Israeli Army Hate Training!!

[yairhol]

Who doesn't hate training?

It's boring.

I hated training when I was in the army.
And before going to serve in the occupied territories (14 years ago) we were given lectures over and over and over again how to deal as peacefully as possible with the local population and only retaliate when we feel our lives are threatened.

Then training as a tank crue member under the hot sun at daytime and going strong until late night having to do shifts in security patrol until morning comes and repeat. That was difficult. No wonder the army hates training.

 

[Thunder]

yairhol- did you ever kill an innocent civilian?

 

[viverravid]

Perhaps it's not helpful, but it is a far cry from "hate training".

In any case, since the Palestinians have never renounced the "staged plan" of getting a small state as part of the plan to eventually destroy Israel, and in fact Hamas and Arafat constantly declare(d) that Israel's destruction is, was, and will always remain their goal...

...I would say opposition to a Palestinian state is helpful in the same sense that opposing any genocide is helpful.

Saying "a Palestinian state in peace with Israel" is like saying "a circle with four corners".

[offtopic]

I'm sure this has been thrashed out on this forum plenty of times, but I'd like to have a go...

Skeptic, I understand your concern, but don't you think the religiously inspired "drive the Jews into the sea" ideology gets a lot of it's power from the Palestinian victimisation narrative?

If so, wouldn't statehood and the ability of Palestinians to see themselves as equals to Israel on the world stage undermine this narrative?

Yes, I know Gaza should have been a chance for this, but it was very easy for the Islamists to point at the current West Bank and unclear future to keep driving the victim story.

The Islamists aren't the only group in Palestinian society. They just have the advantage of being able to easily avenge Palestinian "honor" .

If your claims about Arafat's double narrative is true (and I've seen speeches of his in Arabic that seem to support it), then do the Palestinians actually have any example of someone espousing peace - as an end in itself - and actually delivering anything? Doesn't Israel have a lot of control over wether this ever happens?

What about that Mustafa Barghouti? Does he tell a different story in Arabic?

The alternative is what? No state as Pardalis suggested and endless oppression and violence until when... until the Islamic Enlightenment comes?

[/offtopic - maybe start a new thread?]

Regarding the actual topic of the thread, I just thought it might be helpful for the IDF to avoid appearing to have any political opinions, or be fostering them amongst it's troops. Sure it's one of a plurality of views in Israeli society, but people like TFT can claim it's official IDF position indoctrinated into the soldiers.

 

[cwalner]

Saying "a Palestinian state in peace with Israel" is like saying "a circle with four corners".

Skeptic, this quote represents what saddens me the most about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The loss of hope for any sort of peaceful resolution for too many on both sides.

 

[Texas]

yairhol- did you ever kill an innocent civilian?

Parky did you ever rape a kitten? That was a low class question.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Parky did you ever rape a kitten? That was a low class question.

Low class, personalized, and rude, but not comparable. Raping a kitten would be wrong in almost all circumstances, or at least that's how I interpret you're meaning it*. If yairhol was in a position responsible for actually firing at terrorists and killed civilians as collateral damage, then that's unfortunate, but not wrong.

It's a small point, but lumping it in with kitten raping suggests it's equally indefensible.

 

[Pardalis]

What if the kitten meowled "yes"?

 

[yairhol]

yairhol- did you ever kill an innocent civilian?

I don't know if this is an honest question but I'll give it the benefit of a doubt. No, luckily I never had to kill anyone.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Low class, personalized, and rude, but not comparable. Raping a kitten would be wrong in almost all circumstances, or at least that's how I interpret you're meaning it*. If yairhol was in a position responsible for actually firing at terrorists and killed civilians as collateral damage, then that's unfortunate, but not wrong.

It's a small point, but lumping it in with kitten raping suggests it's equally indefensible.

People fighting for the Palestinians are terrorists while the people fighting for the Israelis are a 'defense force'

It doesn't work like that.

If one side are terrorists then so is the other. Israel committed plenty of terrorism against Gazan civilians over the lat few weeks.

 

[Scootch]

well the kitten didnt say no

 

[quixotecoyote]

People fighting for the Palestinians are terrorists while the people fighting for the Israelis are a 'defense force'

It doesn't work like that.

If one side are terrorists then so is the other. Israel committed plenty of terrorism against Gazan civilians over the lat few weeks.

Thank you TFT, now that you've said the same thing for the 130th time with the same lack of argumentative support, we'll surely see the light.

eta: Moral equivalency is ********. One side targets civilians, hides behind civilians, seeks genocide. The other attacks the militants but is well armed and causes collateral damage.

