ISIS strikes, any effect?

1)Define : more than is needed

2) Who will decide what is :more than is needed ?

 

Translation of the 'arguments' of von Nobie : Israeli soldiers should risk their lives to protect the lives of enemy civilians (who were and are potential terrorist),the consequence of these arguments would be that the Israeli minister of defence (Sharon) could write a letter with as content : Dear mister and madam Levy,I have the regret to announce you the death of your son David,killed in Libanon. But, I am certain that it will be a consolation to know that he gave his live to protect the lives of Palestinian refugees,you know those Arabs that made possible terrorist attacks on Israel,which resulted in the death of your daughter Anna.You know, there is an international law which orders Israel to protect the lives of potential future terrorists .Maybe you disagree with this law,but,you can always write a letter to Australia ,not that it will have any effect,after all,what is the value of the live of an Israeli ?

I have the honour,blahblah .

 

That doesn't prove that:
1) He was wrong.
2) He's not entitled to have an opinion.
3)) He's supposedly "anti-Jewish" to appease his Muslim constituents.
I don't remember Britain intervening during the Yom Kippur war, so any suggestion they would do so now is scaremongering BS.

 

Your PC liberal humanitarian objections are bouncing on the armour of my contempt .If we had followed you, Hitler would have won the war,and there would be no more Poles,Jews,Russians, etc,etc .

 

While you, on the other hand, are doing a damn good job following in Hitler's footsteps, with your little racist tirades.

 

The question is not if he was wrong,the question is : why is he meddling in things which are not his concern ? Why should he have an opinion ? Does he have an opinion? From someone who described himself as a liberal (=left) conservative,leading a progressive coalition,it is very questionable that he has an opinion? Such a statement about Gaza coming from someone who refused (as is the tradition) to be as PM a patron of the Jewish National Fund,is only proving his hostility to Israel .If he has something to object (which he should not),there is a British Ambassador in Israel and a Israeli Ambassador in London,but,no: Cameron felt the necessity to go to Turkey (an enemy of Israel,ruled by the dictator Erdogan) and to attack publicly Israel .Whom is he thinking he is ? And,what was the result of his attack on Istael? Was the situation in Gaza becoming better ? Did Israel panick,was it saying : we must allow "humanitarian " help (= risking the possibility that weapons should be transported to Gaza to kill Israeli) ,because : Cameron told it ?

 

Quote ONE racist tirade, ONE : if you can't ,you are a liar .

 

Again I ask, Prove that the terrorist attacks came from within the camps, You have yet to do so.

As for international law or not and soldiers on the battlefield, No they dont need to carry a book around with them because the vast majority of soldiers know simply what is right and wrong morally. I challenge you to walk up to the closest military base and ask if they would kill a thousand civilians to save one soldier...

 

1 - Using a B-52 to wipe out a small ISIL force when an A-10 could do it just as well.

2 - Any one in the military because no one will want to use large assets to take out small vastly spread out forces.

If ISIL had large military bases, Large industrial complexes etc etc then large bombers could be bought in however they have little to no industry, No large military bases and there forces are all over, Not confined.

 

If that is your translation then you have seriously shown you complete lack of moral compass and a severe bias.

You have yet to show any facts, You use tid bits of statements out of context, And only have your own personal opinion that you try and pass off as fact. If you cant prove it as fact then don't try and state it as fact.

You want to prove your argument as fact, Then do this:

1 - Find a military justifiable target for use of large scale bombing
2 - Prove that unarmed civilians are enemy combatants, Your opinion is not a fact.
3 - Prove that Israel was not legally responsible for the protection of the refugees in the camps (Have yet to do so after I have already asked)

Three very simple questions that Im sure you will have no problem answering and backing up with source information.

 

You are attacking a man for having an opinion yet your attack on the man is your own opinion.. -Scratches head confused-

As to him stepping down from the JNF well what is the big deal? The JNF is no white knight, They tried to confiscate land from children (Sumarin family) after there father had died claiming the family absentees (They were living there at the time), Add to the fact the only lease land to Jews which quite simply is a racist act..

 

The Lebanese did not allow them to do so. So this wasn't really an option.

The fact that terroist attacks have been launched from places other than camps does a pretty good job of invalidiating this positoin.

Some of them may have been in a position to have prevented it but certainly not all of them. So your conclusion is ill founded.

Wrong again. A lot of people care about it. It's rather deeply embeded in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice. I.e. it plays a significant role in the decision made in the US military all the way up and down the scale. I'm pretty sure that current or former members of the US military can address this in more detail if necessary and will correct me if I'm wrong.

That's argueably a poor translation of what he said but indeed soldiers are often expected to risk their lives to protect civilians. Note that doing so may make the difference of whether or not they become terrorist or supporters of the same.

My objections were neither PC nor liberal. Indeed argueablly humanitarianism doesn't play a large part in them either. They were simply derived from an understanding of how such wars are fought and won or lost. That you argue they would have resulted in Hitler winning the war illustrates your lack of understanding of both what I was saying and the fundamental nature of warfare to say nothing of the current situation.

???? Of course he has an opinion and he should have an opinion and as a leader of a major nation it is indeed his concern.


