Colin Yai Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) I don't know how I can break this down to a simpler example. Catapults used during the middle ages in sieges against fortified positions inflicted more casualties and caused more property damage than the 21st century rockets and mortars in us by Hamas out of Gaza against mostly residential areas. I find it extremely odd that so few seem to see this. While historically correct, you fail to mention that catapults were used to lunch disease infected bodies (both animal and human) into crowded besieged cities. They were also used to break down walls and gates, not on residential buildings. Does the fact that your enemy is using pitifully inadequate weapons in any way diminish the fact that he is attacking you with the intent of causing death and destruction? Do you ignore him because his success rate is low and he hasn't killed one of your children YET? Why are their weapons so inadequate? The popular claim is these terrorist are being supported in such matters by the Iranians who have all the latest stuff. If Hamas is their proxy of choice, as many claim, why the inadequate weapons? There have been a couple of post that in answering this question, with the position that the terrorist and Iran do not want to use the good stuff because it might start a war. What could I possibly say in answer to that? You could say "Crap" because launching a missile into another country's land is an act of war. Doing it regularly and asking for sympathy is illogical, and in this case suicidal. But that's OK because they're doing it for god. Maybe its OK cos against the Jews possibly the most maligned race on the planet .,it could be cos they are very successful at what they do ,and we all know how the left hates success(unless its going to them). Edited March 19, 2012 by Colin Yai 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Maybe its OK cos against the Jews possibly the most maligned race on the planet .,it could be cos they are very successful at what they do ,and we all know how the left hates success(unless its going to them). ...yeah right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pakboong Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't know how I can break this down to a simpler example. Catapults used during the middle ages in sieges against fortified positions inflicted more casualties and caused more property damage than the 21st century rockets and mortars in us by Hamas out of Gaza against mostly residential areas. I find it extremely odd that so few seem to see this. While historically correct, you fail to mention that catapults were used to lunch disease infected bodies (both animal and human) into crowded besieged cities. They were also used to break down walls and gates, not on residential buildings. Does the fact that your enemy is using pitifully inadequate weapons in any way diminish the fact that he is attacking you with the intent of causing death and destruction? Do you ignore him because his success rate is low and he hasn't killed one of your children YET? My actual point was/is that the death rate is purposely low. I am sorry if I failed to make that clear to you. Pakboong, whilst I enjoy your posts and of course respect your opinion,s you cannot really expect any one (even an old fool like me) to swallow that when Rockets are fired from Gaza into Israel by whoever that it is with the fervent hope they do not cause too much damage to life or property Interestingly and the basis for my posts is that is exactly what has happened. They fall harmlessly into the Israeli desert. More recently however, the Israelis claim that many are shot down by Iron Dome capabilities. Before Iron Dome, the casualty rate was also very low. 22 dead since the year 2000. Could I sell you the simple idea that riding a motorbike in Thailand is significantly more dangerous than living within rocket range of Gaza. Apples and Oranges I know, but a true statement none the less. Many of us Farangs, despite the serious danger, continue on with our motorbikes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Maybe its OK cos against the Jews possibly the most maligned race on the planet .,it could be cos they are very successful at what they do ,and we all know how the left hates success(unless its going to them). ...yeah right Yeah they sure are a clever and resourceful people ,one only has to look at the advancements in science and technology for the good of mankind of which the accolades for doing so are endless!!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pakboong Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I don't know how I can break this down to a simpler example. Catapults used during the middle ages in sieges against fortified positions inflicted more casualties and caused more property damage than the 21st century rockets and mortars in us by Hamas out of Gaza against mostly residential areas. I find it extremely odd that so few seem to see this. While historically correct, you fail to mention that catapults were used to lunch disease infected bodies (both animal and human) into crowded besieged cities. They were also used to break down walls and gates, not on residential buildings. Does the fact that your enemy is using pitifully inadequate weapons in any way diminish the fact that he is attacking you with the intent of causing death and destruction? Do you ignore him because his success rate is low and he hasn't killed one of your children YET? My actual point was/is that the death rate is purposely low. I am sorry if I failed to make that clear to you. Don't be bloody ridiculous. Crap weapons inherently have a low success rate, but when they hit a kindergarten everybody cheers. When the counter-strike takes out the launchers and a few of their family, its indiscriminate killing. Cry me a river. It is an academic point, not an emotional one. 22 dead in over 11 years is a significant piece of information. Last year's body count actually showed up as an OP topic in this forum That was 1 dead Israeli in 627 rockets and mortar attacks. If I add the 200 fired this last weekend that is astronomical failure. Do you believe that true terrorist would be that pathetic? Strictly an academic point. Do you think the Iranians would send millions dollars and weapons to support a proxy terror effort that actually