Larry Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Oh, I'm certainly not an Israel supporter. (Been known to use the terms "war crimes" and "terrorist" on occasion). But even I say that Israel has a perfectly legitimate justification for demanding that Palestine be relatively disarmed for some kind of probationary period. And I'm thinking this period will be measured in decades. (I'm also resigned to the fact that we're gonna have to let Israel keep the land they've stolen in Jerusalem. I'm not happy about it. But I think they've owned it for too long, and the statute of limitations has run out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 The key piece will be arms. No chance Israel allows it, or allows anything past the blockade that could be used to attack them. The distrust is too deep. I don't think Israel can stop the arms getting into Gaza. The blockade since 2006 hasn't stopped Hamas from acquiring tens of thousands of the rockets. I don't think that's going to change... The only way Israel changes that is to occupy Gaza and put boots on the ground... Which Israel won't do because that cure is more costly than taking the occasional rocket strikes. The rest of it looks easy really. Both sides and the International Community could and would go along. I don't know if I would go that far.. There are still hard issues for both sides to overcome... I just think the effort is best spent on negotiating on those issues than these violent erruptions.. It's the rockets and tunnels that will keep it from happening. All violence on both sides is irreverent. It doesn't accomplish anything but to harden hearts and in the end they are going to be in the same place working on the same issues. Israel can't dictate a solution, neither can the Palestinians. The rockets are a distraction and an impediment to peace; as are Israel's attacks on Gaza. A question for anyone to answer. Has the PA ever tried to create a Palestinian State that ONLY included the West Bank? I don't think that would be or historically has been acceptable to the PA who rules in the West Bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Why would they be opposed to it? It's not like they are super friendly with Hamas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Oh, I'm certainly not an Israel supporter. (Been known to use the terms "war crimes" and "terrorist" on occasion). But even I say that Israel has a perfectly legitimate justification for demanding that Palestine be relatively disarmed for some kind of probationary period. And I'm thinking this period will be measured in decades. (I'm also resigned to the fact that we're gonna have to let Israel keep the land they've stolen in Jerusalem. I'm not happy about it. But I think they've owned it for too long, and the statute of limitations has run out). The only carrot on the table for Israel is security. Hopefully Israel would realize Israel has no security unless the Palestinians have it too. Least that's been true for decades; and visa versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 The only carrot on the table for Israel is security. Hopefully Israel would realize Israel has no security unless the Palestinians have it too. Least that's been true for decades; and visa versa. I dont think the two things equate. If Hamas gave Israel security, they would certainly get it in return. But Im not sure the same would happen if Israel gave it to Hamas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 Why would they be opposed to it? It's not like they are super friendly with Hamas. The PA may not like Hamas, but they realize they (West Bank) are only half of the Palestinians and they have a better chance for a comprehensive solution if they remain together. It's why Hamas has said they would honor a PA negotiated peace deal with Israel if it passed a popular referendum... and it's why the PA has tried to pull Hamas into a unity government prior to these latest troubles. I dont think the two things equate. If Hamas gave Israel security, they would certainly get it in return. But Im not sure the same would happen if Israel gave it to Hamas. That's true, but is that because the Israeli's have honorable just leadership; or because that Israeli leadership is happy to maintain the status qoe where they have most of the land, and economic resources which comes at the direct expense of the Palestinians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 6, 2014 Author Share Posted August 6, 2014 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-mideast-gaza-town-idUSKBN0G61X520140806 Once a haven for daytrippers, affluent Gaza town reduced to rubble (Reuters) - With its spacious villas and palm-lined streets, the town of Khuzaa in southern Gaza gave Palestinians a rare place to spend their free time before it was bombed and shelled to rubble last month. Largely free of the local tensions and feuds found in other neighborhoods, Khuzaa's green spaces were one of just a few destinations for daytrips in the crowded Gaza