UN 'has run out of Gaza food aid'

reply to post by 04326


Funny you mentioned Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

It worked, didn't it? I'm telling you, like it or not, the principle works. Alexander used it to great success in his endeavor. His siege of Tyre saved a lot of lives.

The Peace Plan, unfortunately, is unworkable for a couple of reasons. Israel is not going to allow Jerusalem to be the capital of a Palestinian state, east or west.

The other source of problem is as I spoke of earlier. The occupied territories give Israel a bit of a buffer to help thwart attacks as they have suffered in the past. These are conquered territories.

Syria just a week or so ago was sending masses of tanks toward the Lebanese border. Israel will never, ever let Syria have the Golan Heights back. It was too expensive to take their first time, and too expensive to defend in 1973. In terms of blood.

It's funny that the Arab Peace Plan wants to go back to the beginning and start over. No give on their end, except recognition.

That's not what I call very generous. Like playing poker all night, and everyone at the table whose lost money to you wants you to give it all back.

A lot of take, but I don't see any give.

That's why I don't see it having much hope. Besides, right now Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Kuwait and Egypt have more in common with Israel than they'd admit.

Iran.

A threat to them all. And us. And everyone.

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by 04326

 

The other source of problem is as I spoke of earlier. The occupied territories give Israel a bit of a buffer to help thwart attacks as they have suffered in the past. These are conquered territories.

i just want to comment on this part of your post. i always hear about these "buffer zones" to prevent attacks from outside enemies.
but if they were true buffer zones they would be unihabited or militarized but they aren't , they are building settlements there right up to the borders and moving in.
if your aim was a true buffer zone and not expansion why build cities and live right next to your enemy????
Israel has consistantly aquired more land either by conquering during the wars or just a simple, "we live here now take a hike." i think one of the flaws in your thinking is that israel only wants peace. What if they dont? what if they want more land and intend to conquere it? is that acceptable because arabs are "bad"?

I mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a reason - it was an act which is condoned worldwide even (surprise surprise) by a lot of Americans. It was mentioned to prove a point - that the way advocated is perhaps the one leading to a lot of further issues. It got the job done but at what cost?

As for your rebuttal of the peace plan, i agree it needs a few changes but it is a more positive step compared to mass murder of innocents by putting them on a "grid". I am sure that you are aware through your military experience that this goes against every grain of international law and is considered psychological torture. But then again, International Law holds no value in the view advocated.

You have done a fabulous job of re-affirming everything i said you would. but as always have done an even more brilliant job of avoiding the real question posed.. would you advocate and implement all that you preach in your own backyard?

I think i know how this is going to be answered - let me give an outline:

it would never happen to us because we have shown the world that we are responsible and uphold liberty and everything that is good and just in the world. And if there were Terrorists in our backyard then certain steps like these would be justified.
... but i am sure it would only apply to "Others" and not one's own.

Dooper, you seem to be employing verbal techniques in responses which make people advocating non-violent solutions as out of touch at best.

A few examples to illustrate:
Accusing your opponent of doing what he is accusing you of

"Your way would continue the fear, the suffering, the starvation, the murder and the mangled limbs.

My way, it would end. And quickly."

Your appeal to experience

"The first isolated, peaceful farming village I came upon as a young man that had been needlessly slaughtered - well - there went my belief that if you are peaceful and desire peace - you'll get peace. I learned right there that if you want peace, it must be fought for and earned. Counterintuitive to be sure, but that's unfortunately the way it works. "

Appeal to fear

"One other thing. You let murderous fanatics operate out of your neighborhood, then don't be surprised when your house gets leveled in response."

Appeal to Sympthy / Or the Show of Sympathy to the Opposition / or Flatter the Opposition
(actually this is the thing which made me realise of the verbal techniques employed)

"I know you mean well, but ..."

"don't feel too bad. You are entirely correct that mindless killings and untamed atrocities have been going on too long..."

"You have no more naivity than I did in my early years. "

Defending with Inconsistencies

"... I learned right there that if you want peace, it must be fought for and earned. Counterintuitive to be sure, but that's unfortunately the way it works.

A capacity for great violence should never be equated with a preference for ruthless violence. Good, peaceable men can out-terrorize evil men who prefer terror, given sufficient provocation and justification, and just as quickly, become peaceable men yet again.

