And Israel proceeds to begin the shit kicking.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-09-08 03:18pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Why the fuck should Israel deal with this like it's a fucking war when it's criminal fucking activity

Perhaps because it actually is a war?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-09-08 03:26pm

AdmiralPorkins wrote:These are not bank robbers or nasty men who steal cars. These are mass murdering suicide bombers who think killing children will somehow get them an eternal life of sex and wine drinking. They are brainwashed, you can not talk to them. They have repeatedly said they want to drive Israel in the sea. Now I don't want to take sides in this argument between Palestinians and Jews, but I can understand why Israel want to scare the militants like this. And in any case, many of these areas are inhabited by anti-Israeli people who would cause trouble if police were to arrive and make an arrest.

Excuse me fuck face, there are people LIVING there who are no suicide bombers. There are religious loons in the US too, I do appreciate though that you admit their actions are murder, which let's not forget is a crime in most civilized nations.

By your logic all the allies needed to do during WW2 was to simply go and arrest Hitler and end the war?

We would have and we would have put him on trial at nuremburg if he hadnt gone and killed himself. Surprisingly enough, if he'd lived in a part of the world within the borders of another nation (let's be bloody clear on this part, Israel controls that land.) and had no tanks, no air force and nothing but a bunch of people and a few guns, we likely would have walked up and arrested the fucker.

Yes I agree they should always protect the innocent, ALWAYS!! It is their duty. But if they believe the only way they can eliminate potential terrorist actions is by killing these guys with missiles then what choice do they have.

It is NOT the only way, it's the way they can protect their soldiers by consigning innocents on the "other side" to die as "acceptable collateral damage". They control this land and as a government they are meant to protect the people there. They have a fucking choice whether to use a missile and take out a building or a sniper and take out a person. For fuck sake these shit heads use missiles into open areas as an assasination tool.

Do we all recall the attempts by the US to kill Sadam during the recent war? Remember that time when the US had intel about Sadams location? He was eating in a restaurant and the US decided to bomb the place before he got away again. Well, I think we all remember what happened. Sadam left before the bomb hit, and the only ones to die were the innocent customers and shop workers in the area. The US was willing to kill innocents if it meant Sadam also was to be killed.

And the US was in the wrong, look at the shit storm their tactics are causing for them in Iraq and tell me they chose well. Their counterstrikes against mortars in built up areas is pure fucking genius too...

I find that VERY offensive! If a complete loony blows himself and a bunch of kids apart on a bus, is that not terrorism????
How about the massacre the Russian school in Beslan, was that not terrorism??? Or do you further insult the dead by claiming it is a "fancy name"?

Bullshit, you lend legitimacy to these shit head murderers by elevating them above what they are. They are murderers, criminals, sociopathic little shits, but that's all they are. Terrorism is just a name for the motive...

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-09-08 04:39pm

Keevan_Colton wrote: As for the rest of you, would you support the use of fucking missiles to deal with criminals in a ghetto? Why the fuck should Israel deal with this like it's a fucking war when it's criminal fucking activity, they are the ones with a responsability to protect these people. Terrorism is just a fancy name for crimes with a manifesto behind them. I dont recall the British Army shelling the shit out of built up areas to deal with the fucking IRA do any of you?

There is a significant difference here. The terrorists are far more heavily armed than common criminals in a US ghetto. If they had the kind of firepower that these terrorists do it would be absolute suicide for regular police, the military would have to be involved and depending on the number of hostiles a missile may actually be used.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-09-08 05:02pm

Besides, you claim that Israel controls thet area, but they clearly don't have the same kind of local control and policing abilities that the US does in, say, Los Angeles.

Now, if LA were to attempt to secede and harbor gangmember terrorists who kill all Americans who enter LA, have the kind of weapontry an army might use, run excursions into the rest of America where they kill men, women and children, etc., then Yes, I would say use a fucking missile. And I live here.
But I also know to move the fuck out of the neighborhood as soon as violence starts to happen. If I saw gangmembers dancing on my street with AK-47s, I'd move to backwoods Idaho or anywhere else my meagre funds can take me no matter how cute the little children with the grenades are.
Claiming that Israel should handle this like a fucking police operation is the most outrageous claim I've ever heard on this board. Maybe you and Stewart at SDI can take on a militarized ghetto screaming for your blood and still surprise the Hamas leaders in their lair all without casualties, but I'm pretty sure that the Isreali police are not supermen.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-09-08 05:12pm

Dont be a stupid cunt bob, it doesnt become you.

