"Operation Cast Lead" - What Is Zionist Goal?

reply to post by orangetom1999


Still nothing there that proves the USA was founded on Christian belief. Sorry but unless there is evidence to prove it was, well it seems to be very elusive. Wonder why? Maybe because it doesnt exsist?


Back to topic. so what is this goal? Im seeing two goals. To regain territory, and to eliminate a desolate society.





Cheers!!!!

[edit on 30-12-2008 by RFBurns]

To simplify things, I think the long term plan is to stop having rockets fired into Israel from Gaza(or any other point of origin for that matter).

reply to post by BlueRaja


I think it goes further than that. Anyone over there can launch rockets at Israel. No there is much more to it that just preventing attacks. Perhaps prevent them for good by wiping out the Palestinian people, but that wont stop anyone else from launching rockets at them.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by metalmush


I had a think about your post and IMO it is very wrong.

1) To be the most powerful country in the world ..after US

should be

1) To be the most powerful country in the world.

I think longer term USA is next

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

I think it goes further than that. Anyone over there can launch rockets at Israel. No there is much more to it that just preventing attacks. Perhaps prevent them for good by wiping out the Palestinian people, but that wont stop anyone else from launching rockets at them.



Cheers!!!!

Israel isn't interested in wiping out the Palestian people. They could've done that a long time ago if that was the goal. They are interested in wiping out Hamas/Hezbollah/etc... though.

reply to post by BlueRaja


True, but just look at how the Palestinian people have been treated since 1947. Corraled and cornered like a herd of cattle, blocked off at all boarders and ports, denied access to supplies and shipments, supressed and oppressed. It goes without saying that if you are on the outside of a boxed fence, imagine what it must be like when your the one locked up on the inside and everything you get is at the mercy of the one on the outside.

That pretty much to me seems like a goal of slowly eliminating someone by starvation and desperation. Eventually that one locked up in the boxed fence will do anything to get out of their situation, desperate enough to say...launch attacks against the oppressor perhaps?

Granted Hamas and even 30 years ago, the PLO did some things they should not have. But you have to look at the entire story, not just the bits and pieces to fit a theory. Without the whole story, you dont have any story at all.



Cheers!!!!

In regards to the original topic, I want to say both sides have made grave errors.

However I'm posting this reply because I want to point out something.

Everyone wants to call Hamas/Hezbollah etc "terrorists". I'm so sick of hearing that word, it's used by our President way to much.. and it's always used to inspire fear, and 1/2 of those labeled by terrorists don't really fit the definition IMO.

Now I'm reiterating once again they have done some things I don't agree with. BUT think of it like this: If the country you lived in/loved was oppressed in an unfair/unjust matter wouldn't you lash out however you could? I don't call that terrorism, I call that guerilla warfare.. and as shown in recent middle east confrontations, it's the best shot at destruction against larger militaries especially spread out. (hell the Revolutionary War was filled with guerilla warfare (i.e. militia). If it was you, you wouldn't call yourself a terrorist.

Now while I don't agree with the targeting of civilians by these Hamas guys Israel is doing the same exact thing (you have to know there's gonna be innocents caught when you bomb a mosque in the middle of a populated area).
I don't want to get away from the reasoning for my post so I'm going to shutup.

I pose this question from my topic above: do you consider them (Hamas etc.. "terrorists" for attacking their oppressors?

reply to post by n1zzzn


Well, I have always believed fair is fair.

If it is ok for Hamas to Attack Israel, it is equally ok for Israel to "COUNTER" attack back.

If it is "NOT" ok for Israel to "COUNTER" attack, then it is not ok for Hamas to attack.

See, it really is that simple.

No attack, no counter attack.

If you feel bad for civilians in Gaza, then feel equally bad for the civilians in Israel.

The only hope for peace is to be fair and that means holding "BOTH SIDES" to the same standard.

Either no sides attack and it good or both sides attack and it is good.