produced virtually nothing in real terms? Then compare that data with the dead Palestinians. The Terrorists kill no one and the victims kill 25 just last weekend. I started this point well before last weekend. Last weekend was simply consistent with my point. Very consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pakboong Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Maybe its OK cos against the Jews possibly the most maligned race on the planet .,it could be cos they are very successful at what they do ,and we all know how the left hates success(unless its going to them). ...yeah right Yeah they sure are a clever and resourceful people ,one only has to look at the advancements in science and technology for the good of mankind of which the accolades for doing so are endless!!. About a third of the Israeli population is Arab. Nobody is trying to belittle Jewish capability nor to doubt the huge average IQ advantage they have over the Arabs. In fact, the point I continually make is, what an accomplishment it is to leverage your own terrorist arrangement so that on your end it is pretty much all upside.The downside is fear and a few dead. What world leader would not enter an agreement which gave him a 100-1 kill ratio over his enemy? Regardless of the body count ration, you have the complete sympathy of the rest of the world. Of course they would never admit that they were willing to sacrifice an Israeli for the common good of the country. This sort of thing has happened routinely throughout history. Abraham Lincoln as outlined in US Grant's memoirs sacrificed northern POWs at Andersonville for strategic reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Maybe its OK cos against the Jews possibly the most maligned race on the planet .,it could be cos they are very successful at what they do ,and we all know how the left hates success(unless its going to them). ...yeah right Yeah they sure are a clever and resourceful people ,one only has to look at the advancements in science and technology for the good of mankind of which the accolades for doing so are endless!!. About a third of the Israeli population is Arab. Nobody is trying to belittle Jewish capability nor to doubt the huge average IQ advantage they have over the Arabs. In fact, the point I continually make is, what an accomplishment it is to leverage your own terrorist arrangement so that on your end it is pretty much all upside.The downside is fear and a few dead. What world leader would not enter an agreement which gave him a 100-1 kill ratio over his enemy? Regardless of the body count ration, you have the complete sympathy of the rest of the world. Of course they would never admit that they were willing to sacrifice an Israeli for the common good of the country. This sort of thing has happened routinely throughout history. Abraham Lincoln as outlined in US Grant's memoirs sacrificed northern POWs at Andersonville for strategic reasons. So correct me if I am wrong in my assumptions ,what you are alluding to is that Israel has entered into some sort of unholy alliance with Hamas so as to garner pity from the rest of the world!!! , what about the other Islamic Country,s are they "in" on this too?,with the greatest of respect Pakboong I find this whole scenario laughable ,it would appear that the whole world is being hoodwinked apart from yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Do you believe that true terrorist would be that pathetic? The Palestinians have been getting their butts kicked for many decades. Do you think that Israel was telling them to do all the stupid things that they have done since 1948? Enough with the ridiculous conspiracy theories. Edited March 20, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) No credible person actually believes Israel is launching rockets at Israel from Gaza. If people want to express such bizarre and in my view inflammatory "opinions" (ad nauseum and never with one shred of evidence) so be it. Who actually believes that? There is no proof and there never will be any proof. Because it is a totally specious, transparently and rabidly anti-Israel, fantasy. Edited March 20, 2012 by Jingthing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Do you believe that true terrorist would be that pathetic? Strictly an academic point. Do you think the Iranians would send millions dollars and weapons to support a proxy terror effort that actually produced virtually nothing in real terms? There was an end product; dead Palestinians. Iran has little regard for it's own citizens so it will have zero regard for the well being of Palestinians. They do have a propaganda value if killed by the Israelis though, and arming them with hi-tech weaponry would only result in sympathy for the Israelis if they caused significant casualties, not to mention the inevitable reprisals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Maybe its OK cos against the Jews possibly the most maligned race on the planet .,it could be cos they are very successful at what they do ,and we all know how the left hates success(unless its going to them). ...yeah right Yeah they sure are a clever and resourceful people ,one only has to look at the advancements in science and technology for the good of mankind of which the accolades for doing so are endless!!. Yeah but I am grateful they are not welfare recipients to the tune of 3+ Billion a year that we the people of the US do not have to give....Like we do with those other guys Maybe if we gave Iran 3 billion a year they too would have iron domes & such eh? Edited March 20, 2012 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 No credible person actually believes Israel is launching rockets at Israel from Gaza. If people want to express such bizarre and in my view inflammatory "opinions" (ad nauseum and never with one shred of evidence) so be it. Who actually believes that? There is no proof and there never will be any proof. Because it is a totally specious, transparently and rabidly anti-Israel, fantasy. Well obviously the world has spoken in favor of Palestine...Whether the scenario you mention has any weight on that decision who knows & who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 No credible person actually believes Israel is launching rockets at Israel from Gaza. If people want to express such bizarre and in my view inflammatory "opinions" (ad nauseum and never with one shred of evidence) so be it. Who actually believes that? There is no proof and there never will be any proof. Because it is a totally specious, transparently and rabidly anti-Israel, fantasy. Well obviously the world has spoken in favor of Palestine...Whether the scenario you mention has any weight on that decision who knows & who cares? Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the world supports Gazans attacking Israel with rockets? Clearly, many in the world do, but I still don't get your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ]Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the world supports Gazans attacking Israel with rockets? Clearly, many in the world do, but I still don't get your point. Come now.....you hinge on anything Israel & you surely noted the world support for a Palestinian State recently.... Well before the big Iranian diversion stole all the press.......as it was designed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ]Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the world supports Gazans attacking Israel with rockets? Clearly, many in the world do, but I still don't get your point. Come now.....you hinge on anything Israel & you surely noted the world support for a Palestinian State recently.... Well before the big Iranian diversion stole all the press.......as it was designed to. Again, not sure what you are on about. I have been for a Palestinian state myself all my life. Alongside the Zionist state of Israel. In the long term, if there are not two states, there will be one state, and it won't be a Jewish state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ]Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the world supports Gazans attacking Israel with rockets? Clearly, many in the world do, but I still don't get your point. Come now.....you hinge on anything Israel & you surely noted the world support for a Palestinian State recently.... Well before the big Iranian diversion stole all the press.......as it was designed to. Again, not sure what you are on about. I have been for a Palestinian state myself all my life. Alongside the Zionist state of Israel. In the long term, if there are not two states, there will be one state, and it won't be a Jewish state. Why does it have to be a 'Zionist state'? Why not just a state of Israel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) ]Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the world supports Gazans attacking Israel with rockets? Clearly, many in the world do, but I still don't get your point. Come now.....you hinge on anything Israel & you surely noted the world support for a Palestinian State recently.... Well before the big Iranian diversion stole all the press.......as it was designed to. Again, not sure what you are on about. I have been for a Palestinian state myself all my life. Alongside the Zionist state of Israel. In the long term, if there are not two states, there will be one state, and it won't be a Jewish state. You asked what was my point or what I meant by world support for Palestine & I told you............I never asked your preference nor claimed you had one....but thanks for sharing Edited March 20, 2012 by flying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ]Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the world supports Gazans attacking Israel with rockets? Clearly, many in the world do, but I still don't get your point. Come now.....you hinge on anything Israel & you surely noted the world support for a Palestinian State recently.... Well before the big Iranian diversion stole all the press.......as it was designed to. Again, not sure what you are on about. I have been for a Palestinian state myself all my life. Alongside the Zionist state of Israel. In the long term, if there are not two states, there will be one state, and it won't be a Jewish state. Why does it have to be a 'Zionist state'? Why not just a state of Israel? Jewish state. Zionist state. Same difference. It's not a Mormon state. Why does Iran have to be an Islamic state (and 50 other Islamic states in the world)? Is it OK with y'all if the tiny population Jewish people have this ONE state? Apparently not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) From the founder of Zionism Theodore Herzl in 1897 Zionism is not just about a state - Zionism was not, historically, officially a movement to create a "Jewish State." The first Zionist congress in Basle, Switzerland, in 1897 resolved: Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law. Zionism itself is creating a huge divide in the Jewish people. It is a political ideal and has no place in the religious ideal. (Funny the founder wanted to establish a home in Palestine, I thought that place never existed according to some of you.) Edited March 20, 2012 by GentlemanJim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ]Not sure what you mean. Are you saying the world supports Gazans attacking Israel with rockets? Clearly, many in the world do, but I still don't get your point. Come now.....you hinge on anything Israel & you surely noted the world support for a Palestinian State recently.... Well before the big Iranian diversion stole all the press.......as it was designed to. Again, not sure what you are on about. I have been for a Palestinian state myself all my life. Alongside the Zionist state of Israel. In the long term, if there are not two states, there will be one state, and it won't be a Jewish state. Why does it have to be a 'Zionist state'? Why not just a state of Israel? Please give me one credible reason as to just WHY it should not call itself a Zionist state. is there not an Islamic republic of Iran ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) From the founder of Zionism Theodore Herzl in 1897 Zionism is not just about a state - Zionism was not, historically, officially a movement to create a "Jewish State." The first Zionist congress in Basle, Switzerland, in 1897 resolved: Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law. Zionism itself is creating a huge divide in the Jewish people. It is a political ideal and has no place in the religious ideal. This is old news and splitting frizzy hairs, dude. Over 90 percent of Jews in the world fully support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. That doesn't