One of the problems here is LjAd seems to have a very inflated opinion of the danger represented by ISIS to the west. Frankly they are no threat to our survival indeed they are a relativly minor irratant but one that needs to be addressed. In addressing them however we need to make sure we don't create even worse problems. Some of his suggestions would clearly do so at least anyone with a reasonable understanding of the international situation and politics would come to that conclusion.

 

Your continued reference to the opposition as "Arabs" and "Palastinians" is a strong indicator and said references have appeared in numerous of your "tirades".

 

Pot. Kettle. Black.

The evidence for your opinions resides in your posts. Like I want to dredge through that mess of warped thinking again. It's clear there's a chip on your shoulder the size of the Titanic.

 

1) How exactly was he "meddling"?!
2) He is ENTITLED to have an opinion. He doesn't need your approval, nor Israel's. Get over it.
3) Bet it's news to Turkey that they're an "enemy of Israel". How many times have they been at war then?
4) What "attack on Israel"?! He was in Ankara to discuss Turkey's entry into the EU, no more, no less.
5) How is a FIVE YEAR OLD quote from David Cameron on an entirely unrelated matter even relevant to this thread? I'm getting the impression you're just opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble.

 

1) Why was Gaza the business of the Britsh PM ?

2)Why should he be entitled to express publicly his opinion about Gaza ? As far as I know, he is the PM of Britain,with as mision to protect the British interests,was what was happening in Gaza harming British interests ?Is it the duty of the British PM to express his opinion about things that happen outside Britain and to lecture other states ?

3)It is a well known fact that ,since Erdogan is ruling,Turkey has become an enemy of Israel.


4)If he was in Ankara to discuss Turkey's entry into the EU (what was not his mission ),why was he commenting about Gaza ,which was of topic to his visit ?


5)It is very relevant,because it is indicating that as France and the US,Britain has abandoned Israel,with as reason (for Britain and France) the chase for the votes of the Muslims

 

1) Because he's the country's leader, and Israel and Turkey are allies.
2) It's called freedom of speech.
3) Says who?
4) Read this- "Turkey’s relationships in the region, both with Israel and the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey’s relationship with Israel, but Turkey is a friend of Israel, and I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship."
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-in-turkey
And then tell me how it isn't relevant.
5) Complete and utter BS. But you already knew that.

 

I'll have a go at the others.

Actually it is not. Certainly relations are not as cordial as they once were but it's not at all clear they have devolved to the point where Turkey and Israel are reasonably described as enemies.

Because he wanted to make a point obviously. Whether or not that point should be considered an attack on Israel is an open quesiton.

Lets see a 5 year old statement by a British policitian indicates something that is easily refuted by events over the last 5 years. What was your point again?

 

This thread is getting lame........

 

I wasn't going to do this, but

"Arab lovers" was not meant as a denigrating comment? A snide comment used to put down? Just as negative to Arabs, as it is to the media?

You apparently dream of indescriminate destruction of the entire Levant (and beyond). Advocating something of comparable scale to the Holocaust. Western politicians have "no balls". You apparently think you do, and that killing everyone between Lebanon, and India with NBC weapons would create a better world...

Negative generalization of all muslims. Fear-mongering. Exaggeration. Name-calling.

More negative stereotyping.

Apparently "No muslims" fear the US. It's not clear at all, why the average muslim themselves need to fear the US. Is that the wanted position of the US?

Negative stereotyping again. The next time someone from the lowlands commits a transgression of any type, I'm blaming all of you for being inconsiderate schmucks.

Even if we assume that Bill Maher's opinion (to be differentiated from facts) is correct that "hundreds of millions of Muslims approved the Charlie Hedbo murders" (let's get really rediculous and assume 400 million) that would still be less than 25% of the entire global Muslim population. Consider that while you advocate the use of nuclear weapons.

We could talk about what deliberately quoting a misleading, incorrect quote, should be called. I believed you used the word yourself in post #127.... But of course, why would you bother to check something so blatantly false, when it supports your twisted ideology?

More negative name-calling. It's clear you do not like the name Ali.

False conclusion drawn here; pro-muslim is not necessarily anti-jewish, unless you are living in a monochrome world. Of course, you are.

You are habitually drawn to false conclusions and spreading lies, fear mongering, and hate propaganda.

Once again, you are confusing "muslims" (as in all muslims), with various groups of individuals, and cultures, as the "muslim" cultural world is far from monolithic.

You're deliberately confusing your history, to suit your propaganda (not the first time). The gas attacks on the Kurds occurred in 1988, during the Iran-Iraq war. The "reports" of use of chemical weapons in 1991, remain unconfirmed to this day, which brings their actual use into question, and cannot be a point in any fact-based argumentation. Regardless as to whether you believe the US should've intervened or not.

Once again with the generalisations and categorical condemnation, and this time justifying the murder of ordinary people. The next time one of your neighbours commits a crime, we'll throw you in jail too, to be on the safe side. Guilt by association works for such commendable states as North Korea. Perhaps you should move there. I hear their leader has a nice hairy pair of gonads for you.


A litany of broad sweeping negative generalizations, and negative connatations, backed up with a generous scattering of Fear-mongering. The tools of the racist.

The debate was about ISIS:

ISIS does not represent even a large minority of muslims.
ISIS is not equivalent to "Arabs"

All Palestinians are not muslims.