or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › ethan's Musing on the Near East
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ethan's Musing on the Near East - Page 156

post #2326 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post

That is the issue with this kind of warfare. You can't tell who is a baddy and who isn't, so people just put everyone into the same box.

speaking of baddies ...
http://972mag.com/tel-aviv-mayor-says-the-occupation-is-a-cause-of-palestinian-terror/119936/
post #2327 of 2698
Israel should respond to terror by annexing palestinian territory. For every Israeli attacked, the Israeli government should push the border back another 1500 meters and re-settle the new land with armed to the teeth ultra-orthodox Jews.

There is currently no disincentive for terrorists. They are rewarded by Muslim governments, they are lauded by their people and encouraged by their clerics, the clueless leftists in the West, and the Jew haters in the U.N. They will continue their war with Israel indefinitely.

Israel isn't really feared any more. The terrorists and the communities that support them know that there will be no significant reprisals. Carpet bombing is not politically palatable, so they should just keep annexing more land. If Israel started annexing territory in response to terror, the terrorists and their supporters would have something to lose.
post #2328 of 2698
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai View Post

with armed to the teeth ultra-orthodox Jews.

 

Kai, shut the fuck up. Ultra Orthodox Jews are for the most part anti-state. 

 

And this is a rhetorical question and I don't want you to answer but do you realize you just advocated for ethnic cleansing and genocide? You know that, right?

 

Fuck out of my thread. 

post #2329 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

Kai, shut the fuck up. Ultra Orthodox Jews are for the most part anti-state. 

And this is a rhetorical question and I don't want you to answer but do you realize you just advocated for ethnic cleansing and genocide? You know that, right?

Fuck out of my thread. 
The bolded language is not really true (but not ridiculously false either, just crudely clumsy) and entirely irrelevant. And he is arguing for annexation, not ethnic cleansing and certainly not genocide. Ethnic cleansing is what happened when Jordan and Egypt seized the West Bank and Gaza in 1948 and, literally, removed all Jews, including from places where they had lived for years. Every single one. That is what ethnic cleansing looks like. I am not arguing for Kai's tactic but it is not what you said it is. Those are powerful terms and they have actual meanings and Kai's post was not that -- I don't think he was arguing for the murder or deportation of Arabs. If he was, then you would be right.
post #2330 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

Kai, shut the fuck up. Ultra Orthodox Jews are for the most part anti-state. 

And this is a rhetorical question and I don't want you to answer but do you realize you just advocated for ethnic cleansing and genocide? You know that, right?

Fuck out of my thread. 


No. Not advocating ethnic cleansing or genocide.

Advocating annexing land and settling it with Jews, which, unlike ethnic cleansing or genocide, wouldn't result in massive palestinian casualties.

Bottom line is that Israel is locked in a low-grade war with the palestinians, and that won't stop until Israel finds a way of fighting back that actually creates a disincentive for the Palestinians to continue the war. Taking territory is a more palatable option than indiscriminate bombing (or genocide.)
post #2331 of 2698
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai View Post


Advocating annexing land and settling it with Jews, which, unlike ethnic cleansing

 

What the fuck do you think ethnic cleansing means, jackass? 

post #2332 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post


That is the issue with this kind of warfare. You can't tell who is a baddy and who isn't, so people just put everyone into the same box.

 

Uh, if you're in the video shooting people, you're probably a baddy.  If you're not, you're probably not.

post #2333 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai View Post

There is currently no disincentive for terrorists.

 

Indeed.  Many of them get promoted within the IDF.

post #2334 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanm View Post

What the fuck do you think ethnic cleansing means, jackass? 

I think of ethnic cleansing as what happened in Bosnia or Rwanda. Basically one ethnic group killing off every person of the other ethnic group in that territory.

If annexing territory from another entity and settling it is "ethnic cleansing," then pretty much every change in national boundaries involves ethnic cleansing.

So, if you define annexing land and settling it with Jews as ethnic cleansing, then I guess I'm in favor of ethnic cleansing. (By that definition, the formation of the state of Israel and the formation of the United States, and the formation of Taiwan, and countless other such events throughout history would also be "ethnic cleansing.")
post #2335 of 2698
Thread Starter 
Everybody defines that as ethnic cleansing. That's what ethnic cleansing is.
post #2336 of 2698
Quote:

Well that is a start. Now they just need to have UN create a country.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NickCarraway View Post

Uh, if you're in the video shooting people, you're probably a baddy.  If you're not, you're probably not.

The problem is that, they are not identifiable like soldiers normally are. So you can't target them like you would in a normal war and you can't tell if they are going to bomb or shoot you until it happens.
post #2337 of 2698

Here is piece of  the shill Clinton email leaks involving neocons polices and toppling Syria to benefit Israel and how ther rebels play the role, and thats how the war exactly has evolving involving Turkey,Saudis and Qatar,Israel supplying with weapons,  financing/  buying the oil  from al nursa rebels/Daesh  from captured bases , and even medicating them in their own hospitals ,  and these rebels have been expanding in iraq,lybia where necons decided to topple the regime and now in syria 

 

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

 

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war. Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself. Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria. The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's mind.

 

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015 The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed. Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region. Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement. The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don't exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won't stand in the way if intervention comes. Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington's political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war). With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.

 

 

In facts the whole implication  "isn't"  connected to Palestine at all and the necons doing Israel biddings all this time from iraq, syria and arming different  rebel to topple them.


Edited by satrorianogreco - 6/12/16 at 7:06am
post #2338 of 2698
Thread Starter 

Shuuuuut the fuck up. Jesus Christ. 

post #2339 of 2698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post

The problem is that, they are not identifiable like soldiers normally are. So you can't target them like you would in a normal war and you can't tell if they are going to bomb or shoot you until it happens.

 

So you're saying it's like Chicago.

post #2340 of 2698
Or Malmø.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › ethan's Musing on the Near East