Gaza Beach Shelling

[Sh3kel]

'at all cost'. I think you must have forgotten this impressive flourish by the time you moved on to the rest of the words below. Let's just acknowledge that as unsustainable.

Agreed. Would you have us stop attempting to avoid it or just stop firing at all?

You mean a commander accidentally yelled 'Fire'

Firing incidents don't work that way. You need to clear any fire with the senior officer in the field - for the Air Force it's generally the Flight leader or Squadron Commander, so for the Navy i'm assuming it's the ship Captain or at least First Mate, who has to radio in command to request permission to fire. If there was suspicion and someone cleared the firing request, this isn't one bloodthirsy commander losing it - it's a chain of command thing.
Armies are strange like that. We demand discipline and stuff.

You mean your commanders are totally out of control?
Then dismiss your commanders. There's something.

When the need arises, we do dismiss them. I personally saw a CO go into early retirment over a stupid comment he made to some female soldiers...

Ah, there we go, here is the 'at all cost' biting the dust

That's not much of a reply...

It's purpose is now to defend, now it has got the annexation of Palestinian territory bit out of the way. Oh, and that's why it's going to need to keep on defending.

Defense or offense, IDF or Zionist Occupation army, screw semantics. I firmly believe the purpose of the military is to kill stuff that the Political branch says it wants dead. You want to make a fuss out of it? Take it up to our elected officials. Our military is there following orders. Stop blaming the military for doing its bloody job.

Give the Palestinians back the territory you have stolen.

I'd like to have my family's home in Poland back, but that's just not a realistic demand considering it's occupied by a Polish family that bought it legally down there. I accept the fact they live there and don't go batshit insane over it, screaming bloody murder and blowing up buses because I'm a civilized person. So let's all work together and find a different and alternate solution which doesn't involve us, ships and several million metric tons of seawater, alright?

 

[Sidhe]

Problem is there probably isn't another solution to the situation, fact is it's their land and you agreed to that and then reneged on the deal; on a note purely born of honour you are in the wrong here, and it doesn't matter which familly lives there now, who cares turf them out, breach of treaty is breach of treaty no matter how you want to dance around the issue.

Why is stolen land so important to you anyway as a matter of interest? I assume we're talking about the areas captured after the UN treaty. What about these areas is so important that you can't compromise ever? What are you weighing against the deaths of innocents on both sides that tips the scales towards death? Honestly I'd like to know what it would take apart from Hamas being out of power for someone to sit down and offer something other than nothing as Sharon was want to do?

 

[Sh3kel]

Problem is there probably isn't another solution to the situation, fact is it's their land and you agreed to that and then reneged on the deal; on a note purely born of honour you are in the wrong here, and it doesn't matter which familly lives there now, who cares turf them out, breach of treaty is breach of treaty no matter how you want to dance around the issue.

Why is stolen land so important to you anyway as a matter of interest? I assume we're talking about the areas captured after the UN treaty. What about these areas is so important that you can't compromise ever? What are you weighing against the deaths of innocents on both sides that tips the scales towards death? Honestly I'd like to know what it would take apart from Hamas being out of power for someone to sit down and offer something other than nothing as Sharon was want to do?

I'd hardly consider it "Their land" without proper negotiation - if you are really going to split hairs, then we did obliberate the "arab state" declared in the partition of 1947 when we were raided in May of 1948. Nevertheless, the "Arab state" did not declare itself existant when the British left, and so the land was repossessed by the Jordanians and Egyptians, which means that the new Jewish state conquered the Gaza Strip from the Egyptians and the the West Bank from the Jordanians. Historically and truly factually speaking, the local population may not be Jewish or Israeli-friendly, but the fact they are ethnically Palestinian does not make them nationally palestinian. The negotiations here are made to change the legal status of an autonomous minority into a new nation - we're forming a country that wasn't there, much like Israel was formed when it wasn't there in 1947. Their legal status is of Israeli citizens with Palestinian self-rule. They have their own local government in the sense that an American state has a local government, however their infrastructure is still at the very least in 85% reliant on Israeli resources and factories, hence the problem: They are screaming "murder" over the occupation and want independence badly, but they are unable at this point to govern over an area that is slightly smaller than the city of Pasadena.

