Israeli Soldier Kidnapped, Israel Plans Gaza Offensive With Reoccupation A Possibility

Originally posted by DeusEx
Pssst, isn't Gaza a costal region with miles of beaches for people to go to with pails and buckets? Oh, the horror, the horror! But who cares about that settler and that soldier, right? They're just Zionists...

DE

Don't try and twist this around.

The Mediterranean Sea, isn't exactly clean. It is also flooded with Salt Water, since 1869 when the Suez Canal was built. It isn't fit for human consumption, without it being checked and purified. In fact, it is becoming more and more like the Red sea, after the building of the Aswan High Dam in the 1960's. :-)

So no, those children can't drink from it.

Nygdan, the difference between war and terrorism is simple. There is not one. If you are a child, living in a region which is being shelled, with no water to drink, living in a state of poverty and under the control of another Government who are able to help you but don't - that is another form of terrorism.

Claiming that one is morally better than the other is a sham. Be it the man behind the gun or the suicider bomber, they are both murderers. One is not above the others because they follow orders. In fact, it is rather ironic that people seem to push that agenda forward these days. Especailly those in Israel there tends to be a precedent set already, one which didn't look well upon that.

This invasion, won't help things. In fact, it will result in even more deaths. Israel is in a position, where it is near impossible to do right but to constantly do wrong by those people will make things worse. The soldier has been kidnapped, but this won't save him and if it does it'll result in the lives of even more dying and it won't stop it from happening again.

Originally posted by DeusEx

Originally posted by Odium
So, a group of terrorists kidnap someone and Israel decides:
Let's cut off power and water. Let's punish innocent people and children...

But who cares? It's only some Muslim children starving.

Pssst, isn't Gaza a costal region with miles of beaches for people to go to with pails and buckets? Oh, the horror, the horror! But who cares about that settler and that soldier, right? They're just Zionists...

DE

Not sure about your own metabolism, but most Humans would find it lethal to drink Sea water..... Duh...

Distillation involves boiling the water to produce water vapour. The vapour contacts a cool surface where it condenses as a liquid. Because the solutes are not normally vaporised, they remain in the boiling solution. Even distillation does not completely purify water, because of contaminants with similar boiling points and droplets of unvaporised liquid carried with the steam. However, 99.9% pure water can be obtained by distillation. Distillation does not confer any residual and the distillation apparatus may be the ideal place to harbour Legionnaires' disease.

from Wikipedia

Little beyond the Palestians' current technology level, Odium? I mean, even I knew that one. Maybe they should get all those wonderful terrorist groups people on here love to support to help. The Martyr's Brigade could become the Bucket Brigade!

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx

Little beyond the Palestians' current technology level, Odium? I mean, even I knew that one. Maybe they should get all those wonderful terrorist groups people on here love to support to help. The Martyr's Brigade could become the Bucket Brigade!

DE

Distillation of Sea Water into drinkable water is energy intensive. With the power cut off and very little else in the way of fuel, how do you propose they distill the sea water?

EDIT: From your own link it says diseases can thrive in the warm, humid conditions. So you want them to (somehow) boil vast quantities of water but leave themselves open to disease?

Even in developed countries, say for example the UK with it's water shortage, people still shirk away from deasalination plants due to the vast amounts of energy required to produce the amount of drinkable water that a population requires.

You haven't really thought this through, have you?

[edit on 28/6/06 by stumason]

Yes...energy intensive if you want a large desalinization plant. What about individual families? I'm sure they could scrounge up somethign to burn, a kettle, and a piece of plastic.

Well, that is, if they want to drink anything in the coming weeks.

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx
Yes...energy intensive if you want a large desalinization plant. What about individual families? I'm sure they could scrounge up somethign to burn, a kettle, and a piece of plastic.

Well, that is, if they want to drink anything in the coming weeks.

DE

What, exactly, are they going to use for fuel? It's hardly a particulary green area, so trees are in short supply. No coal, little oil, no peat. Your idea is piss poor at best.

Point being, Israel has broken the Geneva conventions by targetting civilian infastructure where not absolutley necessary. Cutting off the power and water to an entire population is criminal.

It hardly gives Israel much sympathy either. If they were more measured in their response, instead of stoking up further hatred by collective punishment, they might find it easier to find a path to peace.

While the Palestinians are confined to essentially a state of siege, they will feel opressed, isolated and with no other recourse than terrorism, murder and further violence.

Perhaps, if Israel where to change tact and try to lift the Palestinians out of poverty, instead of pushing them further into it, then the Terrorists of Hamas et al with see their fan bas ebb away.

I think you guys need to quit the "one-upmanship" going on here and get back to the issues at hand.

I've read everything you guys have wrote, and many good points are being made,

BUT, there was one HORRIBLE point made, and I don't care about who wrote it, for ad hominems are not my style.

