ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Israel-Palestine conflict

Closed Thread
Old 17th January 2011, 10:06 AM   #121
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
I realise your position is that any invasion of territory would be a break of the ceasefire, but I disagree. That would mean that every IDF plane that crossed into Gaza was a break of the ceasefire, when it doesn't seem to have been treated as such.

Lebanon has complained that IDF overflights are a breach of the ceasefire, but they had different terms.
the IDF has no right to be flying warplanes in Lebanese airspace. It is a clear violation of their soverignity and the Lebanese have every right to shot those planes out of the sky.

and yes, I consider any breach of territory, unless allowed by the other side, to be a violation of a cease-fire.

I don't see how it could be seen any other way.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:09 AM   #122
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
the IDF has no right to be flying warplanes in Lebanese airspace. It is a clear violation of their soverignity and the Lebanese have every right to shot those planes out of the sky.

and yes, I consider any breach of territory, unless allowed by the other side, to be a violation of a cease-fire.

I don't see how it could be seen any other way.
So you believe that the rockets fired from Gaza into Israel during the ceasefire were sanctioned by Israel?
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:12 AM   #123
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
So you believe that the rockets fired from Gaza into Israel during the ceasefire were sanctioned by Israel?


Mortimer.....Oh Mortimer.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:15 AM   #124
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post


Mortimer.....Oh Mortimer.
It's not surprising you reply with smilies, since you are going to have a hard time reconciling these two statements, given that there were many rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel during the ceasefire.
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
It appears that the tunnel incident was the first breaking of the cease-fire and this was done by Israel.
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
and yes, I consider any breach of territory, unless allowed by the other side, to be a violation of a cease-fire.
The only way both of these claims can be true is if Israel sanctioned the rocket attacks.
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:19 AM   #125
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
It's not surprising you reply with smilies, since you are going to have a hard time reconciling these two statements, given that there were many rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel during the ceasefire.

The only way both of these claims can be true is if Israel sanctioned the rocket attacks.
No.

The real question is: once one party violates the cease-fire, does that mean that the other party therefore has the right to react?

I know it sound like a tit-for-tat, but I could see a situation where one cease-fire violation by one party deserves one single retaliation by the opposing side.

And this retaliation should NOT face further retaliation, by the side that first broke the cease-fire. Otherwise, the cease-fire is dead.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:25 AM   #126
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
No.

The real question is: once one party violates the cease-fire, does that mean that the other party therefore has the right to react?

I know it sound like a tit-for-tat, but I could see a situation where one cease-fire violation by one party deserves one single retaliation by the opposing side.

And this retaliation should NOT face further retaliation, by the side that first broke the cease-fire. Otherwise, the cease-fire is dead.
How does this at all relate to whether rockets or recon flights or tunnels violate ceasefires?
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:28 AM   #127
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
How does this at all relate to whether rockets or recon flights or tunnels violate ceasefires?
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:30 AM   #128
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
More emoticons. You haven't even got to the point where you've clearly defined what you believe to be a violation of a ceasefire, and now you are on to how the parties involved can respond to the violation?
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:32 AM   #129
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
You haven't even got to the point where you've clearly defined what you believe to be a violation of a ceasefire, and now you are on to how the parties involved can respond to the violation?

I have indeed stated what I see as a violation of a cease-fire.

"Help me...help you"
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:32 AM   #130
IDB87
Illuminator
 
IDB87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,022
Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
If you think Christianity is monolithic, then I don't think we agree on the meaning of the word.
I was using it in reference to Catholics who can say "There is the Pope - He is our spiritual leader and we look to Him for guidance" or whatever it is they say of the Pope. In that sense, the Catholic branch of Christianity is monolithic. All of these religions are inherently not Monolithic simply due to the untruths that they are based on which causes so much division.

Quote:
Q.E.D. Thank you, but that kind of condemnation is already known (always good to reread though). Perhaps I'm being picky in regards to what I mean by (or want of) this condemnation. If we take CAIR, for instance - 700,000 Muslims condemning terrorism is an enormous number, and doubly great since it's an American organization. Same thing with the ISNA - 400,000 Muslims condemning brutal terrorism and what they call 'Political Islam". Very good to hear, and very reassuring. That's just over one million Muslims in the U.S. alone between those two groups! However, when stacked up to the 1 billion and a half Muslims worldwide (most of which are in Asia and the Middle-East), that number is quite minuscule, especially when the people (minorities as you call them) I'm speaking of in regards to the degradation of the Islamic world are in charge of nuclear weapons and well financed and armed military forces. They are the ones doing more harm to the religion (and their own states) than the stagnation of the faith, which is what I originally pointed out.
IDB87 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:36 AM   #131
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
I have indeed stated what I see as a violation of a cease-fire.