Since the strip of land we're arguing about is so small, every single kilometer matters. At any given time, our major cities are under threat of being shelled by rockets - consider our situation similar to the blitz of London, only the bombers our enemy has are also in range of Manchester, Dublin, Belfast and even Glasgow. This is beyond the point of "stolen land". Even if we were to concede the factually incorrect point that we're squatting over their land, the law in every major western country grant ownership of a property via possession in certain circumstances - if a family lives in an abandoned building for 58 years, remodels it and makes it look like a classy place instead of a dusty bunch of ruins, and then the owner shows up after neglecting the property for nearly six decades demanding it back - the court battle usually ends in favor of the "squatters" or in some sort of compromise,

Possession is 9/10th of the law. The remaining 10th, in my country's philosophy, is the ability to maintan your possessions. Might doesn't make right, but what's the point of being right when you're forced into flight?

 

[Leha]

I find it strange Palestinians refuse to cooperate with investigation. First I thought it IS our fault. Now I doubt it very much.

 

[Winterfell]

'at all cost'. I think you must have forgotten this impressive flourish by the time you moved on to the rest of the words below. Let's just acknowledge that as unsustainable.


You mean a commander accidentally yelled 'Fire'

Not at all! I mean wrong coordinates were mistakenly used', or anything along these lines. We don't know yet what is the mistake responsible for this accident. Actually, the IDF denies relation to this accident, and claims this was an explosion of shell remains from another time.

You mean your commanders are totally out of control?
Then dismiss your commanders. There's something.

Believe me, if somone was responsible for this on our side, he will not get promoted.

Ah, there we go, here is the 'at all cost' biting the dust

No it doesnt. I said we avoid at all cost harming civilians. The ones we aim our shells at are militants.

Give the Palestinians back the territory you have stolen.

Or is that too great an 'at all cost' for you?

Yeah? and what "stolen" territory would it be? Tel aviv Jerusalem and Haifa? Maybe eilat, my city, which was unpopulated until we arrived? Yeah, why dont we just vanish into thin air! that will solve that problem wouldnt it?
And you know what- that is exactly their plan - they want us to die or leave. But we dont wanna die and we have no place to leave to - and we dont want that either.

 

[bathsheba666]

Agreed.

Oh, I don't think so. In reading the rest of your comments, you're clearly taking my 'unsustainable' as pragmatic rather than moral.

Would you have us stop attempting to avoid it or just stop firing at all??

You had access to the last sentence of my post when you commented on it, so why ignore it here.

Firing incidents don't work that way. You need to clear any fire with the senior officer in the field - for the Air Force it's generally the Flight leader or Squadron Commander, so for the Navy i'm assuming it's the ship Captain or at least First Mate, who has to radio in command to request permission to fire. If there was suspicion and someone cleared the firing request, this isn't one bloodthirsy commander losing it - it's a chain of command thing.
Armies are strange like that. We demand discipline and stuff.

Even if my comment wasn't sarcastic, it will not be clear to an observer why you think this 'clarification' helps your cause.

When the need arises, we do dismiss them. I personally saw a CO go into early retirment over a stupid comment he made to some female soldiers...

Tens of thousands of 'accidental' Palestinian deaths, and army personnel stand more chance of getting fired for being rude to Israelis.

Given your last two contributions, can I ask if you're really an Israeli, or a cunning Palestinian impostor trying to make the Israelis look bad??

That's not much of a reply...

Well, Israel hasn't much of a case.

Defense or offense, IDF or Zionist Occupation army, screw semantics. I firmly believe the purpose of the military is to kill stuff that the Political branch says it wants dead. You want to make a fuss out of it? Take it up to our elected officials. Our military is there following orders. Stop blaming the military for doing its bloody job.

Our sympathy goes out to the wives and children of the 'stuff'.
That is, where the 'stuff' isn't a wife or child already.
You really are a Palestinian troll, aren't you??

I'd like to have my family's home in Poland back, but that's just not a realistic demand considering it's occupied by a Polish family that bought it legally down there. I accept the fact they live there and don't go batshit insane over it, screaming bloody murder and blowing up buses because I'm a civilized person. So let's all work together and find a different and alternate solution which doesn't involve us, ships and several million metric tons of seawater, alright?

I think your claim to being civilized is hard to sustain in the light of your earlier comments.
Why not discuss it with some 'stuff'.

