At what point did I side with the contined opression?

I argue against a soloution that simply won't work, and one that will has failed to present itself. Therefore, I must be pro the current situation. It doesn't work that way, any you continue name calling to negate a valid argument.

If you're getting resistance from me it's because you resort to hate rather than soloutions. You offer none. Your attack of my position is launched from hate rather than truth.

I'm for any soloution that results in lasting peace regardless of how genorous or unjust it is to the Jewish people. Just as long as it's a soloution that doesn't result in their opression. No point trading one injustice for another is there?

No, I don't think one state is the answer. A race war created this mess and you can't just remove all borders and Israeli defense and expect everyone to get along. It's unrealistic to just throw everone in the melting pot and expect peace. You can give them equal representation, but who will be the representation? Can you really have an effective congress when you need the vote of Hamas or Fatah to pass a bill, c'mon. I think it's clear by the fact Jews have been expelled by the entire muslim world what their fate would hold. It's unfair to deny Jews any land at this point, and they would never accept such a soloution. Why talk about a soloution not acceptable to one side or the other? That's no way to reach a peace deal.

I have already explained to you my reasoning behind doubts of a two state soloution.

I never said Palestinians are terrorists, you're putting words in my mouth to make your point of ignorance. I'm saying the terrorist groups have strong military and political influence in the region and anything short of full Muslim control of Israel won't attain the satisfaction of Palestinians or the groups of influence. There are many innocents that deserve better leadership, unfortunately they are becoming a shinking minority as the opression continues.

I say the only way the US can step aside is if both sides agree to peace. A goal so far that has been elusive. A US surrender of Israel pending peace agreements most surely means it's destruction and the death of millions.

Your idea of support the idea of the turn over of Israel or you're a racist is ignorant. You say you aren't a Muslim but I'd be curious to know what you are and where you were educated.

----------


## Kratos

> well attacking Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and Kabul falling to Afghan northern alliancce militias with some help from American bombing and small american ground units to support them was internationally supported..civilian population with a genocidal occupation.


Did the US not try this approach first and fail?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

I'm suprized nobody in the military has commented on this statement as I would expect someone to take offence to you calling their efforts genocidal. Are they not being engaged? Isn't the whole idea of a genocidal occupation an oxymoron? Why use anything but airstrikes if you want to kill everyone?

----------


## Kratos

"The Palestinians did not reciprocate Israel's unprecedented concessions at Camp David, and the summit conference ended without an agreement."

"These proposals, which went far beyond Israeli public opinion, left the Palestinians completely unmoved...Israel was being asked to make a key decision about its future course on a casual promise by Arafat that most of the three million refugees would prefer to live in despotic and impoverished Arab states rather than move to a democratic and prosperous Israel; and that they would not be *urged to move to Israel to overwhelm the Jewish state demographically*."

"The Palestinians' position on refugees did not change one iota through ten years of negotiations..."

"Israel was also prepared to absorb some refugees within its own borders—the first such proposal Israel had made since 1949."


"Israel ended up accepting the establishment of a Palestinian state, conceding almost 100 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, and acknowledging East Jerusalem as Palestine's future capital."


"What Israel would not (and could not) do was accept the Palestinians' demand to shoulder the entire moral and legal responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem and to accept the Palestinian interpretation of Resolution 194. Nor could it open the door, in principle or practice, to the entry of a potentially unlimited number of refugees."

"The Palestinians still remain conflicted about a two-state solution. The problem is not that such a solution has sworn opponents among rejectionist groups. The problem is that the mainstream leadership, despite its acceptance of a two-state solution, has yet to internalize its meaning: the explicit relinquishing of the "right of return" to Israel. Until that happens, any negotiation on final status is destined to end where the last one did, in failure."

http://www.meforum.org/543/negotiati...inian-refugees

Is there not evidence of the US having desire for peace?

----------


## j4ever41

> Did the US not try this approach first and fail?
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/
> 
> I'm suprized nobody in the military has commented on this statement as I would expect someone to take offence to you calling their efforts genocidal. Are they not being engaged? Isn't the whole idea of a genocidal occupation an oxymoron? Why use anything but airstrikes if you want to kill everyone?


maybe nobody feels the need to make a comment, eliteforce,lol,has no idea what the hell he is talking about when it comes to military tactics and is not very well informed on certain events.

----------


## eliteforce

There is a dispute about what happened at camp david 10 years ago, but clearly Israel never offered to withdraw to the 1967 borders, or the 1967 borders (-)the jewish quarter in the old city as we discussed before.. and even if the whole thing was Arafats fault..why not get back to those negotiations? If for any reason just to _talk_ about solving the problem, Arafat was willing to get back to the talks after Taba-where they left off, Israel has refused, and they refuse now.. that's why I blame them and not the Palestinians-when ones willing to discuss it openly and the other one is not. I realize both sides have rejectionist groups, but having a summit where you discuss a solution costs nothing and allows the politicians to start selling it to their people..

But no final status talks for 10 years? When Abbas is willing to discuss it and Hamas tells him that as president he is free to negotiate and put an agreement to referendum if and when he manages to get one.
And we already discussed this paranoia that if there was a Palestinian state, Palestinians would 'flood' Israel-it's baseless, any state can control their borders, especially since it would be only a 10minute drive to re patriot Palestinians that are squatting in Israel.. "Human Flooding" gimme a break.."

Your against a 2 state solution, or even talking about one, or having negotiations, your against everything and you have never offered a democratic alternative.. that's an extreme view.

and I call the occupation of afghanistan or iraq 'genocidal' because it perpetuates endless war and killing..thats not to say that individual servicemen or their efforts are to blame but rather the open-ended occupation policy.

also your reference to a strike in Sudan in 1998, the US may have 'tried that', but well, that's a better policy than blowing 100billion supporting puppet regimes in 2 big countries-I think.

