reply to post by jam321
---
Pretty-good question and I feel simply-simple. Don't all men defend their families at all costs? Death is for us under extreme circumstances, not our
Children.
Israeli airstrike kills a top Hamas leader, page 2
privacy
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:02 AM by RedGolem
reply to post by alyosha1981
No I had not heard. I don't go to fox news regulery.
Am sure I would have come across it at some point though.
No I had not heard. I don't go to fox news regulery.
Am sure I would have come across it at some point though.
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:02 AM by alyosha1981
reply to post by dooper
I don't know dooper that seems like a pretty barbaric theory to me I am not discrediting the means for eliminating targets of oppertunity though I just think your theory needs "tweaked" abit at least to the extant to factor collateral damages as well as civillian or "non-combatant" factors.
[edit on 2-1-2009 by alyosha1981]
I don't know dooper that seems like a pretty barbaric theory to me I am not discrediting the means for eliminating targets of oppertunity though I just think your theory needs "tweaked" abit at least to the extant to factor collateral damages as well as civillian or "non-combatant" factors.
[edit on 2-1-2009 by alyosha1981]
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:29 AM by dooper
reply to post by alyosha1981
alyosha, I swear I don't mean to sound harsh with that principle. Unfortunately, this is a very basic principle of warfare that haven't changed since time began.
"Those things which your enemy perceives you to hold valuable, and in turn threaten to either harm or withhold, must be eliminated that you may destroy your enemies in turn without hesitation. Family, finance, peace, and even the comfort of habit are weaknesses your enemy can leverage against you to your defeat. Use his weaknesses to his defeat." Michael Riggs
To be most merciful, one must be most ruthless. To place political or moral considerations into the equation during conflict is to lose. One mistake that is a very recent consideration is the primary concern with collateral damage.
This concern has diluted the effectiveness of warfare. So rather than a war being the bloody excess it is designed to be, by taking in ancillary considerations such as civilian deaths, conflicts go on and continue without resolution. No resolution means that both sides, over time will increase the suffering by both parties, as well as increase the total deaths.
Thus, one must be most ruthless up front, completely break the will of the foe, destroy everything they hold valuable, completely break their hearts, and the war is over. Done. Finished.
To drag out a conflict is the real sin.
alyosha, I swear I don't mean to sound harsh with that principle. Unfortunately, this is a very basic principle of warfare that haven't changed since time began.
"Those things which your enemy perceives you to hold valuable, and in turn threaten to either harm or withhold, must be eliminated that you may destroy your enemies in turn without hesitation. Family, finance, peace, and even the comfort of habit are weaknesses your enemy can leverage against you to your defeat. Use his weaknesses to his defeat." Michael Riggs
To be most merciful, one must be most ruthless. To place political or moral considerations into the equation during conflict is to lose. One mistake that is a very recent consideration is the primary concern with collateral damage.
This concern has diluted the effectiveness of warfare. So rather than a war being the bloody excess it is designed to be, by taking in ancillary considerations such as civilian deaths, conflicts go on and continue without resolution. No resolution means that both sides, over time will increase the suffering by both parties, as well as increase the total deaths.
Thus, one must be most ruthless up front, completely break the will of the foe, destroy everything they hold valuable, completely break their hearts, and the war is over. Done. Finished.
To drag out a conflict is the real sin.
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:38 AM by alyosha1981
reply to post by dooper
I believe that type of thinking to be antiquated, in that when you must take a life in combat you do it as if yours is on the line but to knowingly kill 18 people to get to one man? If the U.S were to nuke Afganistan because they "thought" Osama Bin Ladden was hiding somewhere in the country, would that be right? remember all things considdered, is the weight of one life lost less then the weight of many lives lost, life is life , and I do understand your logic I just think it needs to be enlightened by the fact that yes war is hell but a war that is fought by a force that carefully weighs it's options before striking will be a war followed by many more survivors.