You see, evil men, ruthlessly seeking your destruction through force, will ever be turned back by the greater force of good men, through even greater destruction, more ruthlessly applied. "

Demonizing the other side and santizing own / Using Double Standards

"You see, evil men, ruthlessly seeking your destruction through force, will ever be turned back by the greater force of good men, through even greater destruction, more ruthlessly applied. "

"The only way to turn away peace-breakers is by using superior determination, skills, and intuitions to take the lives of ruthless, evil, destructive men. "

"Regular combat operations done correctly are frequently mass killings, but not mass murder. The goal of a warrior is to kill your enemy in the greatest numbers, as quickly as you can, as efficiently as you can. If you are fortunate to find concentrations, you pour it on.

Again, when you kill enough - whatever that number may be - you win.

And the killing stops. That's always the goal of the soldier, warrior, or whatever term you prefer. Killing to stop the killing. "

Ignoring the evidence / Questioning evidence

"The practical definition of the UN is all nations united against the United States."

"The UN is kind to the US compared to Israel. The UN would like to see Israel disappear, they've abandoned their peace-keeping posts to allow invasions on Israel"

"I don't place much faith in any UN declarations, determinations, suggestions, or edicts. A strongly political creature that instinctively wants to slap down the US. A natural instinct of course, but I would suggest we let the UN go on without us.

After all, consider the miracles of international cooperation they've accomplished."

Make the other side look stupid

"If what you are doing isn't working, then to continue in the same vein is what I would not call persistent, but stupid. Stupid."

"How in hell can you be a "refugee camp" resident for 60 years? Only if you're . . . stupid."

"I assure you that if the dumbasses of Gaza ..."

"No one likes them, no one wants them, they have no purpose, they contribute nothing to the advancement of mankind, and their very existence is at risk because of their utter stupidity. "

"It amazes me too that folks who see something isn't working, keep wanting to give the same wheels another spin, year after year, decade after decade, knowing intellectually that it's NOT WORKING. Persistence after a while becomes stupidity."

Using the Hard Cruel World Arguement to justify doing what is considered unethical

"I have to live on this earth. And where evil men stir up wrath with violence, I find that the moment you kill them, they make no more trouble. "

"This isn't a Hollywood movie where you give the other guy first move and hope to beat him to the draw.

You teach him that with each attack, you aren't going to respond in kind, but with a more ruthless response. This isn't a tooth for a tooth, more like a torso for a tooth."

"So the innocents pay? Hell, that's the way of the world."

Oversimplify the issue

"Funny you mentioned Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

It worked, didn't it? I'm telling you, like it or not, the principle works. Alexander used it to great success in his endeavor. His siege of Tyre saved a lot of lives."

Evade Q's
See beginning of post

reply to post by 04326

04326, I am stunned. I have the highest respect for you. No exaggeration, no BS, the very highest respect. You are very bright, very diplomatic, and very likeable.

Now I know you don't like me or my ideas, and that's alright by me. You still have my highest respect. Not much gets by you, and I like that!

Under no circumstances would I ever consider you a worthy foe. More like a worthy friend who only disagrees with me.

Sorry, but after reading your post, I'm still a bit stunned. At first, I thought you had read my book, but then realized where all this came from.

To answer your question about would I find this acceptable in my own back yard, YES.

Not philosophically, not theoretically, YES.

You can believe that every trouble-making SOB I knew, I'd be hunting down to preserve my own. A couple yahoos going to launch a few mortar rounds? I'd kill them myself first. They want to die, fine. I'll loan you some cyanide. You want to get me killed just because you want to die? Nope. I'll send you alone.

And that's the principle in action.

Dooper, sorry but i disagree of your assessment of me. I do not dislike you per se. But i do dislike the ideology you are defending.

If your arguments were based on reason and critical thinking, then i would be the first to say that perhaps your reasoning has merit but when such unethical manipulation techniques are employed, thats when i have a problem with your train of thought.

Again, i don't have anything against you - just against the view you have chosen and even more so, the techniques you used to put them forward.

reply to post by turbokid


Buffer zones are territory that the opponent has to traverse before reaching you. Buffer zones enable you to "channel" an opponent to a degree by constructing obstacles, including ditches, water reservoirs, or structures.

Channeling can also be accomplished by constructing strong defensive positions within other structures or communities that will force an opponent to avoid and choose a lesser defended area.

Since these territories were won in 1967, and this is 2008, it would appear that the settlements of these territories is nothing that any nation before hasn't done. Didn't Normandy belong to England? And why is it now French?

That's the thing. You fight a war, you win territory, and it's yours. You can rename it, burn it, settle it, or sell it. It's now yours. Winners keepers, losers weepers.

Israel is such a small country, every thousand meters is a godsend.

reply to post by 04326


I assure you that I was not using manipulation techniques. The connections you made certainly make it sound that way, though.