 

[Sidhe]

I'd hardly consider it "Their land" without proper negotiation - if you are really going to split hairs, then we did obliberate the "arab state" declared in the partition of 1947 when we were raided in May of 1948. Nevertheless, the "Arab state" did not declare itself existant when the British left, and so the land was repossessed by the Jordanians and Egyptians, which means that the new Jewish state conquered the Gaza Strip from the Egyptians and the the West Bank from the Jordanians. Historically and truly factually speaking, the local population may not be Jewish or Israeli-friendly, but the fact they are ethnically Palestinian does not make them nationally palestinian. The negotiations here are made to change the legal status of an autonomous minority into a new nation - we're forming a country that wasn't there, much like Israel was formed when it wasn't there in 1947. Their legal status is of Israeli citizens with Palestinian self-rule. They have their own local government in the sense that an American state has a local government, however their infrastructure is still at the very least in 85% reliant on Israeli resources and factories, hence the problem: They are screaming "murder" over the occupation and want independence badly, but they are unable at this point to govern over an area that is slightly smaller than the city of Pasadena.

Since the strip of land we're arguing about is so small, every single kilometer matters. At any given time, our major cities are under threat of being shelled by rockets - consider our situation similar to the blitz of London, only the bombers our enemy has are also in range of Manchester, Dublin, Belfast and even Glasgow. This is beyond the point of "stolen land". Even if we were to concede the factually incorrect point that we're squatting over their land, the law in every major western country grant ownership of a property via possession in certain circumstances - if a family lives in an abandoned building for 58 years, remodels it and makes it look like a classy place instead of a dusty bunch of ruins, and then the owner shows up after neglecting the property for nearly six decades demanding it back - the court battle usually ends in favor of the "squatters" or in some sort of compromise,

Possession is 9/10th of the law. The remaining 10th, in my country's philosophy, is the ability to maintan your possessions. Might doesn't make right, but what's the point of being right when you're forced into flight?

Yes I see, you do want to dance around the issue, semantics pure and simple: you stole the land and now refuse to give it up on a technicality, trouble is as I pointed out the right and wrong of the issue still rests in the letter of the treaty, whether you want to argue semantics or not, you broke it, so you can't in all fairness justify keeping it. In a court of law I'm sure political semantics would receive short shrift when your nations signature is at the bottom of the page, bottom line is if you can't keep your word then don't sign treaties. This whole mess isn't black and white admittedly and I don't think either side can justify it's actions, and frankly I've heard it from both sides and neither side makes a case for justification. That's why I like to bandy about the word compromise, it means both sides have to give something up to maintain peace, it's the only sensible solution IMO.

 

[Sh3kel]

Oh, I don't think so. In reading the rest of your comments, you're clearly taking my 'unsustainable' as pragmatic rather than moral.

Morality dictates we shouldn't fire back and turn the other cheek. Most christians who held that belief were fed to the lions - not a viable option, you agree I'm sure.
I'm taking the pragmatic route because it's pretty hard to act moral when you're dead.

Even if my comment wasn't sarcastic, it will not be clear to an observer why you think this 'clarification' helps your cause.

Because I happen to hate being on the recieving end of a wrong accusation. The gunner may have fired the shell, but the orders came from the Divisional command and this is hardly a case of bloodlust - this is of course a very unfortunate and saddening incident. I'm not going to stand here and tell you they had it coming because they didn't - there's no defending this kind of thing. The principle behind it however does hold some water.

Tens of thousands of 'accidental' Palestinian deaths, and army personnel stand more chance of getting fired for being rude to Israelis.

Given your last two contributions, can I ask if you're really an Israeli, or a cunning Palestinian impostor trying to make the Israelis look bad??

Tens of thousands? There's a flat out lie if I ever saw one... There haven't been any more than 7,000 deaths in the entire conflict over the span of the last decade!

I wish to see your sources for this number. The present figures I know of speak of a 66% combatant to non combatant ratio for Palestinians killed and a 70% non-combatant to combatant ratio for Israelis killed...

Our sympathy goes out to the wives and children of the 'stuff'.
That is, where the 'stuff' isn't a wife or child already.
You really are a Palestinian troll, aren't you??