"Help me...help you"
Then how do you reconcile your claim that Israel broke the ceasefire first with the tunnel incident, and your claim that "any breach of territory, unless allowed by the other side, to be a violation of a cease-fire" when there were dozens of rocket launches on Israel from Gaza prior to the tunnel incident?
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:41 AM   #132
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
Then how do you reconcile your claim that Israel broke the ceasefire first with the tunnel incident, and your claim that "any breach of territory, unless allowed by the other side, to be a violation of a cease-fire" when there were dozens of rocket launches on Israel from Gaza prior to the tunnel incident?
Hamas fired rockets into Israel, during the cease-fire, and before the tunnel incident?

please provide a source for that.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:48 AM   #133
FireGarden
Philosopher
 
FireGarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
How does this at all relate to whether rockets or recon flights or tunnels violate ceasefires?
I would say that the rockets did violate the ceasefire -- after all, it counts as opening fire and Hamas was responsible for keeping the non-Hamas groups under control. Israel responded to the rocket fire by re-tightening the blockade. This response put pressure on Hamas to live up to its commitments, and Hamas had greater and greater success in stopping rocket fire -- as this wiki page indicates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_Israel,_2008

As for first to break the ceasefire...
Wiki's source for this is now dead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockad...g_restrictions

Originally Posted by wiki
The UN recorded seven Israel Defense Forces (IDF) violations of the ceasefire between June 20 and June 26, and three violations by Palestinian groups not affiliated with Hamas between June 23 and 26
This has the same title as wiki's source:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL2667952620080626

Originally Posted by Reuters
Below are the incidents:

June 20

- Israeli army troops near the border east of the southern Gaza town of Rafah opened fire towards Palestinian farmers working in al-Amoor, according to U.N. sources. No injuries reported.

- Israeli troops east of el-Maghazi camp opened fire towards Palestinian farmers, according to U.N. sources. No injuries reported.

- Israeli marine vessels fired towards Palestinian fishermen west of Beit Lahiya, according U.N. sources. No injuries reported.
__________________
When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll

B'tselem
Tony Karon's blog

Last edited by FireGarden; 17th January 2011 at 10:50 AM.
FireGarden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:54 AM   #134
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
Hamas fired rockets into Israel, during the cease-fire, and before the tunnel incident?

please provide a source for that.
Why should I provide a source for a claim that I didn't make? I said, rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel during the ceasefire and before the tunnel incident. I did not claim they were fired by Hamas. According to the ceasefire terms, Hamas was responsible for stopping rocket attacks by other factions. While it appears they were largely successful, they still technically broke the ceasefire agreement by not stopping them all.
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:55 AM   #135
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
I would say that the rockets did violate the ceasefire -- after all, it counts as opening fire and Hamas was responsible for keeping the non-Hamas groups under control. Israel responded to the rocket fire by re-tightening the blockade. This response put pressure on Hamas to live up to its commitments, and Hamas had greater and greater success in stopping rocket fire -- as this wiki page indicates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_Israel,_2008

As for first to break the ceasefire...
Wiki's source for this is now dead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockad...g_restrictions


This has the same title as wiki's source:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL2667952620080626
Yeah, I noticed the dead links as well. Although I don't really care who broke the ceasefire first, and am perfectly willing to accept that Israel technically broke it first.
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 11:08 AM   #136
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post


Mortimer.....Oh Mortimer.
Oh look, thunder has been caught in a double standard again!

The string of smilies are a dead giveaway.
__________________
Vive la liberté!

Last edited by WildCat; 17th January 2011 at 11:11 AM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 11:15 AM   #137
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Oh look, thunder has been caught in a double standard again!

The string of smilies are a dead giveaway.


Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 04:02 PM   #138
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Backed into a corner, Thunder escapes the thread in a cloud of emoticons.
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 04:05 PM   #139
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
Backed into a corner, Thunder escapes the thread in a cloud of emoticons.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 06:25 PM   #140
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
Perhaps you ought to learn what "irony" means.

/cue more emoticons
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 09:33 PM   #141
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
Perhaps you ought to learn what "irony" means.

/cue more emoticons
yes, and my use of it was more than appropriate.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 10:41 PM   #142
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,761
Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
Hamas would have known that Israel knew about the tunnel. They would have known that Israel wasn't going to let them sneak into Israel to capture another soldier or do anything else. So Israel would have given Hamas a clear choice of continuing with the tunnel or continuing with the ceasefire.
So if I were in charge of Hamas and were presented with that choice, I'd choose to make a public display of closing the one tunnel while secretly going forward with another plan. Perhaps another tunnel, or something else.