The truth is, I think I've been pretty consistent. And I'm not clever enough to string these ideas along in a series of manipulation techniques. All my life I was able to cut through the ancillary concerns, and solve the problem quickly. Not always the nicest solution. Didn't always make friends. But we solved the problem, and we solved it right now.

I really, do believe them. I studied for thirty years those principles of warfare that never, ever fail. These few principles when used, never lost a single battle, campaign, or war since 1479 BC.

Yet even the greatest of generals lost the moment they uncomprehendingly abandoned the very principles that previously enabled their string of successes, and then lost. So I found that the principles were inviolable, regardless of how great the general.

These principles are harsh. They are often counterintuitive. But they work. Every single time. Not one miss in 3,500 years.

The US Army recently revised its Field Manual to include some of these principles, and uses this language for the very first time.

The US Marines have now integrated one of the things I stressed into their combat training. And Marines have responded that they wish to God they had had this training the first time around. It will not only save Marine lives, but make them multiples over - more combat effective.

So I apologize if it seemed I was somehow disingenuous, or using manipulative techniques. I'm not that smart. I just found out what the Masters of Warfare successfully used. When you find the same principles repeated by multiples of commanders, though separated by nationality, continent, culture, and millennia, it would appear to me that those who would take up the art of warfare and conflict give these principles serious attention.

I fear I'm a creature of my own creation.

I propose what works. It's not nice. It's not pleasant. It's not fair.

It works.



[edit on 23-11-2008 by dooper]

reply to post by 04326


Maybe the UN should go to their master, the Vatican. I'm sure they can spare some money, without the need to further go into their parishners pockets. The time has come for people to see the links... we keep giving and noone seems to get help. Sounds to me like all charities may have some link to the big families. Not difficult to find the proof for that. Now wouldn't you question something like that?

Scary story! Could be happening in the US/Canada soon....
Scary story!

Dooper, first of all - i beg to disagree about you not being that smart. The language you have used is one of the most basic things taught in both Law Schools and secondly in Military Schools / System. I say this because i have been in both.

Secondly, once taught - it becomes second nature for most to utilise it. Just like NLP. So please, lets save the whole argument about not being aware of using certain techniques.

Let's get to the crux of the matter. You say that the view advocated is part of the military system and has been used for centuries. I agree with this point completely. Being a military person i am sure if another nation takes the same approach towards what you would consider an Ally, you would not have any objections. I am sure you will agree so lets cut out the whole issue of Arabs are evil because they do xyz.

Moving forward, in your own words, lets cut through the BS and essentially what you are saying is that Palestine should be eradicated by military means as they are resisting Israel and its policies. Whilst what i am saying is that the whole Israelie dominance issue needs to be addressed.

So we agree to disagree. End of the matter.

reply to post by AllTiedTogether


The UN may have links to the Vatican or it may not. I am sure we will find out sooner or later. But you are correct, there are certain players out there who carry a lot of influence and do maintain certain agendas.

It is scary that things may be coming which so far have been unimaginable so close to home. I think i posted something a few days ago about how poverty and hunger is largely ignored by the powers that be and unless a party is of interest, very little is done to assist.

Think of the mass starvation during the Great depression of the 1930's. Plenty of US citizens died because of starvation and was the government there to provide the bailout? Me thinks not.

reply to post by 04326

Dang!

You make me feel like an amateur! I've never been to law school, and I've never been to military schools except 4 SF MOS schools. No theory, no art, no War College and I refused Officer's Candidate School every single month.

I swear I've never learned any such thing. I was never taught any such thing.

I had friends and employees who I later gave part of my business to, who were Palestinian, Iranian, and Syrian. I liked them and we got along great!

No "Arabs are evil" belief here.

No Allies thing going on either. I've only known two Jews my entire life, and one was a brilliant to be sure, but a complete bunghole. I assume it means the same in Australia as it does here in the States.

Eradication would be unnecessary under the grid plan. Warning first, and then no more attacks, no grids destroyed.

It's simple cost/benefit.

No more attacks, never a grid touched.

That sounds fair.

reply to post by dooper


... not heard of it .... after researching and studying theory of war for thirty years. Excuse my scepticism. But "denial" is the other thing used in the technique.

It's not unlike two kids in a room and one silently farts but then denies that it was him. Fair enough take your approach but like i said thirty years of studying history of war and not being aware of these is strange to say the very least. you must not have been studying hard enough then and by the sounds of it you did not even make a study of Meink Kampf. What a poor student indeed!

Anyhow regardless, you have your views and others have theirs. Good luck with the Grid System. You should have it document and put it forward to the new secretary of defence.