----------


## Dinosaur

unfortunatly, I see that america sided way too much with the zionists and they got her involved into this deep mess that it will never get out of It in the near future. It had put the interest of the zionist state of israel above the interest of its own people.

the only resolution I see to this conflict that every time it has to be mentioned and debated among members in every post that talks about politics or religion is this plain and easy solution, which I think it wont be heard or taken into a consideration since 
I am here in steroid site trying to voice my opinion.

I believe that America needs to get out of the arabian peninsula and stop supporting and backing 100% the zionist state of israel for the following reasons:


1) In order to put pressure on them to take the necessary steps to get serious and to show good Intention toward making peace.

2) To halt and dismantle the expansion of the Illegal settlements on occupied lands.

3) To comply with the u.n resolution 242 which is to end the occupation of the 1967 territories and give them back their land.

4) To make peace with arab countries in order to bring stability and prosperity to the region and start a new page.

----------


## Kratos

With all due respect charrif,

It's impossible to stop supporting and backing Israel 100%. We would just be standing back to watch the region fall into war. The reason for conflict has little to do with the US, and we only act as a stabilizing force pending peace agreements.

I disagree with the illegal settlements, I feel they will undermine future peace talks. You are 100% correct the US is not showing enough muscle in shutting down that action. It should be stopped under the threat of total US withdrawl of support. The US needs to send a clear message they will have nothing to do with this activity.

I think you are misunderstanding UN resolution 242, it does not recall Israel to pre-1967 borders. It calls for the withdrawal on the establishment of safe and secure boundaries for Israel. Those boundries are undefined, and only if predicated on mutual respect for national sovereignty and security. Resolution 242 aimed to outline the principles that would direct future negotiations and lead to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace settlement. It was totally rejected by Syria, Iraq, as did the Palestinians.

You can't ask Israel to give up all their bargaining chips before a soloution of peace, what would they have to offer?

----------


## Kratos

> There is a dispute about what happened at camp david 10 years ago, but clearly Israel never offered to withdraw to the 1967 borders, or the 1967 borders (-)the jewish quarter in the old city as we discussed before.. and even if the whole thing was Arafats fault..why not get back to those negotiations? If for any reason just to _talk_ about solving the problem, Arafat was willing to get back to the talks after Taba-where they left off, Israel has refused, and they refuse now.. that's why I blame them and not the Palestinians-when ones willing to discuss it openly and the other one is not. I realize both sides have rejectionist groups, but having a summit where you discuss a solution costs nothing and allows the politicians to start selling it to their people..
> 
> But no final status talks for 10 years? When Abbas is willing to discuss it and Hamas tells him that as president he is free to negotiate and put an agreement to referendum if and when he manages to get one.
> And we already discussed this paranoia that if there was a Palestinian state, Palestinians would 'flood' Israel-it's baseless, any state can control their borders, especially since it would be only a 10minute drive to re patriot Palestinians that are squatting in Israel.. "Human Flooding" gimme a break.."
> 
> Your against a 2 state solution, or even talking about one, or having negotiations, your against everything and you have never offered a democratic alternative.. that's an extreme view.
> 
> .



The idea Palestinians would 'flood' Israel is not baseless, for the soul reason Palestinian leaders wish to include their right to do so into any peace deal. Give Israel terms they can accept regarding refugees for one.

Good to see you have kept up with current events, the US most surely will force both sides back to the table.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=101389448

We'll see what happens...don't expect much as leadership is more radical on both sides than it has been in the past.

"In the absence of Hamas agreeing to the principles that have been adopted by such a broad range of international actors, I don't see that we or they — or anyone — could deal with Hamas," Clinton said in an interview on CNN.

I'm not against talking...look at where not talking gets you, it can't hurt.

What I'd like to see is the West Bank go back to Jordan rather than an independent state. They are the only country who could provide stability. Only one problem, they don't want it. They don't want Hamas, more refugees, or conflict with other Arab countries (or the US) should Israel's destruction be demanded.

I feel that the current path is desined for failure and the consequences could be far reaching. A lot of the propagana is aimed at making Arabs apear to be acting in good faith while Israel does not. The US will push for any viable deal.

----------


## Kratos

> and I call the occupation of afghanistan or iraq 'genocidal' because it perpetuates endless war and killing..thats not to say that individual servicemen or their efforts are to blame but rather the open-ended occupation policy.
> 
> also your reference to a strike in Sudan in 1998, the US may have 'tried that', but well, that's a better policy than blowing 100billion supporting puppet regimes in 2 big countries-I think.



Of course you are not going to condemn individual service men, cause you'd loose credibility. So, you'll kiss ass on the surface. How can you nicely say they are participating in genocide?

A better policy is doing what is necessary to defeat our enemy. If bombing their camp doesn't work because for every one that gets killed there are 1000 more to take their place then it becomes clear they have invited us there.

----------


## j4ever41

Of course you are not going to condemn individual service men, cause you'd loose credibility. So, you'll kiss ass on the surface. How can you nicely say they are participating in genocide?

i started to comment on that i just figured that it was obvious and self evident.

----------


## RA

If I was Israel I would have turned the camps into a giant parking lot long ago. The US would never allow canada (for example) to fire rockets daily and kill its citizens without severe punishment. 

Your post is just propaganda.

----------


## Kratos

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...127779385.html

I don't care how angry you are about land...what kind of a man does this?

----------


## Kratos

> If I was Israel I would have turned the camps into a giant parking lot long ago. The US would never allow canada (for example) to fire rockets daily and kill its citizens without severe punishment. 
> 
> Your post is just propaganda.


I'm sure some Israeli's would like to, but that isn't going to help the peace process. They would have to be prepared to take on the Arab world without the UN.

----------