From Israel's point of view, choosing your plan seems like forgoing the opportunity to take action against the threat you know about and choosing instead to be taken by surprise by the future threat you may not know about. Either way, the very action of building the tunnel demonstrated that Hamas was not acting in good faith and had undermined the truce.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2011, 11:49 PM   #143
bigjelmapro
Illuminator
 
bigjelmapro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,509
Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
My answer was in response to Mycroft's question. The use of the phrase "would have" kind of gives away the hypothetical nature of the exercise, so no detective points for pointing out the speculation.
Still going to point out the speculation since you're using it consistently as a defense in your arguments.

Quote:
But we're not comparing a general sortie with an attack on an IDF base -- unless you are saying that the attack was underway.
What's a 'general sortie'? IAF operations have the intention of turning into an offensive action to take out a mortar/missile launching team, as in an imminent threat if they were to succeed. Weren't you the one that included IAF sorties in the first place? So what of it?

Quote:
How do you know they weren't intending to use the tunnel for espionage? How do you when the planned attack was due to take place? You are acting as if the attack was underway, when it was not.
All past cases point to the tunnel being either used for placing explosives or to abduct more soliders. The prior occurring more than anything else. Point out where the possibility of espionage by digging tunnels under IDF bases has every been used. Perhaps you're confusing Hamas with an actual paramilitary groups that have counter-intelligence teams.

Again, real-world examples win out here rather than more speculation.

Quote:
Burning strawmen* often is laughable.
I have suggested alternative actions Israel could have taken, given that they had time -- something your on the edge of conceding but couldn't find it in you to give a straight answer to a question.

*Yes, I know you have trouble with the concept of strawmen. You did indeed construct one, and burn it down, because you misrepresented my argument.
Conceding what? More speculation? Where do you get ths 'they had time' drivel from?

The issue here is that I'm more inclined to use real-world examples rather than dumb it down to a general argument of 'what if's'.
bigjelmapro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 04:37 AM   #144
FireGarden
Philosopher
 
FireGarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
So if I were in charge of Hamas and were presented with that choice, I'd choose to make a public display of closing the one tunnel while secretly going forward with another plan. Perhaps another tunnel, or something else.

From Israel's point of view, choosing your plan seems like forgoing the opportunity to take action against the threat you know about and choosing instead to be taken by surprise by the future threat you may not know about.
Attacking the tunnel doesn't provide any new infomation on other plans. So it's only real purpose would be to end the plan Israel knew about.

And we seem to agree my plan could work -- therefore the plan would not forego the opportunity to act against the threat Israel knew about; the plan was an opportunity to act but, potentially, at lower cost.

Quote:
Either way, the very action of building the tunnel demonstrated that Hamas was not acting in good faith and had undermined the truce.
Just like Israel's preparations for war undermined the truce? A ceasefire does not mean no more war preparations. If Israel found a particular preparation to be too much, they could act against it -- in more ways than one, as we seem to agree.
__________________
When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll

B'tselem
Tony Karon's blog
FireGarden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 04:39 AM   #145
FireGarden
Philosopher
 
FireGarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by bigjelmapro View Post
Conceding what? More speculation? Where do you get ths 'they had time' drivel from?
Your refusal to answer a straight question.
__________________
When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll

B'tselem
Tony Karon's blog
FireGarden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 07:33 AM   #146
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
Your refusal to answer a straight question.
one can't be wrong, if one refuses to answer.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 09:36 AM   #147
bigjelmapro
Illuminator
 
bigjelmapro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,509
Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
Your refusal to answer a straight question.
Which was what? To speculate that the IDF had more time to take another avenue aside from pre-empting a possible abduction/explosion? If this isn't it, what is it?
bigjelmapro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 10:45 AM   #148
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by bigjelmapro View Post
Which was what? To speculate that the IDF had more time to take another avenue aside from pre-empting a possible abduction/explosion? If this isn't it, what is it?
It's another example of "Israel has the right to defend itself, it's just that everything they do is wrong".

Funny, you never see these guys explain what Israel is allowed to do to defend itself.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 11:27 AM   #149
FireGarden
Philosopher
 
FireGarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
It's another example of "Israel has the right to defend itself, it's just that everything they do is wrong".

Funny, you never see these guys explain what Israel is allowed to do to defend itself.
Yes, it is funny that you never see it. Mycroft saw it. Maybe he can help you cross the street, too.