Strip, where 1.8 million people live in just 360 sq km (140 sq miles). Around 500 meters from the Israeli border, Khuzaa is now only accessible via cratered roads strewn with debris. Nearly all of its homes have been flattened and its nine mosques lie in pieces. "This was the best area in all of the Gaza Strip, it was a tourist area - secure and safe with no problems and good people," said Sami Qudih, head of Khuzaa's municipal council. "Khuzaa no longer exists, it is like an earthquake hit," he said in a makeshift office - a garage next to his destroyed family home. "We have no water, no electricity, I have been wearing these same clothes for ten days," he said, tugging his filthy flannel shirt. "I have no house, I have no Hamas, I have no jihad. I am a citizen, that is it and now I have nothing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 6, 2014 Share Posted August 6, 2014 This kind of engagement essentially makes certain that there will be a continuation of fighting for generations. Hits them just hard enough to humiliate, terrify, and infuriate but not hard enough to break spirit or will to fight. Imagine being a parent in Gaza that doesn't want their kids to continue this cycle of violence. How do they accomplish that when the kids live through repeated bulldozing, bombardment, and settlements? I'm not questioning Israel's right to act as they have, I get that Hamas is horrible, but I'm looking at the effect this type of thing will almost certainly have on young people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 I'm not questioning Israel's right to act as they have, I get that Hamas is horrible, but I'm looking at the effect this type of thing will almost certainly have on young people I'm certainly questioning Israel's right to act as they have here. The mantra we hear is Israel has a right to defend herself. I don't see it that way. In the last decade Israel took what fewer than 35 casualties due to rocket strikes going back to 2004, (*) an average of what about 3 people per year . In 2006 Israel killed what nearly 1400 mostly woman and children in an invasion of Gaza... In 2014 we are now up to what nearly 1900 Palestinians dead, again mostly women and children and it may not be over yet... Given that in any given single year Israel still kills probable 10-1 Innocent Palestinians to any innocent Israeli killed via rockets vs missiles even without these major incursions.. So here is the argument... Does Israel have the right to kill literally thousands of innocent Palestinians and claim it's to "protect" a handful of their citizens who could be killed in any given year dating back a decade... Now before you answer that, also throw into the calculation Israeli's "defense " tactics are not designed to change the status quo.. They don't stop the rockets, they aren't designed too.. They are designed to be punitive, not to disarm, not to push back, not to be a long term or even a short term solution to the Gaza Rocket problem.. Israel has decided Gaza is not enough of a threat to occupy it and stop these rockets.. Occupation would cost Israel many more soldiers lives than the rockets take, so Israel's policy is and continues to be to seige, to attack and withdrawl, not to keep boots on the ground to stop the militarily insignificant rockets.. Given these facts, does Israel have the right to kill thousands of woman and children, innocents, given her acts have nothing to do with defending Israel, and we know the net effect is mostly to kill wound and rendering homeless thousands, tens of thousands respectively innocents. They call it defense because that is the most palatable thing to call their atrocity in the world press. It's not defense because Hamas poses no threat to Israel, nor do there rockets... That's why Israel withdrew from Gaza and won't garrison troops their long term. (*) 26 Israeli's killed from June of 2004 - Nov 2012 due to rockets or mortars. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/dissecting-idf-propaganda-the-numbers-behind-the-rocket-attacks.html In 2013 Israel lost 0 people in the face of 70 rocket and mortar attacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2013 In first seven months of 2014 Israel lost 6 people due to rockets.. All in July.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Caretaker Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 The difference between IDF and Hamas is becoming less clear as the days go by. You can't condemn Hamas's actions without also condemning IDF's behavior. Hamas has done some horrible things, everyone knows that, what I can't stand are people defending the lengths at which the IDF has gone in order to "defend" themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 The difference between IDF and Hamas is becoming less clear as the days go by. You can't condemn Hamas's actions without also condemning IDF's behavior. Hamas has done some horrible things, everyone knows that, what I can't stand are people defending the lengths at which the IDF has