Words and BIG TEXT!
"Either imprisoned or elected" If the PRIME MINISTER had gone into innocent people's homes and murdered everyone brutally prior to becoming PRIME MINISTER, then you would have been correct.
But that is not the case. Fighting wars where shooting collisions are inevitable isn't anywhere like murdering innocent citizens with the intention of killing them solely because of the nation they were born in. Someone once asked me if I hate the Arabs and my answer was: "Only the ones who want to do me harm" and that's just so true because I know not all of them agree with the extremists.
You appear to be quite unfamiliar with the warcrimes committed by the individuals I listed. Rather than use my "black brush" to paint anything for you, go ahead and look it up yourself as anything I say or point out is corrupted by darkness.
"When one Marine throws a puppy off a cliff, because he was ordered to kill all stray dogs as they carried rabies and were attacking both soldiers/Marines and civilians, no one cares that he was in the right to do so. "
Oh yeah? What if that puppy's bite was as deadly as a Cobra's poison or an Urakanji? Would you still spare the puppy? Personally I would leave the puppy alone, but if the puppy is being aggressive and is going to charge at me - the given possibility he might be carrying poison (assuming it's proven that one might) would be just about enough for me to give him a kick yet unseen in World Cup soccer games. And I LOVE puppies.
And this has anything to do with what? The point was not that the mission needed to be accomplished, but how it was accomplished and how that affects perception. As the saying goes, perception is reality. Israel could legitimately have the best intentions, but time and again its actions paint the nation as warmongering, aggressive and unwilling to compromise.
"Taken individually, a problem may not be apparent to the person looking. But when you take all of the pieces and view it as part of a whole, it paints a very different picture."
Yes, if you take all the corrupted pieces and put them together it creates a pretty ugly picture. --- Especially if you took out all the good pieces and decided the world is black and white. Might as well keep the black since it's good for rating. Plus it's a lot easier to prove since anything they had done for "good" can be said it was done for their own selfish interests. I thought it was a beautiful argument that I pointed out that Israelis are condemned for punishing innocents on the side of the "enemy", and yet you still sprayed black color all over my argument...
Feel free to elaborate on the white and grey that is to be found in using experimental weapons and white phosphorous in Lebanon.
"As for land grabs, do you really think nations gain their land by forcefully taking huge swaths every time? Absolutely not. They take a little here. A little there. It's a long game, and so long as its being played against what is ultimately a defenseless player, Israel is in no danger of losing anything. They haven't take large amounts of land because they aren't capable of doing so. What they can do, however, is slowly displace Palestinians and replace them with Israelis."
OK and what do you think would happen if supposedly Israel completely 'eradicates' Palestinian remainders and swaps the green for white entirely? That it would then expand even further? It isn't looking to expand any further on Arab lands because it can't and because it wouldn't want to for the same reasons you don't want to expand into Spain and France. The territories are respected beyond that point. It's visible in the map you showed in your second post.
Israel would undoubtedly cry out to the international community that its enemies are on its doorstep, and it needs some kind of buffer zone between it and them. If increasing the size of the nation was feasible, it would do so, thus expanding its access to resources in the region, creating some breathing space between it and everyone else. Keep in mind the only thing keeping Israel from blowing **** up in Iran is the US and its assets. According to Israel, everyone is a threat. This mindset fosters the need to expand for security purposes. The US doesn't expand into Spain and France because we're allies, we have nothing to gain from doing so, and logistically it'd cost us more to take the two nations than to let Europe handle Europe. The same is not true of Israel and its neighbors.
"Picked on? Really? Thanks to US funding, there isn't a nation in the region that could legitimately beat the **** out of Israel and win an offensive war. Israel has a tendency to create its problems, and then go on the offensive so as to get what it wants."
Please see this wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_involving_Israel
Almost all the wars began by the Arab's side. The third Israeli-Arab war excluded although it's said to have been a 'defensive move' but telling that to you would be pointless since it's painted in white color and we know just how much you dislike my white brush.