Originally Posted by bigjelmapro View Post
Which was what? To speculate that the IDF had more time to take another avenue aside from pre-empting a possible abduction/explosion? If this isn't it, what is it?
Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
And are you saying that Hamas had completed the tunnel, laid the explosives and so were actually in the prossess of carrying out their attack? It seems to me they were still preparing it.
__________________
When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll

B'tselem
Tony Karon's blog
FireGarden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 11:30 AM   #150
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by WildCat
It's another example of "Israel has the right to defend itself, it's just that everything they do is wrong".

strawman.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 12:34 PM   #151
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
Yes, it is funny that you never see it. Mycroft saw it. Maybe he can help you cross the street, too.
Oh, so only after Hamas fills the tunnel with explosives and is just about to press the button to make it go "boom" is Israel allowed to take action?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 12:35 PM   #152
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
Originally Posted by WildCat
It's another example of "Israel has the right to defend itself, it's just that everything they do is wrong".

strawman.
Fact.

Didn't you recently have to go back 40 years to find an example of Israel defending itself you approved of?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 12:52 PM   #153
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
It is a fact that Israel does seem to have a bad habit of over-reacting to every provocation, and then whining to the world about how evil its critics are.

And then when Israel's critics put together reports full of facts and data, the character assassination attack-dogs come out, in order to destroy anyone who dares to offend the Jewish State.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 02:10 PM   #154
FireGarden
Philosopher
 
FireGarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Oh, so only after Hamas fills the tunnel with explosives and is just about to press the button to make it go "boom" is Israel allowed to take action?
No. You're still missing it. Probably because you had an Action Man dolly as a child and have trouble seeing non-military action as being a kind of action.
__________________
When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll

B'tselem
Tony Karon's blog
FireGarden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 02:25 PM   #155
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by WildCat
Oh, so only after Hamas fills the tunnel with explosives and is just about to press the button to make it go "boom" is Israel allowed to take action?


cute.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 03:04 PM   #156
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
No. You're still missing it. Probably because you had an Action Man dolly as a child and have trouble seeing non-military action as being a kind of action.
Oh look, denial and then an ad hom!

Explain why you think it's important that Hamas was just preparing the tunnel?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 03:05 PM   #157
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
And then when Israel's critics put together reports full of facts and data,
Yeah, you'll show 'em then!

Let me know when that happens.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th January 2011, 10:07 PM   #158
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,761
Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
Attacking the tunnel doesn't provide any new infomation on other plans. So it's only real purpose would be to end the plan Israel knew about.
And to put an end to the people enacting the plan. Just in case they were "rogues" who didn't represent the true wishes of Hamas. Also to send a firm message about what might happen to people enacting similar plans.

Your way doesn't seem to have a down-side for Hamas. Why wouldn't they try again if there is nothing to lose over it?

Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
And we seem to agree my plan could work --
No. Sorry if you interpreted something otherwise, that wasn't my intent. I ask you questions to try to understand how you think, but I don't agree with it.


Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
...therefore the plan would not forego the opportunity to act against the threat Israel knew about; the plan was an opportunity to act but, potentially, at lower cost.

Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
Just like Israel's preparations for war undermined the truce?
I guess that depends on what you mean by preparations for war.

Originally Posted by FireGarden View Post
A ceasefire does not mean no more war preparations. If Israel found a particular preparation to be too much, they could act against it -- in more ways than one, as we seem to agree.
Hamas can prepare defensively as much as they want, and I think even the most ardent Zionist would agree that's not a violation. But digging a tunnel that invades Israeli territory goes beyond preparing. It's enacting.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th January 2011, 05:40 AM   #159
FireGarden
Philosopher
 
FireGarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
And to put an end to the people enacting the plan. Just in case they were "rogues" who didn't represent the true wishes of Hamas. Also to send a firm message about what might happen to people enacting similar plans.

Your way doesn't seem to have a down-side for Hamas. Why wouldn't they try again if there is nothing to lose over it?
There were plenty of rogues launching rockets, and Israel pressured Hamas to take care of them rather than up the ante. And Hamas, which clearly DID feel they had something to lose, took action to stop those rogues.

Quote:
I guess that depends on what you mean by preparations for war.
Well, obviously.

Quote:
Hamas can prepare defensively as much as they want, and I think even the most ardent Zionist would agree that's not a violation. But digging a tunnel that invades Israeli territory goes beyond preparing. It's enacting.
Increasing your ability to attack is a defensive measure. If you do nothing else, you end up preparing for a seige which won't end. There's clearly a difference between increasing your ability to attack and actually attacking.
__________________
When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll

B'tselem
Tony Karon's blog
FireGarden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th January 2011, 05:41 AM   #160
FireGarden
Philosopher
 
FireGarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,047
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Oh look, denial and then an ad hom!
If you can't take it, then don't dish it out.
__________________
When Americans talk about freedom, it’s our secular code word for salvation. There’s no salvation outside the church; there’s no freedom outside the American way of life. -- James Carroll

B'tselem
Tony Karon's blog

Last edited by FireGarden; 19th January 2011 at 05:42 AM.
FireGarden is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.