mean supporting every policy of the current government of Israel as I'm pretty sure the majority of global Jews are against the West Bank settlement policy.Israelis do generally say Jewish state, not Zionist state, but keep in mind most Israelis even the liberal ones are most definitely Zionists! Jewish state means homeland for the Jewish PEOPLE. All kinds of Jews, secular and religious. Edited March 20, 2012 by Jingthing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ] Come now.....you hinge on anything Israel & you surely noted the world support for a Palestinian State recently.... Well before the big Iranian diversion stole all the press.......as it was designed to. Again, not sure what you are on about. I have been for a Palestinian state myself all my life. Alongside the Zionist state of Israel. In the long term, if there are not two states, there will be one state, and it won't be a Jewish state. Why does it have to be a 'Zionist state'? Why not just a state of Israel? Please give me one credible reason as to just WHY it should not call itself a Zionist state. is there not an Islamic republic of Iran ? Big Col Islam is a religion, Zionism is a political movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 From the founder of Zionism Theodore Herzl in 1897 Zionism is not just about a state - Zionism was not, historically, officially a movement to create a "Jewish State." The first Zionist congress in Basle, Switzerland, in 1897 resolved: Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law. Zionism itself is creating a huge divide in the Jewish people. It is a political ideal and has no place in the religious ideal. This is old news and splitting frizzy hairs, dude. Over 90 percent of Jews in the world fully support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. That doesn't mean supporting every policy of the current government of Israel as I'm pretty sure the majority of global Jews are against the West Bank settlement policy.Israelis do generally say Jewish state, not Zionist state, but keep in mind most Israelis even the liberal ones are most definitely Zionists! Not Zionist state! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jingthing Posted March 20, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted March 20, 2012 Big Col Islam is a religion, Zionism is a political movement. Oh, please. You don't think the Iranian Islamic revolution was a political movement?!? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 To keep things calm here, let's stick with Jewish state. Apparently the Z word puts some panties in a twist. Wouldn't want that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exsexyman Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 From the founder of Zionism Theodore Herzl in 1897 Zionism is not just about a state - Zionism was not, historically, officially a movement to create a "Jewish State." The first Zionist congress in Basle, Switzerland, in 1897 resolved: Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law. Zionism itself is creating a huge divide in the Jewish people. It is a political ideal and has no place in the religious ideal. This is old news and splitting frizzy hairs, dude. Over 90 percent of Jews in the world fully support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. That doesn't mean supporting every policy of the current government of Israel as I'm pretty sure the majority of global Jews are against the West Bank settlement policy.Israelis do generally say Jewish state, not Zionist state, but keep in mind most Israelis even the liberal ones are most definitely Zionists! Not Zionist state! Many prominent Zionists are not even Jewish. So definitely not a religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) That is true. You don't have to be Jewish to be pro Zionist. Also, you don't have to practice Judaism to be a Jew. Many of us are Buddhists (Jubus)! Edited March 20, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 While historically correct, you fail to mention that catapults were used to lunch disease infected bodies (both animal and human) into crowded besieged cities. They were also used to break down walls and gates, not on residential buildings. Does the fact that your enemy is using pitifully inadequate weapons in any way diminish the fact that he is attacking you with the intent of causing death and destruction? Do you ignore him because his success rate is low and he hasn't killed one of your children YET? My actual point was/is that the death rate is purposely low. I am sorry if I failed to make that clear to you. Don't be bloody ridiculous. Crap weapons inherently have a low success rate, but when they hit a kindergarten everybody cheers. When the counter-strike takes out the launchers and a few of their family, its indiscriminate killing. Cry me a river. It is an academic point, not an emotional one. 22 dead in over 11 years is a significant piece of information. Last year's body count actually showed up as an OP topic in this forum That was 1 dead Israeli in 627 rockets and mortar attacks. If I add the 200 fired this last weekend that is astronomical failure. Do you believe that true terrorist would be that pathetic? Strictly an academic point. Do you think the Iranians would send millions dollars and weapons to support a proxy terror effort that actually produced virtually nothing in real terms? Then compare that data with the dead Palestinians. The Terrorists kill no one and the victims kill 25 just last weekend. I started this point well before last weekend. Last weekend was simply consistent with my point. Very consistent. What do you call almost 1000 attacks on a civilian population, if not terrorism? Yes the lack of success is pathetic, and the death ratio verges on suicidal stupidity. But I give them top marks for persistence. BTW repeating the same action when all evidence of prior attempts have been unsuccessful is a sign of stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The people firing the rockets into Israel, it's academic what you call them. If they get hit back, they asked for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 The people firing the rockets into Israel, it's academic what you call them. If they get hit back, they asked for it. But they don't get hit back, women and children do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now