I believe that type of thinking to be antiquated, in that when you must take a life in combat you do it as if yours is on the line but to knowingly kill 18 people to get to one man? If the U.S were to nuke Afganistan because they "thought" Osama Bin Ladden was hiding somewhere in the country, would that be right? remember all things considdered, is the weight of one life lost less then the weight of many lives lost, life is life , and I do understand your logic I just think it needs to be enlightened by the fact that yes war is hell but a war that is fought by a force that carefully weighs it's options before striking will be a war followed by many more survivors.
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:58 AM by dooper
reply to post by alyosha1981
Had I found Osama bin Laden hiding behind Mother Theresa, I'd have blown a hole right through her, and not hesitated.
There are no innocent civilians in a conflict. There are, however, enemy enablers.
When you war, either war all-out, or stay home. Otherwise, you'll just spend blivets of blood and millions of dollars to reach - right where you started from.
War is two sides killing each other until one side cannot kill any further or is unwilling to be killed any further. At that moment, when that number is reached, whatever it is, then the fighting will stop.
There never should have been a 6-day War, nor a 100-hour War. Clever names for unfinished business.
"So the most important thing in a miltary operation is victory, not persistence." Sun Tzu
George Patton repeated the words of Alexander when he said, "There is only one tactical principle that is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the greatest amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
And I would add, "with the greatest efficiency."
By wiping out Tyre, Alexander was able to offer generous terms to other cities he approached, and many thousands of lives were saved. Ruthless one, single time. No one else wanted a dose of that.
So whether one likes the realities of war, there are certain principles that if followed, on the surface seem barbaric, but the net result is the minimization of destruction and saving lives.
Counterintuitive, to be sure.
Had I found Osama bin Laden hiding behind Mother Theresa, I'd have blown a hole right through her, and not hesitated.
There are no innocent civilians in a conflict. There are, however, enemy enablers.
When you war, either war all-out, or stay home. Otherwise, you'll just spend blivets of blood and millions of dollars to reach - right where you started from.
War is two sides killing each other until one side cannot kill any further or is unwilling to be killed any further. At that moment, when that number is reached, whatever it is, then the fighting will stop.
There never should have been a 6-day War, nor a 100-hour War. Clever names for unfinished business.
"So the most important thing in a miltary operation is victory, not persistence." Sun Tzu
George Patton repeated the words of Alexander when he said, "There is only one tactical principle that is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the greatest amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
And I would add, "with the greatest efficiency."
By wiping out Tyre, Alexander was able to offer generous terms to other cities he approached, and many thousands of lives were saved. Ruthless one, single time. No one else wanted a dose of that.
So whether one likes the realities of war, there are certain principles that if followed, on the surface seem barbaric, but the net result is the minimization of destruction and saving lives.
Counterintuitive, to be sure.
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 02:09 AM by Aleksander
Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by alyosha1981
Had I found Osama bin Laden hiding behind Mother Theresa, I'd have blown a hole right through her, and not hesitated.
There are no innocent civilians in a conflict. There are, however, enemy enablers.
This unfortunatly is true! In conflict you ca not worry about the civilans as anyone of them you turn your back on is capable of stabbing you in the back. To make matters worse it just happens to be muslims these days that send their wife and kids to do the suicide tatic. If they cared about their families why would they do this?
Another sad fact is if you dad or other family member was just killed would you not in fact try in some way to retaliate? War sucks plain and simple and with our society supposadly being advanced and all for some reason still does it, so unless you can stop it there is no point in bashing them for defending themselves.
If these people cared about their lives they would not have elected a terrorist party or allowed weapons to be smuggled into their country instead of food. It's easy for you or myself to sit on the other side of the world and be judgmental on your computer safe in your home in a place that's not being bombed, but if it was you being shot at with missles you would react the same way and nothing you can spew out on here would change my mind in that. Instead of griping about some other country and their repeated attrocities they choose to do, people need to figure out how to fix their own so that shamless crap like this will stop, until that happens welcome to reality.
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 02:25 AM by alyosha1981
reply to post by Aleksander
As far as the father's sending their children on suicide missions goes , it's not in the best intrest to "kill the lot of them" because they do such things, the origional point I was trying to make clear is that you don't bomb an apartment building full of people ( of which all cannot be verified as ememy soldiers) to kill one man while calling the other side terrorists, and as far as the evolution of war goes we at present have knowledge of limiting civillian casusalites, however some countries don't choose to utilize this knowledge, Israel being one.