We're soldiers. The only orders we don't do are those which call for us to kill the obivously innocent or the inhuman - and being damn fine soldiers too we don't question the orders when they're legitimate. If my commanding officer asks me to mark a house and tells me there's a terrorist cell in the basement, I'll flag it and pass down the intel to the guys in the field who either lift a chopper to the air to Hellfire it into the afterworld, or break into the house and capture him if he's worth the bust. If a ship captain has reason to believe he's seeing a launch site and intel from battalion confirms, the gunner has no reason not to fire a shell at the target.
As stated previously - we're the military. We're there to blow things up, and as politically incorrect as it may sound, our job is to end lives. It's up to command to decide how we get the job done and up to the political branch to decide which jobs they pass on to command. The guy in the line just does as he's told.

I think your claim to being civilized is hard to sustain in the light of your earlier comments.
Why not discuss it with some 'stuff'.

Inanimate objects do not respond properly to negotations. I'd rather negotiate with the Palestinians.

Yes I see, you do want to dance around the issue, semantics pure and simple: you stole the land and now refuse to give it up on a technicality, trouble is as I pointed out the right and wrong of the issue still rests in the letter of the treaty, whether you want to argue semantics or not, you broke it, so you can't in all fairness justify keeping it. In a court of law I'm sure political semantics would receive short shrift when your nations signature is at the bottom of the page, bottom line is if you can't keep your word then don't sign treaties. This whole mess isn't black and white admittedly and I don't think either side can justify it's actions, and frankly I've heard it from both sides and neither side makes a case for justification. That's why I like to bandy about the word compromise, it means both sides have to give something up to maintain peace, it's the only sensible solution IMO.

Let's try this again, only with links and evidence this time.
In your home country of Britain there is a law called "Adverse Possession for Squatters", which falls under the jurisdiction of property law.

Everybody, whether lawyer or layperson, knows about squatters' rights. Twelve years adverse possession and you acquire possessory title - but, if title to the land is registered, no longer. One of the foundations of English and Welsh land law has been cast into the melting pot of statutory reform and emerged looking very different. Part 9 of the Land Registration Act 2002, which was brought into force on 13 October 2003, contains an entirely new scheme.

The "new scheme" talked about means you no longer get to own land immediately after 12 years - you have to prove one of three conditions:

(a) it would be unconscionable because of an equity of estoppel for the registered proprietor to seek to dispossess the applicant; or

(b) the applicant is for some reason entitled to be registered as a proprietor; or

(c) in some circumstances, the land is adjacent to land belonging to the applicant).

Via sections (a) and (b), Israel is more than legally entitled to hold the land it has had in its possession for over 58 years, even if your were to consider the Palestinians to be the rightful owners.
Legally speaking, even in your own country, kicking someone out from your property after you've neglected it for over a decade because suddenly the squatters made it heaven is illegal and the squatter generally has the law on his side.

Even assuming you're right (which I firmly belive you're not) and we're here illegaly (and we're not), we've been here for more than long enough to fulfill the conditions of the squatter's law. We own the place by possessions.

 

[bathsheba666]

The guy in the line just does as he's told.

My condolences.
This puts you in some pretty despicable company down the ages.
Nice to see you're bearing up under the strain.

 

[Sh3kel]

My condolences.
This puts you in some pretty despicable company down the ages.
Nice to see you're bearing up under the strain.

I could reply with thousands of examples as to why this statement, regardless of how "uncaring" it sounds, is true. The Pope was an AA gunner in the war, does that make him an axe-wielding, genocidial maniac hellbent on death? Nah, I think he was forced into a horsehockey situation, just like most of us. As impossible as it may seem to you, the army is not made of robots trained to kill - but of disciplined men. Not everyone in the line is bloodthirsty and wants to kill teddy bears because we feed on tears and misery. Generally the main motive for doing what you're told is that you want to avoid getting shot for treason.

Unfathomable, isn't it? A Jew understanding why a Wermacht recruit fought for the Nazis?
There's a large distinction between executing civilians and fighting the enemy. We do as we're told when the orders are lawful. We disobey when they're not. So far, I haven't been ordered to execute civilians and haven't shot anyone. I'm pretty certain Leha was in a combat post and he hasn't shot anyone either.

I think you should count yourself fortunate, and I believe most of our differences stem from a simple fact - you don't have to wake up every morning, look out towards the east and know that 25 kilometers away is a very large settlement full of very angry people with guns who want to end your life specifically. It's a sad realization when you realise the guys on the ground are shooting at you.