Did you even read what you linked to? The first war was a result of outside forces deciding to partition Palestine for the sake of the Jews. No, it did not go over well with the Palestinians in much the way it would not go over well if the US decided, "Hey, we're going to go ahead and split up Israel and give part of it to....oh, I don't know. Zimbabwe." Okay, bye guys. Have fun." And of course, when the Palestinians began to get rightfully frustrated and angry and they began to act out, the British did basically nothing, despite being the reason **** went to hell in a handbasket in the first place.
The second one listed was a military response to guerilla attacks. Understandable. And then Unit 101 comes around, participates in a massacre, and Ariel Sharon later becomes PM. Awesomesauce.
The third one listed is blatant aggression and can't conceivably be considered a defensive action. I mean, you need to really look for that white paint you're so fond of to paint a picture where Israel, France and Britain aren't complete *******s and Egypt is the bad guy.
The fourth one listed isn't any better. The Israelis attacked first, took a ****load of land, and called it a day. If you read each article, you'll find Israel making more and more enemies as time goes on as a result of its actions and affiliations.
The fifth one listed is where Egypt tries to take back what was "tactically acquired" by Israel. Again, understandable.
The sixth one is another attempt to regain the territories taken by the Israelis during the Six Day War, which, in case you've forgotten in the last 15 seconds, was an act of aggression on the part of Israel.
The rest of them are pretty much Israel ******* up Lebanon over and over again. Some of it Lebanon's fault, some of it Israel's fault. Especially that last one.
So...I'm not sure what you were trying to prove by showing me this list, other than Israel acts, everyone reacts, and then Israel plays the victim and pretends not to understand why things happen.
Thank goodness that your country exists else the situation might have been infinitely more grim than it is today. "And then go on the offensive so as to get what it wants", uhh, yes. It's called "Peace"?!
Glad that's working out for you guys.
The rockets from Gaza are a sign of "I know I'm asking for trouble, but I really want to harm you and I'm willing to jeopardize my own people and families for it to happen".
They're also a sign of, "You stole the land of my father and his father, and I'm going to do what is necessary to take it back. Probably not going to win because your military might is almost entirely comprised of **** you were given by a superpower, but you know, we'll try anyway.
Your forest//bear metaphor was actually very nicely illustrated if it weren't for the part where "YOU TAKE BEARS, YOU PUT THEM IN THE FOREST". The bears were already there in the forest, and if there weren't any bears you don't put them bears in, you just can't cut down the forest because there is no bear to be found in it. ****ing bears!
You're right. The bears were there in the forest that is called Palestine. And then Israel decided to set up shop right in the middle of it. Who's to blame? The bears or the Israelis?
"And yet bulldozing continues", That's silly because you don't give massive lands and then come in with bulldozers, slowly and gradually unearthing the lands you have given. That was the very first time Menachem Begin had given a land, and he did so because it was the first time he had thought the opposing leader literally meant negotiating peace. Bulldozing doesn't take place where a land is contracted to belong to you and your counter parts.
I don't know what you just said, but I'll reaffirm that bulldozing continues in Gaza, where they primarily knock down houses currently occupied by Palestinians and then move their own dudes in.
As I continue to your next verse, I can almost see into the future and predict that you're not actually reading my words thinking "Hmm, I guess he's right in this one". It's making me laugh because if you are not agreeing with me about ANYTHING I say, that means that even if I were to be so very right - I would still get an exclamation mark within a yellow triangle Windows-Error from you. I imagine anyone arguing with you to hear that horrible Windows-Error prompt after posting their thoughts. Even if in many cases it's justified.
Surprisingly enough, I probably wouldn't agree with the ravings of a Scientologist, either. Because what they spout is false. For me, this isn't so much a matter of opinion as it is a matter of historical fact. I can literally look back and see the events, a play by play if you will, and witness everything objectively because I wasn't a participant nor was I alive during that time period.
"You keep saying you watched the film, as if there was one film. There were maybe 4 or 5 feeds going simultaneously, and all of them showed the protesters getting hit first. I remember when Israel first said they were using paint ball rounds before they landed. And then people started dying. Thats weird."
Why should we argue a film based theory? If you can show and prove it using a film from YouTube or anywhere else, be my guest.