gone in order to "defend" themselves. We don't know much about Hamas because we don't talk to them. The only American who speaks with their leadership is Jimmy Carter and we get most of our information from him... If we assume Hamas are blood thirsty ****s the only difference between them and the IDF is the IDF has better weapons and can kill many thousands of more innocents than Hamas... and of coarse Hamas is more respectful of American leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 7, 2014 Author Share Posted August 7, 2014 http://online.wsj.com/articles/unlikely-alliance-between-israel-and-egypt-stoked-gaza-tension-1407379093 Gaza Tension Stoked by Unlikely Alliance Between Israel and Egypt Israel and Egypt quietly agreed to work in concert to squeeze Hamas after Egypt's military coup in 2013, a strategy that proved effective but which some Israeli and U.S. officials now believe stoked tensions that helped spur open warfare in Gaza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 8, 2014 Author Share Posted August 8, 2014 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/08/07/europe_proposes_un_mission_for_gaza Exclusive: Europe proposes U.N. mission for Gaza BY COLUM LYNCH AUGUST 7, 2014 - 08:18 PM Major European powers have outlined a detailed plan for a European-backed U.N. mission to monitor the lifting of an Israeli and Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip and the dismantling of Hamas' military tunnel network and rocket arsenals, according to a copy of the plan obtained by Foreign Policy. The European initiative aims to reinforce wide-ranging cease-fire talks underway in Cairo. The Europeans are hoping to take advantage of this week's 72-hour humanitarian cease-fire to cobble a more durable plan addressing underlying issues that could reignite violence between Israel and the Palestinians. It remains unclear whether the European plan has the support of Hamas, Israel or the United States. It does, however, include several elements the Obama administration believes are essential, including the need to ease Gazans' plight, strengthen the role of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and ensure the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. The plan - described in a so-called "non-paper" titled "Gaza: Supporting a Sustainable Ceasefire" - envisions the creation of a U.N.-mandated "monitoring and verification" mission, possibly drawing peacekeepers from the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), which has monitored a series of Israeli-Arab truces in the region since the late 1940s. The mission "should cover military and security aspects, such as the dismantling of tunnels between Gaza and Israel, and the lifting of restrictions on movement and access," according to the document. "It could have a role in monitoring imports of construction and dual use materials allowed in the Gaza Strip, and the re-introduction of the Palestinian Authority." The key aim of the initiative is to help the Palestinian Authority gradually assume military, and political control over Gaza, which has been administered by the militant group Hamas since it drove Fatah out of a unity government that governed Gaza in 2007. The paper -- which was drafted by Britain, France, and Germany -- could serve as the basis for a U.N. Security Council resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 8, 2014 Author Share Posted August 8, 2014 http://bigstory.ap.org/article/israeli-army-says-2-rockets-fired-gaza ISRAEL-HAMAS TRUCE ENDS; TALKS ON GAZA DEADLOCKED A three-day truce between Israel and Hamas has expired after indirect talks in Cairo on new border arrangements for the blockaded Gaza Strip hit a deadlock. There was no apparent sign of a possible extension of the calm as the truce expired at 0800 (0500 GMT) on Friday. Just before the end of the truce, Gaza militants fired two rockets at Israel. A senior Hamas official told The Associated Press earlier that the group would not extend the cease-fire because Israel had not responded to any of the Palestinian demands at the negotiations underway in Cairo. Israel has said it is willing to consider easing border restrictions but demands that Hamas disarm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/08/07/europe_proposes_un_mission_for_gaza Exclusive: Europe proposes U.N. mission for Gaza BY COLUM LYNCH AUGUST 7, 2014 - 08:18 PM Major European powers have outlined a detailed plan for a European-backed U.N. mission to monitor the lifting of an Israeli and Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip and the dismantling of Hamas' military tunnel network and rocket arsenals, according to a copy of the plan obtained by Foreign Policy. I think that would be a great resolution to come, from this. (I've been proposing it for years. So it must be a great idea.) 1) I don't think there's a chance in Dallas that the UN has the ability to take away Hamas' tunnels and rockets. 2) And I don't think there's a chance in Dallas that Israel would agree to it. Partially (but not entirely) because of #1. 