Exposure to a truly hostile environemnt is an eye-opening experience. I suggest you take a tour of Kashmir or Saudi Arabia to understand my point.

 

[bathsheba666]

You seem to have done a fairly good job of personalising this and making your character the issue, rather than the way Israel is conducting itself.

This merely distracts from the point, as do many Israeli apologists for annexation, and on a regular basis.

Interesting that you bring up the subject of the Nazis. Are you somehow inviting us to condone their actions also, because a good many of their number were just soldiers avoiding being shot for desertion? In a sane world, or even this forum, I assume I'm safe in thinking you won't get many takers for that.
So why should Israel be an exception?

Interesting how a good many of your arguments are made in getting me to understand your point of view, and yet I see them as completely undermining the Israeli position.

Also, you assume I have no imagination. I acknowledge this is rather a small slight compared with my attitude to the Israeli military. However, your proposed solution seems to be that I go get myself brutalised so I can understand brutality.

I rather think the point is to stop it, not to join in.

 

[greekguy]

Yes I see, you do want to dance around the issue, semantics pure and simple: you stole the land and now refuse to give it up on a technicality, trouble is as I pointed out the right and wrong of the issue still rests in the letter of the treaty, whether you want to argue semantics or not, you broke it, so you can't in all fairness justify keeping it. In a court of law I'm sure political semantics would receive short shrift when your nations signature is at the bottom of the page, bottom line is if you can't keep your word then don't sign treaties. This whole mess isn't black and white admittedly and I don't think either side can justify it's actions, and frankly I've heard it from both sides and neither side makes a case for justification. That's why I like to bandy about the word compromise, it means both sides have to give something up to maintain peace, it's the only sensible solution IMO.

Name one example of Israel stealing land from the Palestinians.

 

[Winterfell]

interesting that you bring up the subject of the Nazis. Are you somehow inviting us to condone their actions also, because a good many of their number were just soldiers avoiding being shot for desertion? In a sane world, or even this forum, I assume I'm safe in thinking you won't get many takers for that.
So why should Israel be an exception?

Reading comprehension.
He was not talking about nazis, he was talking about german soldiers.
Not all germans were nazis during WW2, some of them just had to fight because the goverment told them to.

 

[Sh3kel]

Interesting that you bring up the subject of the Nazis. Are you somehow inviting us to condone their actions also, because a good many of their number were just soldiers avoiding being shot for desertion? In a sane world, or even this forum, I assume I'm safe in thinking you won't get many takers for that.
So why should Israel be an exception?

I can understand and respect a Wermacht soldier in the Eastern Front charging the Russians lines for the Volksreich and I can understand and respect an SS trooper stationed with the 352nd and kicking the crap out of the American 101st Airborne and 2nd Infantry in Omaha. They were fine soldiers and professionals to the bone. Their ideology and attrocities do not subtract from the sheer balls those men had nor does it make them any less worthy of respect - they were shoved into a horsehockey situation by their country and they managed themselves admirably. I can respect both sides of an armed conflict in which a soldier fights against another soldier, be it by tactics of open and full scale warfare or guerilla combat.
The German WW2 veterans are getting a raw deal from the rememberance angle, but that's an issue for another thread. They were soldiers, and the fact they were on the losing side does not make them lesser men.

what I can disagree with is their ideology and fanaticsm - I consider it a real problem. This is one of the major truths of warfare - just because they're my enemy and they're trying to kill me does not prevent me the need to extend them respect. I think the nazis were ideologically a horrible people, but their men on the lines were also deserving of the title "the greatest generation".

The people I cannot and should not respect were the guard at the Death camps and the SS Einzesgruppen execution squad soldiers. People who voluntarily and willingly commit war crimes beyond the point of denial are not humans. The distinction between soldier and monster is a fine line, and the fact I have respect for the other side's soldiers doesn't mean I can't condemn their attrocities. The Germans gave us the concept of modern warfare. They also introduced modern genocide. Please make a grown up differntiation of the two and understand the concepts are linked, but not via a siamese-twin type of bond.

Interesting how a good many of your arguments are made in getting me to understand your point of view, and yet I see them as completely undermining the Israeli position.