Considering the global community at large condemned Israel's raid on the flotilla, I think perhaps it should be you to provide some kind of evidence suggesting Israel decided to use loud sounds to pacify the protesters.
"Israel will do whatever is necessary to benefit Israel. Again, the USS Liberty incident was pretty ******* blatant. That wasn't a case of, "Oh ****. That looks exactly like an Arab ship! Let's take it out!".
Which one? There was the 1967 incident which was pretty bad on Israel's part for going that far.
And there is this one: "On Sunday, May 30, 2010, participants in the international flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip will hold a memorial service at sea to commemorate the 34 Americans killed and 173 injured in Israel's 1967 attack on the U.S.S. Liberty..."
There was only one USS Liberty incident and it was the one in 1967 where the IDF had visual confirmation of an American vessel and shortly afterward began to fire upon it. It was an attack on American by Israelis, with the intent to kill.
"...The Freedom Flotilla carries 10,000 tons of relief and developmental aid to Gaza. These supplies are being delivered by a coalition of international civil society and human rights organizations directly to the people of Gaza, using only international waters and the coastal waters immediately off Gaza for passage. The flotilla is expected to arrive in Gaza late Monday morning." - where of course it did not arrive.
You might be curious as of why did the Israelis prevented the humanitarian aid so here is the full (LONG) article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/may/31/israel-troops-gaza-ships
If you want to get right to the part where it's explained vividly clear, press Ctrl+F, type in "intercepted" and it will bring you close enough. You may want to read at least half of it like I have just done (from the top of the page to the middle). If you want the juicy part here it is:
"In the coming hours, the ships will be directed to the Ashdod port, while IDF naval forces will perform security checks in order to identify the people on board the ships and their equipment. The IDF spokesman conveys that this event is currently unfolding and further details will be provided as soon as possible.
This IDF naval operation was carried out under orders from the political leadership to halt the flotilla from reaching the Gaza Strip and breaching the naval blockade.
The interception of the flotilla followed numerous warnings given to the organisers of the flotilla before leaving their ports as well as while sailing towards the Gaza Strip. In these warnings, it was made clear to the organisers that they could dock in the Ashdod sea port and unload the equipment they are carrying in order to deliver it to the Gaza Strip in an orderly manner, following the appropriate security checks. Upon expressing their unwillingness to cooperate and arrive at the port, it was decided to board the ships and lead them to Ashdod.
Ohhhh. That's why they wanted to take down the flotilla. Because they were secret insurgents. Gotcha. Funny thing, though. First off, they raided the ship in international waters. That's generally a no no, but let's, for arguments sake, say they were justified because of the blockade on Gaza. Well, that brings up another interesting point. The blockade on Gaza is technically illegal because it cause excessive damage to the civilian population in relation to the military advantage gained so intercepting a vessel on the high seas to support or enforce the blockade would not be lawful. So Israel's all kind of ****ed up as far as the flotilla thing goes.
But why wouldn't they just dock at the specified port and let the IDF bring all of their equipment to the people of Gaza? Because it never, ever gets to them. That was the entire point of the flotilla. For years and through many channels, people across the world have tried donating **** to them but whenever it gets to the Israelis, "Holy ****. Is this a fork? This looks like a fork. I know if you connect this fork to the toaster and connect all of these wires you can make a bomb. All of this is bomb-making material. Daaaamn you terrorists of the world!!!" Yeah. **** that. Israel knows precisely what its doing with the blockade and the point isn't to flush insurgents out. Insurgents can come and go as they please. The people who suffer are the ones that live there, and that's the entire point of it all. Punish everyone for the actions of the few. This is the kind of **** the US and friends did in Iraq, and it was ******* terrible then, and its terrible now.
IDF naval personnel encountered severe violence, including use of weaponry prepared in advance in order to attack and to harm them. The forces operated in adherence with operational commands and took all necessary actions in order to avoid violence, but to no avail."
Oh really? Wow, I'd really like to see that video. You know, the one where they prepared weapons like....kitchen knives...that they used to cut meat and cook with....against the IDF before they even landed on the flotilla. Because again, they opened fire beforehand.
'
Books.
