Gaza rocket fire resumes

[Olo]

Considering Israel does have nukes is this a call for a nuclear strike?

No, it's not. Why don't you try reading your own links.

[Hif]

Really and you think the allusion to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a reference to sushi?

And my link states exactly that, you should re-read it. He made an allusion to the only two nuclear strikes so far in the world. More so he alludes to the fact that if Hamas doesn't surrender fast enough they should do what the Americans did with Nagasaki. Its all there in plain and simple English.

[Olo]

Really and you think the allusion to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a reference to sushi?

And my link states exactly that, you should re-read it. He made an allusion to the only two nuclear strikes so far in the world. More so he alludes to the fact that if Hamas doesn't surrender fast enough they should do what the Americans did with Nagasaki. Its all there in plain and simple English.

"There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing. Then they'd really call for a ceasefire," he wrote.

"Were this to happen, the images from Gaza might be unpleasant – but victory would be swift, and the lives of our soldiers and civilians spared

youre hearing what you want to hear.

[Tierbook]

Really and you think the allusion to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a reference to sushi?

And my link states exactly that, you should re-read it. He made an allusion to the only two nuclear strikes so far in the world. More so he alludes to the fact that if Hamas doesn't surrender fast enough they should do what the Americans did with Nagasaki. Its all there in plain and simple English.

well it would be down right retarded to nuke Gaza. the difference between America in WW2 and Israel today is that Israels enemy is on its border vs being an ocean away

[mistuhbull]

Curiosity, why do you care about the opinion of Gilad Sharon? do you care about the opinion of Chelsea Clinton?

[Hif]

You should ask that of The New York Times, the Telegraph, the Washington Post etc etc. Why did they think it was such big news when "Chelsea Clinton" is speaking. Yes I get it. All these big name newspapers with paid journalists got it wrong. To make it simple. I consider it important in the same way all these big media news outlets do. If you can't see that well that is just sad.

And Olo you are ignoring his direct quote referencing Nagasaki and Hiroshima well before the paragraphs you mentioned. But its fine. Nobody really can defend it anyway and its best to ignore it completely, stick your head in the sand.

Also I have a question you haven't answered. Please tell me where I need to read my link again? I would love a clarification in that regard.

[Tierbook]

You should ask that of The New York Times, the Telegraph, the Washington Post etc etc. Why did they think it was such big news when "Chelsea Clinton" is speaking. Yes I get it. All these big name newspapers with paid journalists got it wrong. To make it simple. I consider it important in the same way all these big media news outlets do. If you can't see that well that is just sad.

And Olo you are ignoring his direct quote referencing Nagasaki and Hiroshima well before the paragraphs you mentioned. But its fine. Nobody really can defend it anyway and its best to ignore it completely, stick your head in the sand.

Also I have a question you haven't answered. Please tell me where I need to read my link again? I would love a clarification in that regard.

Israel will not nuke hamas geography proves this

[cFortyfive]

Netanyahu is disliked even by his allies. IIRC Sarkozy

Kind of funny coming from that person after the whole Libya deal to be honest.

[Olo]

You should ask that of The New York Times, the Telegraph, the Washington Post etc etc. Why did they think it was such big news when "Chelsea Clinton" is speaking. Yes I get it. All these big name newspapers with paid journalists got it wrong. To make it simple. I consider it important in the same way all these big media news outlets do. If you can't see that well that is just sad.

And Olo you are ignoring his direct quote referencing Nagasaki and Hiroshima well before the paragraphs you mentioned. But its fine. Nobody really can defend it anyway and its best to ignore it completely, stick your head in the sand.

Also I have a question you haven't answered. Please tell me where I need to read my link again? I would love a clarification in that regard.

His references to Nagasaki and Hiroshima invoked the concept of total war, meaning he believes Israel should be more aggressive. However to claim he proposed a nuclear strike is absurd. He clearly stated what he thought should be done. That fact that you’re so unable to grasp this is baffling.

[Hif]

Yes of course. There aren't other examples that don't involve a nuclear strike. Not like Drezden or other such attacks. The choice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a deliberate choice. Not one anybody makes lightly. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only two cases in world history when nuclear weapons were used. They are unique and such.

Put it this way if Iran used such language you would be jumping up and down saying they are gonna use nukes. Or would you let that slide as well?

[Olo]

Yes of course. There aren't other examples that don't involve a nuclear strike. Not like Drezden or other such attacks. The choice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a deliberate choice. Not one anybody makes lightly. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only two cases in world history when nuclear weapons were used. They are unique and such.

Put it this way if Iran used such language you would be jumping up and down saying they are gonna use nukes. Or would you let that slide as well?

Well for one, this wasn’t Israel saying this. The son of a former PM isn’t an authority figure. But to answer your question no, I’d laugh it off as typical Iranian saber rattling. I'd also be confused as fuck that Iran would be referring to something the US did as a model for them.

[Holtzmann]

Yes of course. There aren't other examples that don't involve a nuclear strike. Not like Drezden or other such attacks. The choice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a deliberate choice. Not one anybody makes lightly. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only two cases in world history when nuclear weapons were used. They are unique and such.

Dresden isn't seen as the last act of a war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are. Germany kept on fighting after Dresden, Japan capitulated after Nagasaki. His point is that if the other side refuses to give up, you need to escalate until their will breaks. Good military strategy, terrible in terms of human rights. He's entitled to his opinion and he has no judicial, legislative or executive power in Israel. He can be dismissed.