And I am aware of the "reality" of things and the reality of this is Israel is using terrorist tactis to slowly defeat an enemy they are more then capable of defeating in a ground campagin with less innocent lives lost.
As far as the father's sending their children on suicide missions goes , it's not in the best intrest to "kill the lot of them" because they do such things, the origional point I was trying to make clear is that you don't bomb an apartment building full of people ( of which all cannot be verified as ememy soldiers) to kill one man while calling the other side terrorists, and as far as the evolution of war goes we at present have knowledge of limiting civillian casusalites, however some countries don't choose to utilize this knowledge, Israel being one.
And I am aware of the "reality" of things and the reality of this is Israel is using terrorist tactis to slowly defeat an enemy they are more then capable of defeating in a ground campagin with less innocent lives lost.
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 02:36 AM by alyosha1981
This isn't the first time that Isarel has killed children, obviously they don't care,
Some 340 Palestinian children shot by Israel during the IntifadTwo non- governmental organizations for defense of the rights of the Palestinians announced on Friday that the number of Palestinian children victims of the Israeli aggressions since the eruption of the Palestinian Intifada reached 340, most of them shot by the Israeli forces during times of "calm" outside the context of confrontations and demonstrations.
In a press statement in Geneva, the representative for the Palestinian branch for "Defense for Children International " organization and "Early child hood resource center," Adam Haneya and Suleima al-Haj respectively announced that the number of the Palestinian youths aging between 14 to 17 year old and held in detention camps in Israel reached 350. The number of wounded Palestinian teenager is estimated at 7,000.
aAl-Haj said that "83 percent of the children who were killed were not involved in any clashes and were killed in places which were supposed to be secure for them." She continued that the other 18 percent where killed in demonstrations while they were throwing stones or chanting slogans." However, there was no fire during these times.
She described the Israeli allegation which said that the Palestinian children were used deliberately as human shields were "baseless imagination." She added that 95 percent of the detained youths were arrested because they were throwing stones and were often sentenced to periods of imprisonment ranging between 6 to 12 months, according to the Israeli military law.
The two representatives of the two organizations in Geneva on the occasion of convening the UN committee for human rights which discussed a report debated by Israel on the extent of its commitment to the 1990 agreement on the Right of the Child. The UN has called on Israel and the Palestinians to stop using children or "targeting them " in a conflict which is witnessing "acts of terrorism from both sides." The UN committee expressed its regret because Israel delayed for seven years to submit its report which is of 380 page in which it gave no mention to the Palestinian children who live under its military occupation.The chairman of the committee, the Dutch Jacob Dweik, said in a press conference that the "Israel and its government are responsible for all children who are in the confines of its judiciary authorities" which means including the Palestinian territories[ex/]
www.arabicnews.com...
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 02:46 AM by Aleksander
reply to post by alyosha1981
I would say the reality is you do not know that for sure as far as you know sending in the ground troops would just be Iraq all over again as in there is a good chance that even the civilans would turn attacker or be a human shield. How many of these innocent civilians do you think have gone out of their way to stop this thing and hand over the targeted parties? I get your point but alas it's a war and in war there are no innocents just opposite sides of a conflict that would not be happening if they would just try to get along with one another.
The fact is they are knowingly harboring these targets knowing at any time their going to get bombed or attacked in some way. Why do they do this? Maybe out of love for their family or fear, either way they are and they got bombed. Fact is you just don't know which tactic would cause less death as most terrorist use civilians as human shields. Yah it's a sad thing to kill so many women and children but as previous posted their enablers and a ground assault would have the potential of being worse.
Say what you will but the fact and reality is you have no idea which strategy would cause less death. Iraq would be a good example of that.
I would say the reality is you do not know that for sure as far as you know sending in the ground troops would just be Iraq all over again as in there is a good chance that even the civilans would turn attacker or be a human shield. How many of these innocent civilians do you think have gone out of their way to stop this thing and hand over the targeted parties? I get your point but alas it's a war and in war there are no innocents just opposite sides of a conflict that would not be happening if they would just try to get along with one another.