[edit on 23/11/08 by 04326]

[edit on 23/11/08 by 04326]

reply to post by 04326

I probably wasn't clear. I did study for years, but nothing with the techniques that you suggest. Maybe this nefarious talent comes naturally?

I know that I've been called a real SOB, and this seems to come naturally. ??

It is good to get your feedback. I can only learn from one of your intellect.

And I don't make that concession easily.

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by Phatcat

 

Phat - England and the US caused this problem? How? And exactly what did the US have to do with the apportionment? And what favors are you speaking of? Specifically? And what Zionist buddies? Be specific.

This sounds like Clan literature.

do some research on the Balfour declaration. It is too big a can of worms to go into detail about in this thread, but it is not Clan literature but historical fact!

You have this all wrong, and I have no idea who's been feeding you this line of crap! First of all, there were many Jews who already lived in the land. Then thousands others came in and bought their land from Arabs. So it was truly theirs. By international decree, and by purchase. Get your facts correct.

Some land got bought, but I doubt it was even 30% of the territory now held by Israel. The 'a land without people for the people without land' theory is proven wrong so many times I am amazed you still believe it to be honest.

The problem with the settlements was that they were started on land that Israel gained in the war. Difference of opinion. Not a country on this planet started out with the name and borders they currently have. Get over it.

I live in a country that has been the favorite battlefield of Europe's competing powers too many times to count, I know how borders change.
Thing is, when France took over parts of Germany for instance, they did not drive away every original inhabitant. they made ways to coëxist. That is the main difference here, Israel's way is more akin to the way the USA got started, with genocide and grand scale land theft. (and no, I do not hold the current Americans responsible for history)

So the innocents pay? Hell, that's the way of the world. Suicide bombers attack a shopping area? A bus? A restaurant? That's fine as long as they're killing Jews, right? I have a solution that would stop that barbaric behavior in 90 days. Guaranteed. Folks who perform such acts and those who encourage them are beyond stupid.

People are allways afraid of terrorists gaining acces to NBC weaponry.
Imho, the chance those weapons would actually see a use in this conflict is increased manyfold if your theory would be put to the test.

Violence does beget violence, ever increasing in scale. And nobody uses a weapon of last resort untill it really is the last resort.

Fox and company have nothing to do with this, and it would take an uninformed idiot to make such a connection. I recall the bitter vitriol spoken for months leading up to the 1967 war. I heard it! They were going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. So you see, since Fox didn't exist in 1967, and probably you either, your assumption here is just as accurate as your other wild speculations. And for the record, I'm a blue-eyed devil, or what the Jews would consider a Gentile from the northern tribes.

Every country building up for war uses war rhetoric. I do not see the difference between the historical use of this, or the rhetoric used by just about every country involved in this. Or how should the world interpret the words of Hillary Clinton threathening to wipe Iran of the map ?

So you see, unless you truly sought out several sources and not just relied on mainstream media, you have no idea about the real situation on the ground.

And if the stupid, and I mean stupid Gazans would not fire rockets and mortars from these houses and buildings across the border, the Israeli's would have no reason to go in and level these buildings which provide concealment. This isn't that complicated, certainly not beyond the sixth grade. Use your head!

If the Israeli powers that be would not use colonization to secure most of the natural resources in the area, no shells would fall on settlements.. it really is that simple. I'm not saying the people using such tactics are right, mind you, only that a man can only be pushed so far before he starts pushing back. and that's 1st grade stuff.

If Israel started spreading my seeds? The attacks would stop. Eventually. One way or another, but this foolishness would indeed stop.

and it only would take a genocide.. do onto others as you would have others do onto you.

Simple problem. Simple solution.

more like a complex problem, simpleton solution.

And you're most welcome for the definition. Got your number too.

You're gonna level my grid now ?

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Phatcat]

reply to post by Phatcat


Unless my memory fails me, the Balfour declaration occurred at the end of World War One. If we're going back, don't stop there! Let's go back to 1,500 BC!

I almost forgot. Let's go with your number and say only 30% of the land was owned by Jews. You may recall that Palestinians abandoned their lands in 1948 to enable the forces of Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq to massacre the Jews of Israel.

Forget that part?

As far as driving them out, that just didn't happen! They packed up and left! They abandoned everything to enable the slaughter! And because they showed disloyalty to the nation of Israel, they weren't permitted back in.

Those that stayed were full citizens.

Gotta break out a book now and then, and don't cherry-pick your selections.

Violence begats violence? Not if you do it right. Once killed, folks aren't violent anymore.

It just hasn't been done right. Yet.

Originally posted by dooper

Unless my memory fails me, the Balfour declaration occurred at the end of World War One. If we're going back, don't stop there! Let's go back to 1,500 BC!