Whoever laid out that completely unsound argument concerning the exact similarity of war and terrorism needs to go back to logic class.

It has been said, and remains true:

War involves you and your enemy. You do whatever you can to the enemy to achieve victory.

Terrorism involves you, your enemy, and your enemy's uninvolved friends/family/civilians. Since you don't think you can straight up beat your enemy, you find his friend/family/civilian and proceed to terrorize them until your enemy has to back down.

PLEASE tell me how these two situations are identical......

You can argue the humaneness of total war all day, and there are many incredibly convincing arguments against total war, but please do not try to equate war to terrorism, it only looks like the last breath in the life of an argument.

BTW, I believe total war is no longer an acceptable practice, and by no means should Israel apply the strategy in response to anything short of full out invasion or a WMD attack. It's bad press, and doesn't leave you feeling morally superior.

Delphite

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Philadelphite]

Well according to the differences between war and terrorismn as outlined by Nygdan, indeed Israel has committed an act of terrorism by knocoking out the power and water. Why? Well they have not just attacked the terrorists friends and/or family, they have directly affected up to a million people, most of whom are innocent civilians who actually try to live their lives in what way they can without trying to be involved in either side of the conflict.

DuesEx, how do they plan to boil it? Power Station bombed, no oil...they don't have the ability to go setting up fires here and there. They do not have the resources to distill water, but again nice tactic.

Look at that! It's common sense flying out the window.

Philadelphite, it was me who said it and I do not mind saying it - they are the same.

Terrorism involves you, your enemy, and your enemy's uninvolved friends/family/civilians. Since you don't think you can straight up beat your enemy, you find his friend/family/civilian and proceed to terrorize them until your enemy has to back down.

Think about it, what does repeated shelling do? Does that not terrorize? Do they not kill civilians? They're not going in there and killing only people who attack them, they're bombing them. Sorry, but that creates fear, that creates terror and it kills innocent people.

I am old enough to remember the IRA and what terrorism is. I am also lucky enough to have met Irish people, who felt the same fear created by the presence of British troops. The fear one night things might go wrong a riot might happen and another accident, resulting in the death of innocent people.

Daily life being bombed, tens of times a day is terrorism. It is be the definition of the word:

Source
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So let's think about this:
Organized Group: Israeli Government
People or Property: Hamas/Palestinians
Intimidation: Well? Bombs tend to do that.
Political Reasons: Do I really need to say it?

By the meaning of the word, they are just as much a bunch of terrorists as the next group. It just depends on which side of the fence you are on.

DuesEx, how do they plan to boil it?

This entire arguement over resources is absrud.. There is potable water in gaza, along with food, and everything else. And of course, if there was no water, they jews would be knowingly killing everyone, as there is no way that they can reasonably be expected to desalinate the med, one way or the other.

Originally posted by Odium
Nygdan, the difference between war and terrorism is simple. There is not one.

Thats a plausible position, but I don't hold to it. If one accepts that, then yes, the israelis are terrorists, and so is every soldier that ever was, and so is everyone that's ever gotten angry with another person or threatened to beat up another person, or anyone that isn't a pacifist, sure.

Government who are able to help you but don't - that is another form of terrorism.

If all war is allways terrorism then sure. Most wouldnt' agree with that though.

DYEpes
Well they have not just attacked the terrorists friends and/or family, they have directly affected up to a million people,

This is actually incorrect, and if we accept that there is war and terrorism, and they are two seperate things, you can see that war is allwys going to involve civilian deaths. When a city is laid seige to, it is not terrorism, it is war. When the yehudis bomb a power plant, it is an act of war, not terrorism. It doesn't matter that it ends up hurting the public. The yehudis haven't said 'hand him over or we will start executing hostages or blow up your power plants'. They are engaged in a battle against an entrenched enemy, cutting off that enemys resources, water, electricity, medecine, food, is perfectly acceptable. If the palestinian public, on the wayside, doesn't like it, they can mob the jihadis, rip them to peices, and turn the remains over the the yehudis.

Does that not terrorize?

The arguement is flawed, as most peopel recognize that intention and purpose reveal the true nature of an act. The jews are not purposely targetting the citizens. If the jews wanted to actually terrorise the palestinians, they'd do like Hamas does, send out secret missions to set off bombs in market places, hospitals, public transportation centers, etc. They'd sent in their tanks and apcs with orders to shoot as many civilians as possibe, all at once.
The suggestion that the Yehudis are the same, in their military operations, as groups like hamas and the plo, is absolutely ludicrous and dettached from reality. War is bad. Not everything that is bad is terrorism.

Nygdan, let's be honest about this. As soon as the water stopped flowing, the bombs started dropping it was only going to be terrorist groups who gained it. While a City is being attacked, there are risks of tank fire, gun fire, etc, they can not go out to get water. In the U.K. after the July bombings, there was a period by which people wouldn't leave it lasted only a few hours but what is happening in Gaza is tend fold of that. Three bombs were enough to do it for a few hours, how many bombs does Irael fire?