Originally posted by lightchild
reply to post by John Matrix

 

England is though

"the Bishops and archbishops of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords as Spiritual Peers, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and York."

The church has a say in how the country is run.
The church is part of the state in England.

Being a moral compass is not governing. If you had a theocratic government the world would be well aware of it. However, with what you have said I would definately have concerns if I lived there.

reply to post by RFBurns


If you look at how the Palestinian people were treated before and after the Intifadah, you'll see some pretty big differences too. The problem was that only Israel was willing to make concessions. The Palestinians(Arafat) would only except all or nothing solutions. This lack of flexibility resulted in the deaths of countless innocent Palestinians and Israelis. I love the hypocrisy that the other Arab nations have with regards to the Palestinians though. They're useful pawns in their proxy war with Israel, but when the rubber meets the road, how many have opened their arms to them. They certainly haven't welcomed them in their lands.

The concern I'm raising is should they really be classified as terrorists?

And in response, I wouldn't live in that area for anything. I feel bad for everyone there.

reply to post by mrmonsoon


That also follows through with the following:

If its OK for Israel to block off the Palestinian people's food supply, then its OK for them to elect a leadership..ie PLO/Hamas, to do something about it.

If its NOT ok for PLO/Hamas to go to last resort and fire rockets, then its NOT ok for Israel to be blocking off the Palestinian people.

Get the flow of things there?

You keep putting this as if it was all instigated by just the Palestinians. It wasnt. After Israel got all that territory back, the Palestinian people kept getting shoved into corners and corraled up over the last 60 years by Israel. Then they got pissed off and started to retailate against that, in turn caused Israel to counter attack. And hence we see this back and forth battle over and over.

There is a reason why Hamas and before them, the PLO, did what they did and do what they do. And for that there is a reason why Israel does what it does. But one thing is for sure, Israel does not need to be killing innocent civilians in their quest to take out Hamas. Go after Hamas, Im all for it. But when it comes to those already oppressed and suppressed innocent civilians being targeted..I have a VERY serious problem with that and will dance toe to toe with anyone who thinks its ok for Israel to be killing innocent Palestinian people who did not fire those rockets and are being killed for the sake of "self defense".




Cheers!!!!

reply to post by n1zzzn


If you kill civilians(or those with different opinions) indescriminately to achieve your goals, and with the intent to strike fear into them, then you qualify as a terrorist. If Hamas/Hezbollah only targeted the IDF, it'd be a completely different situation. It's never OKAY to use their tactics, no matter how important their cause seems to them.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Yes I remember that very well. Arafat also purposely caused internal problems for the Palestinian people to get rid of him. Again the people were so oppressed that there wasnt much they could do once after electing someone they thought they could trust.

Sort of sounds like how all these Obama supporters are now holding up big question marks over their heads going "huh?" with the early signs of whats going to happen once he takes office.

But I dont disagree with the idea that Israel has a right to defend itself. I do disagree however, with the blanket tactics being used and the killing of innocent civilians. They can do this differently, and perhaps with the ground troop insertion plan that may be work. Lets just hope we dont start seeing reports and pictures of more innocents being killed by this ground defense effort. If that does happen, I loose all faith and respect for Israel after that, and consider them outright murderers worthy of being lined up and shot.




Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


I get the flow of YOUR thinking.

If it is ok for murdering sucide bombers to target innocent civillians, then it is ok to close off gaza to stop it.

It is ok to put check points and check for murdering terrorists.

Is that your flow????????

It is so simple, yet beyond so many.

If Hamas attacks are ok, counter attacks are ok, period.

If counter attacks are not ok, then attacks are not ok, period.

We can look to the past and just let the two sides kill each other, or we can stop "BOTH" sides.

As long as one side is allowed to attack, no one in their right mind can expect the other side not to counter attack.

we can stop "BOTH" sides or we stop no sides.