Israel occupies that land, the people there are under the control and protection of the israeli government. They have a duty to protect the fucking civilians there as well as in "Israel" itself. The use of missiles in built up fucking areas is not a good step towards carrying out that duty. There are other matters, like water, power, social fucking security, that might help imporve the conditions in this shit hole, but Israel itself loves to play a semantic fuckhead's game with the whole issue of whether they're responsible for the people there.

The fact so many people there wouldnt piss on the IDF if they were on fire is a direct consequence of the IDF's fucking actions. The use of bulldozers on homes, misslies into built up areas, fucking anti-armour weapons for assasination...all where people are trying to live is for some odd reason very unlikely to get on peoples good fucking side.

Moving elsewhere is not an option for most people or have to not noticed the sub-ghetto conditions there, the poverty? If all you had was the fucking hovel you were in and a bunch of armed people moved into the hovel next door, what the fuck are you going to do? Lodge a complaint with the residents association? Go elsewhere where you wont even have the shelter of your hovel?

I dont object to dealing with these murderers and those that conspire to commit murder, but the use of area effect weapons is NOT the way to do it. Dropping explosives into built up areas is NOT the way to do it.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-08 05:59pm

As for the rest of you, would you support the use of fucking missiles to deal with criminals in a ghetto? Why the fuck should Israel deal with this like it's a fucking war when it's criminal fucking activity, they are the ones with a responsability to protect these people. Terrorism is just a fancy name for crimes with a manifesto behind them. I dont recall the British Army shelling the shit out of built up areas to deal with the fucking IRA do any of you?

Depends on the situation. If the 'criminals' have hundreds of fighters with Kalishnikovs, ringed their home with explosives, occassionally fire off military rockets into neighboring towns, and have anti-tank weaponry ... hell yes.

If a criminal is armed with a submachine gun you do not send in a cop with a knightstick. If the bastards are armed with heavy weapons then you call in bigger weapons. Given the usual force ratio SWAT teams like to operate with, a hellfire used against an organization with AT weaponry is not out of line.

Seriously did you miss Jenin? If the bastards are willing to mine the buildings leading to their residence, commando raids will most likely kill more people. Yes a missile into dense residences is a bad thing, however inpsiring the enemy to mine the area is a damn site worse.

Snipers would of course be ideal, however you need to get snipers into line of sight within 2 km, protect the sniper, and manage to get a clear shot at the bastards before the sniper is spotted and the bastards elect to start a firefight in the middle of dense habitation.

There is no magic bullet for killing somebody hiding in the midst of civillians that doesn't carry serious risks of collateral damage.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-09-08 06:04pm

Keevan_Colton wrote: As for the rest of you, would you support the use of fucking missiles to deal with criminals in a ghetto? Why the fuck should Israel deal with this like it's a fucking war when it's criminal fucking activity, they are the ones with a responsability to protect these people. Terrorism is just a fancy name for crimes with a manifesto behind them. I dont recall the British Army shelling the shit out of built up areas to deal with the fucking IRA do any of you?

I don't recall Israel doing that either. In fact I don't believe they've fired an artillery bombardment on the West Bank or Gaza since 1967. The British Army did however used field artillery, machine guns and armored vehicles buildings during the 1916 Easter rising, and of course we have Bloody Sunday 1920 version in which British auxiliary police opened fire indiscriminately on a soccer game. Then there's also the constant string of SAS assassinations from the 1970's onward. Moving onto the US, aside from the US governments threat to gas bomb striking militarized mine workers in West Virginia, the issue was resolved mainly with ground troops and no bombing missions took place, we also have the deployment of heavy armor to counter the Branch Davidians at Waco. The fact is that when faced with large heavily armed terrorist or militant groups governments react the same way, they call in the military. What level of force then gets used depends on the scale of the conflict and how well armed the threat is. In the middile east they are invariably much more heavily armed then the people running around in the US or Ireland and so far more force gets used to kill them.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-09-08 06:40pm

What it comes down to is control. If the IDF did have control over the area then an argument could be made that the IDF is heavy handed. BUT, I doubt you will find anyone in the IDF who claim that they actualy control the Palestinian cities. The IDF armored columns barely control the streets they drive down, practicaly every major incursion into Palestinian cities and villages end up with streetfighting. To be able to use more humane methods against Hamas would require gaining control over the area, in this case a city and urban warfare is the most savage bloody kind of fighting there is - particulary for the civilians who's suffering you wanted to reduce.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-09-08 06:43pm

Also remember when your advice was actually followed, in Somalia. That was one fine mess and I seriously doubt the IDF would be as restrictive in supporting it's troops and even with US restraint the casualty figures ran into hundreds.