I cannot be held responsible for your conclusions. I'm not inside your head.

Also, you assume I have no imagination. I acknowledge this is rather a small slight compared with my attitude to the Israeli military. However, your proposed solution seems to be that I go get myself brutalised so I can understand brutality.

I rather think the point is to stop it, not to join in.

I used to think the same way till I enlisted. I barely saw any action on the territories - I've spent there, overall, maybe two months of my life. But what I do know and what I have learned from my rear-guard posts and my short stay at checkpoints and base entrances, is that imagination has nothing on reality. You can imagine what they're going through all you want - but you're missing out on the small details like the smell of gunpowder.

I sincerely wish you never have to understand the difference between the two and that you never have your heart drop to your underwear as fast as it does when the base alarm cries out to man all stations because the base has apparently been infiltrated. It's second only to the speed it drops when the air raid siren goes off.

 

[bathsheba666]

Reading comprehension.
He was not talking about nazis, he was talking about german soldiers.
Not all germans were nazis during WW2, some of them just had to fight because the goverment told them to.

You can take either of the following responses:

1)
Yes, of course, and your point is?

or

2)
Thank you for making my point again.
But there's no need really, because I already made it.
You should make friends with Leha, he often contrives to not see what I'm saying either.

---

Oh, btw, in case this is also not clear enough for you..
.. look up the meanings of the word 'contrive'.
(Wouldn't I just hate it if you missed this point and implication also.)

---

Or to put it in your own terms, you could do with some comprehension comprehension. Reading isn't enough.

 

[Winterfell]

You can take either of the following responses:

1)
Yes, of course, and your point is?

or

2)
Thank you for making my point again.
But there's no need really, because I already made it.
You should make friends with Leha, he often contrives to not see what I'm saying either.

---

Oh, btw, in case this is also not clear enough for you..
.. look up the meanings of the word 'contrive'.
(Wouldn't I just hate it if you missed this point and implication also.)

---

Or to put it in your own terms, you could do with some comprehension comprehension. Reading isn't enough.

Great.. I use a language which is not a mother tongue, mocking me is ver infantile.
Did it come to your mind I did understand your point, but you didnt understand mine? I sure not.

Go on. Live in your glass house in your safe country and point shameful fingers at people trying to save themselves and their families.
Until you will come here, live among us and read our military and political plans you will never understand how much we can be alike.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Modern civilization has become too civilized for it's own good, it has forgotten how to fight a war. The peace of the dead is the only way this will end. The Israeli's have the means, but not the stomach for it. The Palestinians have the stomach, but not the means. I wonder how many more generations are going to have this festering mess inflicted on them.

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
Yeah, it was tragedy. Very tragic accident. If you were an israeli officer I am sure you would give order to start new round of hostilities.

 

[Winner]

A spokesman for Hamas, Sami Abu Zuhri, said it was "impossible to remain silent" after viewing "terrifying pictures of the women and children" on the beach.

"These demonstrations emphasize the necessity of the renewal of the struggle," he said. (Watch the aftermath on the beach -- :46)

A mass demonstration erupted in Gaza City, and protesters Friday evening were demanding revenge for recent attacks that include the beach shelling and Thursday's killing of a Hamas official in an Israeli missile strike.

If only they protested so vigorously against the atrocities commited by their own people, that would be great.

I hope Israel will finish the construction of their security wall ASAP.

 

[bathsheba666]

Great.. I use a language which is not a mother tongue, mocking me is ver infantile.
Did it come to your mind I did understand your point, but you didnt understand mine? I sure not.

You suggest I cannot read, then complain I mock you..
Are you for real?

It was perfectly clear from your original response you did not understand my point.
Because, if you had, you might have tried to rebut my point instead of providing an example of it.

If you understood my point, then try spelling out:
a) what it was.
b) how your comment was relevant to rebutting it

But, don't worry, I really am not holding my breath

Go on. Live in your glass house in your safe country and point shameful fingers at people trying to save themselves and their families.
Until you will come here, live among us and read our military and political plans you will never understand how much we can be alike.

You really are breathtaking.
A family lying on a beach one day gets blown up.
So of course we're invited to rue ..... the lot of the poor Israeli soldier.

I wonder why Hamas thinks it needs suicide bombers to make any impression on you. Obviously they're not going to succeed.