The fact is they are knowingly harboring these targets knowing at any time their going to get bombed or attacked in some way. Why do they do this? Maybe out of love for their family or fear, either way they are and they got bombed. Fact is you just don't know which tactic would cause less death as most terrorist use civilians as human shields. Yah it's a sad thing to kill so many women and children but as previous posted their enablers and a ground assault would have the potential of being worse.
Say what you will but the fact and reality is you have no idea which strategy would cause less death. Iraq would be a good example of that.
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 02:54 AM by alyosha1981
reply to post by Aleksander
True, of course I don't know which tactic would yeild the most combatant kills and least civillian kills, I'm not a battlefield analyst and certainly would not consider myself a military expert, I do know being a soldier once, that before any airstrike/ fire mission was called that the target had to verified so as to not do exactly this.
True, of course I don't know which tactic would yeild the most combatant kills and least civillian kills, I'm not a battlefield analyst and certainly would not consider myself a military expert, I do know being a soldier once, that before any airstrike/ fire mission was called that the target had to verified so as to not do exactly this.
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 03:13 AM by Exuberant1
reply to post by alyosha1981
There are a lot of pro-israeli propagandists on this site.
It is good that so many are showing there true faces, thanks to threads like yours.
To Dooper,
What will you do when martial law is declared in your own country?
What will you do if they come for your guns?
There are a lot of pro-israeli propagandists on this site.
It is good that so many are showing there true faces, thanks to threads like yours.
To Dooper,
What will you do when martial law is declared in your own country?
What will you do if they come for your guns?
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 03:19 AM by alyosha1981
Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by alyosha1981
There are a lot of pro-israeli propagandists on this site.
It is good that so many are showing there true faces, thanks to threads like yours
First of all I am not attempting to spread any type of propaganda my friend, I am simply disagreeing with the way Israel went about killing this piticular target. i do however accuse them of employing terrorist tactics as part of this campagin and will continue to do so.
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 03:21 AM by Aleksander
reply to post by alyosha1981
again how do you know that this wasn't done first? How do you know for sure they didn't go through all the options and felt this was the best way to cause the least amount of casualities, keep in mind that their going to be worried about themselves more then the enemy? That being said how do you know this was the only option that was going to cause the least amount of damage to both sides? Again you just don't know cause your not there just like I am not there it just seems silly to come on here and condem someone for their actions and not know all the details.
It just seems like all ya seem to care about is getting the righteous point across to make yourself feel better and slam some people while your at it but you are being one sided as both sides are guilty. I am not trying to attack you personaly all this is is pure speculation on my part which has no relevence on anything and am just trying to figure out why Isreal takes all the blame and Hamas gets none?. Both sides can easily be accused of wrong doing but the so far most of the posts on ATS seem to be one sided and blame Isreal for everything thing...true they are not saints but neither is opposition.
For all you or I know this is the best option they had all we can do is speculate. And your article said both sides are guilty for using kids as cannon fodder so I am not sure how that is relevent here just another article that includes Isreal in human rights blunders but also accuses palestine as well. I am not saying what their doing is right but from what I've read on here and the net as well as one sided media, both sides are to blame and one of them just didn't want to take it anymore. War is stupid but it appears to be in our nature.
On a side note you do make some pretty good arguments.
again how do you know that this wasn't done first? How do you know for sure they didn't go through all the options and felt this was the best way to cause the least amount of casualities, keep in mind that their going to be worried about themselves more then the enemy? That being said how do you know this was the only option that was going to cause the least amount of damage to both sides? Again you just don't know cause your not there just like I am not there it just seems silly to come on here and condem someone for their actions and not know all the details.
It just seems like all ya seem to care about is getting the righteous point across to make yourself feel better and slam some people while your at it but you are being one sided as both sides are guilty. I am not trying to attack you personaly all this is is pure speculation on my part which has no relevence on anything and am just trying to figure out why Isreal takes all the blame and Hamas gets none?. Both sides can easily be accused of wrong doing but the so far most of the posts on ATS seem to be one sided and blame Isreal for everything thing...true they are not saints but neither is opposition.