Say what you want about the politics (and I'm sure you will) but terrorism is a set of tactics and behaviors and only one side is using it.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Thank you TFT, now that you've said the same thing for the 130th time with the same lack of argumentative support, we'll surely see the light.

eta: Moral equivalency is ********. One side targets civilians, hides behind civilians, seeks genocide. The other attacks the militants but is well armed and causes collateral damage.

Say what you want about the politics (and I'm sure you will) but terrorism is a set of tactics and behaviors and only one side is using it.

Wrong. Both sides are using terror tactics. You can continue in your bubble of denial about Israel's 60 year long atrocities against the Palestinians if you like. But know the rest of the world is waking up to it. Many of us have known about it for sometime.

You are right about one thing though ....

"Moral equivalency is ********"

Israel is far more immoral in it's behavior. And lack of argumentative support? You are joking of course. The whole history of the region is more than enough evidence. The 100 or more UN resolutions against Israel ( which it's ignored ) is more than enough evidence.

The level of denial in which some people are prepared to goto in order to unconditionally defend Israel makes them lose all credibility.

 

[Ziggurat]

The 100 or more UN resolutions against Israel ( which it's ignored ) is more than enough evidence.

Argument ad populum. That's not evidence of anything except the fact that Islamic countries form the largest voting block within the UN.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I notice your not contending "The whole history of the region is more than enough evidence." so I guess you agree with that one at least.

Argument ad populum. That's not evidence of anything except the fact that Islamic countries form the largest voting block within the UN.

Can you support your claim that it's a fact that Islamic countries form the largest voting block in the UN?

This should be entertaining ...

 

[gdnp]

People fighting for the Palestinians are terrorists while the people fighting for the Israelis are a 'defense force'

It doesn't work like that.

If one side are terrorists then so is the other. Israel committed plenty of terrorism against Gazan civilians over the lat few weeks.

Nope. Sorry. You cannot just redefine words at your whim.

There is a general consensus that terrorism implies attacks against civilian targets, for the purposes of causing as much death, destruction, and injury as possible for the purposes of instilling fear in the civilian population.

Israeli military actions have been targeted towards preventing or deterring attacks on their territory. You may believe that they were excessive, but they were not terrorism. They targeted the fighters and leaders of the groups that were attacking them, not the civilians.

 

[Ziggurat]

I notice your not contending "The whole history of the region is more than enough evidence." so I guess you agree with that one at least.

No, I just don't see the point in arguing with you on that one, because nothing I say will make the slightest impact on you. In other words, I'm lazy.

Can you support your claim that it's a fact that Islamic countries form the largest voting block in the UN?

This should be entertaining ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_the_Islamic_Conference
57 member states. Got a bigger voting bloc in mind?

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

No, I just don't see the point in arguing with you on that one, because nothing I say will make the slightest impact on you. In other words, I'm lazy.

You are out of arguments. I'm open to all arguments. Any truthful and rational argumetn will have an impact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_the_Islamic_Conference
57 member states. Got a bigger voting bloc in mind?

Is that the limit of your argument? Seriously?

Are you really expecting people to believe Islam holds the majority power in the UN?

Can you not see how deluded that makes you? I've heard some ridiculous things on this forum but that takes the cookie.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Nope. Sorry. You cannot just redefine words at your whim.

There is a general consensus that terrorism implies attacks against civilian targets, for the purposes of causing as much death, destruction, and injury as possible for the purposes of instilling fear in the civilian population.

As you've just proved with the above sentence, I'm not redefining words at all. What you've just described is exactly how Israel has behaved towards the Gazans recently.

Israeli military actions have been targeted towards preventing or deterring attacks on their territory. You may believe that they were excessive, but they were not terrorism. They targeted the fighters and leaders of the groups that were attacking them, not the civilians.

Nonsense. They targeted the fighters and leaders of the groups that were attacking them, AND the civilians.


But oh of course the IDF says it didn't so it it didn't!

 

[Ziggurat]

You are out of arguments. I'm open to all arguments. Any truthful and rational argumetn will have an impact

experience indicates otherwise.

Are you really expecting people to believe Islam holds the majority power in the UN?

No, which is why I didn't say that. I said they were the largest voting bloc. I didn't claim that this bloc had an absolute majority. You really are clueless.

 

[IDB87]

You are out of arguments. I'm open to all arguments. Any truthful and rational argumetn will have an impact




Is that the limit of your argument? Seriously?

Are you really expecting people to believe Islam holds the majority power in the UN?

Can you not see how deluded that makes you? I've heard some ridiculous things on this forum but that takes the cookie.

I don't think he said Islam holds the majority power in the UN. The OIC is a huge bloc, is it not?