2a) I suspect that Hamas would be happy agree to it. Mainly because of #1. 3) I think there's a tiny, miniscule chance that Israel might agree to it, if, instead of the UN, it was the US proposing to do it. 4) There's no way the US would do it. (It would take too much, I don't know, will? Integrity? Courage?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 I think that would be a great resolution to come, from this. (I've been proposing it for years. So it must be a great idea.) 1) I don't think there's a chance in Dallas that the UN has the ability to take away Hamas' tunnels and rockets. 2) And I don't think there's a chance in Dallas that Israel would agree to it. Partially (but not entirely) because of #1. 2a) I suspect that Hamas would be happy agree to it. Mainly because of #1. 3) I think there's a tiny, miniscule chance that Israel might agree to it, if, instead of the UN, it was the US proposing to do it. 4) There's no way the US would do it. (It would take too much, I don't know, will? Integrity? Courage?) what are the benefits if it does not change the tunnels and rockets? More human shields? The UN is there now and is simply a supply depot for food and tunnel building supplies for Hamas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 Rereading my post, I see I was unclear. So I'm going to assume that you accidentally misunderstood me. (In addition to ignoring your subsequent attempts to distort reality). I'm saying that lifting the blockade, and ending the tunnels and rockets, would be a great idea, IF they can accomplish those goals. (And I don't think the UN can). (I'm not at all sure that the US could). ---------- Now, having said that? IF things work out such that the blockade is lifted, but the rockets keep getting in, anyway? Yeah, I think that would be better than it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 I think that would be a great resolution to come, from this. (I've been proposing it for years. So it must be a great idea.) 1) I don't think there's a chance in Dallas that the UN has the ability to take away Hamas' tunnels and rockets. Agreed. If the IDF won't do it because they think it's to costly... There is no chance Europe would be able to do it unless Europe would be prepared to take similar casualties... UK or France could do it but they are too smart to get involved, and no other well meaning European power would be able to do it, or would have the stones to pursue it after they started taking those casualties.. 2) And I don't think there's a chance in Dallas that Israel would agree to it. Partially (but not entirely) because of #1. Here I disagree with you. Israel would love nothing better than to hand off the GAZA problem to some other responsible party.. They've tried Egypt, they've tried Jordan; neither of whom would touch Gaza.. Israel would love for the EU to do this job... coarse if the EU didn't do the job, Israel would bomb there troops in Gaza and blame them for their own casualties. Just like they did to the Canadians and other nations who have placed security troops on Israel's boarders who proved ineffective; or inconvient to Israel's immediate security concerns. 2a) I suspect that Hamas would be happy agree to it. Mainly because of #1. Hamas is the long pole in this tent. Hamas might agree to some sort of mutual security plan with UN forces, to gain some percieved protection from Israel... Especially if it meant a lifting of the embargo.. But Hamas would have to give up any offensive capabilities, as meager as they are; and I don't think they would agree to that. 3) I think there's a tiny, miniscule chance that Israel might agree to it, if, instead of the UN, it was the US proposing to do it. Israel would and have agreed to UN peace keepers from Congo and other east Africa states who couldn't even feed themselves once deployed. And they bombed the snot out of them when they proved ineffective. Israel wouldn't be the long pole in the tent here. I think it would be Hamas. And no chance in Hell is any American President stupid enough to put American boots on the ground between Israel and a terrorist organization seeking to eradicate each other. I hope... Reagan was dumb enough to do that with our Marines in Lebonon... Hopefully we all remember that leason. 4) There's no way the US would do it. (It would take too much, I don't know, will? Integrity? Courage?) It would take stupidity and a contious effort to mis-remember history... Or it would take a willingness to escalate and deel fairly with both parties; holding them accountable for their actions.. Again something we are capable of doing but lack the political will to do as you say.