They knew when they bombed the power station, it would harm the innocent and there was no need to do it. Hamas are a clear entity as the terrorists are. They walk the street with face masks on, daily. If they really cared to do harm to them they would have invaded but rather now they're trying to scare Hamas into doing something - it is not the best way to do things. There is an old saying, about a cat and a corner and thsi is what they're doing.

As for this line:

If the jews wanted to actually terrorise the palestinians, they'd do like Hamas does, send out secret missions to set off bombs in market places, hospitals, public transportation centers, etc.

Do I need to source the reports of the IDF in these areas of the last decare? Or even mention Mossad? Come on, we both know they're not clean of doing things like this. In fact, when Israel bombs a transprot in a market with Hamas Militants, does that not kill innocent people? Is that not the same as a Palestinian attacking an Israeli soldier? Why is one wrong and not the other?

Originally posted by Nygdan
They haven't targeted civilians, they've cut of electricity to a portion of the gaza strip. Maybe they don't want the kidnapped soldier to have his testicles shocked with live wires.

They knocked out Gaza's sole powerstation. The Gaza strips water supply is powered by electricity. Therefore Gaza is without water until that power plant is fixed. The Geneva conventions prohibit attacking targets that would affect civilians more than your enemy. Even if Israel was attacking a full blown army it would still be disproportionate but when they are retaliating against a kidnapping by a criminal gang its extremely disproportionate. It is illegal under international law regardless of what you say.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Yeah, lets try that line when israel goes into palestine, avoids the militias, and specifically fires rocket and bombs at civilians, demanding that if the palestinian government doesn't give into their demands, more civilians will die.

Thats exactly what is being done with the attack on the powerstation. They are trying to turn the Palestinians against the militias and cut Hamas's power base. That is is the definition of terrorism Nygdan.

Originally posted by Nygdan
A hypocrite is someone that says cutting off electricity is terrorism, but targeting and murdering civilians is justifiable.

That is true, however I never said targeting or murdering civilians is justifiable. I am more than capable of speaking for myself, I dont need you to put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I seriously have to wonder at the rationale that says isreal shouldn't retaliate once a group of zealots use gas to exterminate jews. They've been through that before, they're not going to sit around hemming and hawing over the 'cycle of violence'.

If the Israelis answer is to carry out their own pre-emptive holocaust then all their leaders can hang in Nuremburg where the other murdering bastards before them died

Originally posted by Odium
In fact, when Israel bombs a transprot in a market with Hamas Militants, does that not kill innocent people? Is that not the same as a Palestinian attacking an Israeli soldier? Why is one wrong and not the other?

The difference is as follows:

A) the Hamas militants deliberately hide amongst the civilians in an effort to shield themselves

B) The palestinians attack all targets of opportunity, but heavily favor attacking civilian targets - ei. indiscriminate shelling of border towns with rockets, as compared to targetting IDF posts.

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx
A) the Hamas militants deliberately hide amongst the civilians in an effort to shield themselves

B) The palestinians attack all targets of opportunity, but heavily favor attacking civilian targets - ei. indiscriminate shelling of border towns with rockets, as compared to targetting IDF posts.

DE

All of what you wrote there is true, however none of it justifies Israel's tactics.

How would we react if police hosed down a group of hostages because they didnt want the hostage taker to get away with their crime? Call it acceptable because they were trying to hide behind innocent people? Seriously?

No, they would be rightly condemned. Why? Because here in the civilized segments of the West we pride ourselves on not carrying out killings of innocent people regardless of the circumstances.

Israel has no defence for its tactics, holocaust or no holocaust.

Subz- and everyone else who derides Israel's tactics- what else could they practically do?

No, leave is not an acceptable response. It doesn't fall under 'practical'.

You have bombmakers hiding amongst a civillian population. Artillery being launched from the backyards of inhabited houses. What would YOU do to safeguard the Israeli civillians who are shelled every day?

DE

Not only did they cut off the water and power, they also bombed all 4 bridges that lead out of Gaza cutting off any escape for any innocent civilians that wish to leave the city. Thats just BS. They are entrapping all of them like caged animals for the slaughter if anything happens. They also have the egyptians guarding all entry points into Egypt. These people are so screwed if anything happens.

Originally posted by DeusEx


What would YOU do to safeguard the Israeli civillians who are shelled every day?

DE

You make it sound like Israeli civilians are the only civilians being shelled. They're not.

Originally posted by Communication_Burger

Originally posted by DeusEx
What would YOU do to safeguard the Israeli civillians who are shelled every day?

You make it sound like Israeli civilians are the only civilians being shelled. They're not.

Yeah, but the Israelis are the ones being condemned. Subz said he didn't like the IDF's tactics, and I asked him if he had any better ideas.

DE