For all you or I know this is the best option they had all we can do is speculate. And your article said both sides are guilty for using kids as cannon fodder so I am not sure how that is relevent here just another article that includes Isreal in human rights blunders but also accuses palestine as well. I am not saying what their doing is right but from what I've read on here and the net as well as one sided media, both sides are to blame and one of them just didn't want to take it anymore. War is stupid but it appears to be in our nature.
On a side note you do make some pretty good arguments.
reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 03:38 AM by alyosha1981
reply to post by Aleksander
Thank you for your thoughts I do appreciate them, the first thing I will say is that I have always taken the stance that both sides are wrong, I will add that I am not attempting to " armchair quaterback" either I am simply commenting on the events in this ongoing conflict that I feel are relavant. Is their blood on the hands of the Hamas leaders you betcha! just as there is blood on the hands of the Israeli leaders. If any point is to taken from my posts it's that I don't agree with all of the killing, is that going to make it stop? no but I would bet that if I was one of those innocent people hiding in a closet whenever I heard a plane, that I would be somewhat comforted to know that people worldwide are including me an others in their prayers.
Thank you for your thoughts I do appreciate them, the first thing I will say is that I have always taken the stance that both sides are wrong, I will add that I am not attempting to " armchair quaterback" either I am simply commenting on the events in this ongoing conflict that I feel are relavant. Is their blood on the hands of the Hamas leaders you betcha! just as there is blood on the hands of the Israeli leaders. If any point is to taken from my posts it's that I don't agree with all of the killing, is that going to make it stop? no but I would bet that if I was one of those innocent people hiding in a closet whenever I heard a plane, that I would be somewhat comforted to know that people worldwide are including me an others in their prayers.
Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can\'t opt out
Posted 17 days ago with 78 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 78 member flags
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran\'s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Posted 2 days ago with 73 member flags
Posted 2 days ago with 73 member flags
FDA\'s New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It"
Posted 9 days ago with 53 member flags
Posted 9 days ago with 53 member flags
Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering
Posted 5 days ago with 41 member flags
Posted 5 days ago with 41 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
Aliens and UFOs, Posted 1 hours ago
Aliens and UFOs, Posted 1 hours ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Google accidentally released Maine election results early!
2012 US Elections, Posted 9 hours ago, 41 flags
2012 US Elections, Posted 9 hours ago, 41 flags
Threatened by a Ron Paul victory in Maine, GOP (insider spills beans) adds last minute caucuses.
2012 US Elections, Posted 14 hours ago, 33 flags
2012 US Elections, Posted 14 hours ago, 33 flags
Current Potential Habitable Worlds - Update February 2012
Space Exploration, Posted 17 hours ago, 23 flags
Space Exploration, Posted 17 hours ago, 23 flags
Greek police union wants to arrest EU/IMF officials
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 14 hours ago, 16 flags
The CIA in Australia: America's Foreign Watergate
Political Conspiracies, Posted 8 hours ago, 13 flags
Political Conspiracies, Posted 8 hours ago, 13 flags
NATGEO Doomsday Prepper has guns taken away. Judged incompetent.
Survival, Posted 12 hours ago, 11 flags
Survival, Posted 12 hours ago, 11 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Google accidentally released Maine election results early!
2012 US Elections, Posted 9 hours ago, 68 replies
2012 US Elections, Posted 9 hours ago, 68 replies
Massive Obama Conspiracy to Kill the Second Amendment
US Political Madness, Posted 12 hours ago, 64 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 12 hours ago, 64 replies
Actor Nicolas Cage finally comes out to talk about his doppelgänger in a civil war era photo.
General Conspiracies, Posted 13 hours ago, 51 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 13 hours ago, 51 replies
First Strike Scenerio in conjunction with the Departure of The Body of Christ.
World War Three, Posted 10 hours ago, 40 replies
World War Three, Posted 10 hours ago, 40 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.237 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.237 seconds