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 IF things work out such that the blockade is lifted, but the rockets keep getting in, anyway? Yeah, I think that would be better than it is now. Tunnels are irrelivant. Israel didn't even know Hamas's tunnels were there prior to these latest punitive actions. There will always be tunnels. They got 1.8 million people blockaded up for nearly a decade and confined for 4 decades; what else do they have to do but dig tunnels. Rockets are irrelivant. They aren't accurate enough to be existential threat. They are an annoyance. In the near future some cleaver Palestinian is going to figure out how to put a guidence system on those rockets... and then that will be a game changer. Every square inch of Israel can be targeted with rockets if they were accurate enough from rockets launged from Gaza, West Bank, or Southern Lebonon. Every port, every airport, ever military base, every town and every city. It is projected the Palestinians have more than 100,000 rockets arrayed against Israel right now. This enevitable eventuality is what colors all the events that are now occuring.. It's why we paid and continue to pay for Iron Dome because it's the only thing standing between Israel and this pending existential threat. All this current mischeif is ratchetting up and game playing for when this day arrives, and when Israel will have no choice but to commit the IDF to what they've been trying to avoid for decades... a true boots on the ground occupation of the Palestinian population centers, and all the casualties, internal civil unrest, and world scrutinization which such actions will mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 what are the benefits if it does not change the tunnels and rockets? More human shields? The UN is there now and is simply a supply depot for food and tunnel building supplies for Hamas I agree the current UN presense is non military.. but even if the UN put a military presense into Gaza the results would be the same, unless of coarse they were from a first world nation willing to engage Hamas. And that's not going to happen. Why should the world pay the blood toll to stabilize an occupation which the world has deemed illegal for 40 years? Gaza is not a new problem, it's a 40 year old problem which is escalating. The only way to defuse it is to negotiate a solution, and that's not a world issue; it's an Israeli / Palestinian issue. The world can't care more about it than Isreal and expect for any lasting peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Observing that these rockets seem to really suck, but they sure do seem to have an endless supply of them. (And a willingness to fire them off, even though they surely know that they aren't going to hit anything. That the only result of firing them off will be to provoke more Israeli attacks.) (Which makes me wonder if that's what they want. When somebody keeps doing X, and every time they do it, Y happens, you have to wonder if they're doing X because they want Y to happen.) But then, maybe I'm giving people too much credit for being rational. Both Israel and Hamas seem to have an endless supply of weapons... Hamas because their weapons are cheap and don't work well... Israel because they have us. Depending upon what kind of rocket they are using the tech is circa 1938 red army tech. They are cheap cheap cheap... maybe a few hundred dollars which can be produced from raw materials inside of Gaza... Compare that with the Israeli Iron Dome rockets which Israel shoots up to intercept the Katush rockets. An Iron Dome battery runs $50 million, with each missile in the neighborhood of $40,000 to $100,000 (estimates vary). Even the more sophisticated rockets launched by Hamas cost considerably less. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/20/the-cost-of-iron-dome0.html Total Cost of Iron Dome... 1 Billion dollars and growing... http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/economist-explains-12 All US money, US technology... And given Israel shoots off two or three Iron dome interceptor missiles for each Hamas rocket...that goes up... That's a lot of bread.... On August 1st in the middle of these latest troubles we kicked in an additional $250 million to replace the Israeli interceptor missiles... http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-congress-iron-dome-20140801-story.html As for your greater point about Hamas shooting rockets which don't hit anything vs Israel. What you aren't considering is Israel's weapons aren't effective against Hamas either... Israel has killed what 1500 Palestinians but Hamas's casualties are probable very comparable to Israel's 63 soldiers lost.. Maybe between 100 and 300. Israel's tactics are to make Hamas feel pain, and Israel's tactics aren't working, which is what the world is telling Israel. Their punitive tactics make the innocent Palestinians feel the pain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passepartout Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 There will always be casualties on either side. No matter what way you look at it. As both sides will lose people. War is ugly and beyond! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 It's funny. I often come into these threads having sympathy for the Palestinians, but JMS always turns me around. His arguments that rocket attacks are irrelevent and tunnels are irrelevent just get to me. It's like when I'm talking to a gun rights advocate who says that Aurora, Newtown, and mass shootings are statistically insignificant and so who gives a damn about them or the recent trend of saying homocides account for only one-tenth of one percent of US deaths and so it's irrelevent. I just can't buy that argument. If someone drives by my house every day and strafes it, but I hear them coming and get my family down in the basement so no one gets hurt there comes a time where I must defend myself. The rockets matter. The fact that JMS says above that Don't know why the board is calling these Larry quotes. They are JMS quotes. Can't seem to edit them. There is no chance Europe would be able to do it unless Europe would be prepared to take similar casualties... UK or France could do it but they are too smart to get involved, and no other well meaning European power would be able to do it, or would have the stones to pursue it after they started taking those casualties.. and Israel would love nothing better than to hand off the GAZA problem to some other responsible party.. They've tried Egypt, they've tried Jordan; neither of whom would touch Gaza.. Israel would love for the EU to do this job... coarse if the EU didn't do the job, Israel would bomb there troops in Gaza and blame them for their own casualties. Just like they did to the Canadians and other nations who have placed security troops on Israel's boarders who proved ineffective; or inconvient to Israel's immediate security concerns. Points to the reality of the problem you so readily dismiss. I probably should also point out the truth you admit to when you talk about what would happen if the rockets being sent were just a touch more accurate. Anyway, it's funny what a contrarian effect you produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 It's funny. I often come into these threads having sympathy for the Palestinians, but JMS always turns me around. His arguments that rocket attacks are irrelevent and tunnels are irrelevent just get to me. more than 2000 rockets have been fired off from Gaza in the last few weeks since the latest troubles erupted. Those thousands of rockets have killed 1-2(*) Israeli's? That's militarily insignificant. Meanwhile Israel has claimed close to 1900 Palestinian casualties most of whom are innocents. The rocket's aren't an existential threat, nor are they deemed important enough by Israel to get Israel to change her strategy on dealing with Gaza from one of blockade to one of boots on the ground. They are irrelevant. The tunnels are also irrelevant. Israel didn't even know they were there until these latest troubles were well underway. They didn't prompt these troubles and again they won't change Israel's overall strategy for Gaza. It's like when I'm talking to a gun rights advocate who says that Aurora, Newtown, and mass shootings are statistically insignificant and so who gives a damn about them or the recent trend of saying homocides account for only one-tenth of one percent of US deaths and so it's irrelevent. I just can't buy that argument. Which is fine by me because I didn't make that argument.. But since you did let's go there.. Yes the mass shootings in Colorado and Massachusetts were irreverent to any military response drawn up by President Obama before or since. 12 people died in the Aurora Shooting 28 people died in the Newton Mass Shooting 2-3 people have been killed in Israel due to thousands of rocket attacks over the last month... So it would be like the US military going into mental health facilities and executing 8,000 people in response to Aurora, or 20,000 involved people with regards to Newton Mass. Folks who had nothing to do with the mass shootings, and folks the killing of whom would be known in advance wouldn't stop the next mass shooting. If someone drives by my house every day and strafes it, but I hear them coming and get my family down in the basement so no one gets hurt there comes a time where I must defend myself. The rockets matter. The fact that JMS says above that Don't know why the board is calling these Larry quotes. They are JMS quotes. Can't seem to edit them. Yes but, by your analogy, you wouldn't be justified in going into the general vicinity of the attackers homes and slaughter thousands of people and call it self defense. You'd go to jail and you would be far worse than the folks you would claim to be "defending" yourself from... And you know what.. End result, you wouldn't have stopped the drive by shootings either. (*) I believe 3 innocent civilians in Israel have been killed in these latest troubles. 1 was a guest worker, I believe 1 other was killed via tunnel incursions and 1 was killed via rocket attacks... Two Israeli Civilians and a Thai guest worker. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israeli-soldier-feared-captured-in-tunnel-attack-by-militants-9642469.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.