The Balfour declaration is one of the key aspects of the conflict. ignoring that would be like ignoring the treaty of Versailles when talking about the factors that led up to WW II.

Besides, if you want to go back 1500 years to justify an occupation, as the Jews are doing by citing Biblical texts to justify their presence, I assume you wouldn't mind a family of Sioux or Ute or Oglala or whatever tribe used to live in your state to show up at your porch to 'reclaim' their homes? Using massacres and terror as their prefered tools to fall inline?

I almost forgot. Let's go with your number and say only 30% of the land was owned by Jews. You may recall that Palestinians abandoned their lands in 1948 to enable the forces of Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq to massacre the Jews of Israel.

Forget that part?

As far as driving them out, that just didn't happen! They packed up and left! They abandoned everything to enable the slaughter! And because they showed disloyalty to the nation of Israel, they weren't permitted back in.

You might have forgotten the massacres at Yehida, Khisas, Qazaza, Al-Sheikh village, Deir Yassin, Naser Al-Din, Beit Daras, the Dahmash Mosque or Dawayma, committed by the Irgun led by Menachem Begin and the Stern Gang, I can assure you the Palestinians did not.

Those are what prompted the civilians to abandon their homes to live in refugee camps.. not some plot to assist in murder..

Those that stayed were full citizens.

Now you are réally sounding surrealistic.

Gotta break out a book now and then, and don't cherry-pick your selections.

I guess that goes for both of us then..

Violence begats violence? Not if you do it right. Once killed, folks aren't violent anymore.

It just hasn't been done right. Yet.

The people you kill aren't violent anymore, sure. But their familys might have a serious bone to pick with the assassin of their loved one.

I hope for your family's sake you never get a dosage of your own 'medicine', offcourse you have it easy, preaching hate and killing from the safety of a country that is as detached from world affairs as a country can be.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by Phatcat]

All water under the bridge.

Today. Now. Stop the attacks on the Israelis, and live in peace.

Keep it up, and you get what you deserve.

When Israel steals Palestine for their 'own' homeland, it is water under the bridge.. When Palestine became predominantly Arab around the 7th century, that is a historical fallacy that needs to be corrected based on the Torah?

When Palestinian settlements got massacred, and the rest of the populace fled in terror, that's water under the bridge.. When Palestinians fire rockets at illegal settlements it is a crime worth massive killing and destruction as 'retalliation'?

There are two sides to this issue, which is what I meant by it being a complex problem.

If you only ever take one account into consideration and downplay or ignore the other side's account, you're actively engaging in doublethink.

Admit it, if an outside collection of people wanted to take your homeland by force, you would fight them, or at the very least harbor resentment at the situation if realistically, you understood that the situation was lost to you.

If your right to a safe enviroment, clean water, food, a job, and the right to travel got taken away, what is left to live for, except possibly vengeance?

You said in an earlier post that you admired the weak to stand up against superior forces, a sentiment I can relate to all too well.

What could be more the case then here where you have children throwing rocks at tanks? Where is the sympathy for the underdog then ?

Nothing I say will change the world, but in the name of all that is Holy, at least try to take a more bifocal view of the situation, and not let your own critical thinking be overwhelmed by the media.

It's not water under the bridge imho, but blood.. a whole lot of blood that could have been avoided if the Zionists ever had been interested in peace.

I don't understand what the Torah has to do with the partition. A lot happened in 1948, and lots of people on both sides got killed. But if you make your play and lose, then sometimes you have to suck it up and move on.

My people were run out of Scotland by the English, and those that weren't killed, fled to Ireland. The situation got bad again and fled to America. I have no intention of going back to Scotland or Ireland and making any claims. In America, my ancestors, one of whom raised Andrew Jackson, took a very active part in our Revolution. Our side won that one.

In the War of Northern Aggression, we lost land and homes, and property to the damned Yankees. We lost that one, and we're over it.

No one has a right to clean water, food, a job, or a right to travel. In this United States where we have many, many rights, these are not considered rights. They are potential benefits if we want to create and enable them. Not rights.

You want to throw rocks at a tank, you are stupid. That's a really productive use of your time.

Instead of concentrating so hard on striking back at Israeli's, which hasn't been all that successful over the past 60 years, maybe they would be better served if the tried to clean that **it hole up, build schools, water systems, markets, and begin farming. God knows, the other Arab countries have poured enough money in there to gold-plate the entire region.

Sell the damned guns, mortars, and rockets, and buy pumps, merchandise, and schools.

No, that's too hard. Much more fun to hate and kill, and besides, the other stuff is just too much work.