We can look to the future for peace or to the past for death.

reply to post by RFBurns


How about I post some pics of civilians in Israel blow apart by suicide bombers.

By your thinking, it is perfectly justifiable to line up all those in Gaza and shoot them, just like your suggestion of shooting all Israeli’s. You can't have it both ways.

If it is ok for Hamas, then it is ok for Israel.

If it is not ok for Israel, it is not ok for Hamas. PERIOD!!!!

reply to post by mrmonsoon


Hi mrmonsoon,

I keep seeing your post in all these threads about all the terrible happening in Israel; in which all sides have done wrong things in the past.

At first I was frustrated with the way you kept repeating yourself and I felt like banging my head against the wall; but I think you did to.

So now I have had a good nights sleep and some time away from ATS, I have listened and thought about what you have said.

Which I think is this.

"If both sides stop fighting, then the situation will improve on all sides"

Please correct me if I am wrong.

So if we get as far as a ceasefire, which I hope we do very soon.

Then what?

I look forward to your reply,

Simon

Then we need:

1) To insure there are "NO" attacks from Hamas/Gaza-NONE to be tolerated-NONE!!!!
2) To Insure there are "NO" attacks from Israel-NONE to be tolerated-NONE!!!!

The real problem is who would be a disinterested third party to monitor.

The UN would not be trusted, as they allowed Hezbollah to setup and launch rockets from their post.
Sorry, but that is not considered a disinterested third party.

The second real problem would be who and how to punish either side "IF" they break the truce/treaty.

You see, lots of people have suggestion on Israel,.....
BUT!!!!!!!!!
I have read nor seen anything on how Hamas should be punished if they break the treaty.

Honestly, I am not sure about that either.

The real problem is that if no protection and real world punishment is set if Hamas breaks the treaty, then Israel would not accept the treaty, as is right.

Let me again state, real world and realistic punishment.

Btw, turning a blind eye as some do, does not qualify.

Also, even just verbal condemnation form arab states is not punishment, I mean punishment that makes them say, damn, I better stop or we will all die.



[edit on 12/30/2008 by mrmonsoon]

OK lets go line by line:

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
I get the flow of YOUR thinking.
If it is ok for murdering sucide bombers to target innocent civillians, then it is ok to close off gaza to stop it.

Closing off Gaza to stop suicide bombers who are desperate becasue of the opperssor blocked out their food is like kiling the paitent to cure the disease.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
It is ok to put check points and check for murdering terrorists.

No doubt, if thats all your checking for...but are you an Israeli boarder checkpoint inspector or there to tell us that is what is actually taking place and all they are looking for? And certianly they can tell the difference between a truck load of weapons vs a truck load of wheat.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Is that your flow????????

Your obviously missing the flow....again.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
It is so simple, yet beyond so many.

It is simple...yet byond you at this point.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
If Hamas attacks are ok, counter attacks are ok, period.

That much we can agree on.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
If counter attacks are not ok, then attacks are not ok, period.

Again, that much we can agree on.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
We can look to the past and just let the two sides kill each other, or we can stop "BOTH" sides.

Ditto.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
As long as one side is allowed to attack, no one in their right mind can expect the other side not to counter attack.

As long as the necessities of life, like food, water, shelter, medical supplies, the basics..are consistantly blocked off, you can bet the oppressed are going to come at you with everything they can...which by comparison..isnt much at all. And they will continue to do so because they are continuing to be oppressed and blocked off of their lifeline to those basic humanitarian necessities. Had they not been blocked off to begin with, I seriously doubt they would be trying to smuggle in weapons to try to break the hold of their captor.

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
we can stop "BOTH" sides or we stop no sides.

So why isnt it stopping and has not stopped since 1947?

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
We can look to the future for peace or to the past for death.

You will get no argument from me with that one.



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 30-12-2008 by RFBurns]

It has not stopped because the attacks on Israel have not stopped, simple.

But again, we need to look to the future and peace, not the past and death.