Also, the equivalent isn't Iran saying that stuff officially. The equivalent is, in a few years, Mehdi Ahmadinejad saying Israel should be nuked. Unless he holds any positions of power in the country, it's just useless saber rattling.

[soulcrusher]

Only an israeli could find the concept of total war applicable between a modern day regional superpower and a civilian population. As for Iran and nukes, how about Israel complies with UN inspection of their nuclear facilities. Oh thats right, the rules dont apply to them.

[Hif]

Interesting all these excuses for a comment that means the annihilation of an entire populace and people are just ignoring the ramifications. Secondly a major in the IDF counts as an authority figure in my opinion. Doesn't change even if he is a low ranking one in the reserve. After all there is a reason that the New York Times, Telegraph and so many other media outlets decided his words hold weight. The media considers him of importance, in the US and in the EU.

[Liara]

Interesting all these excuses for a comment that means the annihilation of an entire populace and people are just ignoring the ramifications. Secondly a major in the IDF counts as an authority figure in my opinion. Doesn't change even if he is a low ranking one in the reserve. After all there is a reason that the New York Times, Telegraph and so many other media outlets decided his words hold weight. The media considers him of importance, in the US and in the EU.

That's because the media is looking for sensationalism.
He holds no weight. Every single person in Israel is recruited, so being a soldier doesn't automatically mean your words hold any significance.
His don't. Not one single bit.

[Darkis]

After all there is a reason that the New York Times, Telegraph and so many other media outlets decided his words hold weight. The media considers him of importance, in the US and in the EU.

Since mass-media is not known for taking something that sounds really stupid, and turning it into "sensational" news. Gimme a break.

That guy is no one, and no one gives a shit about his opinion. The reference to Chealsea Clinton was quite correct.

[Wildtree]

Considering Israel does have nukes is this a call for a nuclear strike?

No, it's not a call for a nuclear strike. It's a comparison on consequently finishing a job.
Which is stupid enough, because especially the USA got under heavy criticism for not finishing a job properly twice in the rather recent past.
Operation Desert Storm. Stopped, what experts say approximately one week too soon. Instead of just sacking the capital and arresting Saddam, they ended the war. Which lead to a second war later down the road.
Hunt for Bin Laden.. Here also experts say, it would have taken 3 more weeks the most, since at that time they pretty much had control over where he can flee, and would have gotten him within said 3 weeks. Again here... took 10 years, because they turned away and invaded Iraq instead.

You also should be a little bit informed about the consequences about the side effects of nuclear weapons. Would they solve the Gaza conflict?
Absolutely not. In fact, I foresee that if Israel ever uses nuclear weapons, it will eventually trigger a war of much larger scale. With the current situation, this will not only be seen as an attack against Palestinians (or any other country - since Israel has it's eyes on others as well), but rather as an attack against the Arab World. And that will almost guaranteed unite them all, with maybe one or the other exception of nations who are too dependent on the USA/Europe at the moment.
That would really be a trigger for a World War.
But, we don't have to worry about it, I think.. There's the other aspect. Nuclear pollution/contamination.
Remember Chernobyl?


Look at the effects of that event... Nuclear Power Plant.... Now picture a nuclear bomb falling into Gaza.. Israel would wipe itself out, at least in parts.
It would effect the entire Middle East. It would therefore effect all of us, one way or another.
The moment Israel drops a nuclear missile onto Gaza, Israel is would be done.
I can easily see that at this moment Russia would not keep it's cool anymore and demand actions... Tensions are programmed.

So relax, Israel is not suicidal.

[Haarvald]

What a disgusting country Israel is, maybe not the people, but the IDF and Netanyahu are pure evil.

Netanyahu is disliked even by his allies. IIRC Sarkozy was caught off-mic saying that he's sick of Netanyahu, and calls him a liar, to which Obama replied "Youre sick of him? I have to work with him everyday".

Miss, Evil is dragging someone thru the streets behind a motorcycle until they are dead, without a trial, just flat public execution, Evil is willfully targetting the children of your enemies, while hiding behind your own children, because you are too cowardly to stand and fight like men, THAT is evil. Being LIKED isn't necessary, its never been necessary, I can give you a list of people I despise but they still are worthy of my respect for whatever reason.

[Wildtree]

Yes of course. There aren't other examples that don't involve a nuclear strike. Not like Drezden or other such attacks.

As pointed out, Dresden was not a final blow. The final blow on Germany itself was the ideal blow for movies..
The sacking of the capital Berlin, and the death of the nazi leader.

Dresden is rather an example for Warcrimes happening on both sides, and that in war there's almost never an innocent participant.
We Germans consider Hamburg as a better example btw.. Should read up what the Allies, especially Brits did to Hamburg.

[Holas]

1. By that argument we should just give the Earth to Africans since you know it belongs to them. If you want to be taken seriously speak objectively. They're are two claims of that land both I believe have some substance but not entirely true. The first is similar to the one you mentioned but not quite, the land wasn't the "Jews land for 3000 years". In 636, Muslims took control of "Palestine" giving then approximately 1200 years claim to the land ending Jewish control of that area until 1947 and the seven days war when "Israel" took over control of the land.

Now to answer "Who gets ownership of the land" we need to answer the following questions:
a. How do you determine who "own" a piece of land? military might, ancient claim or what exactly?
b. Do you lose ownership of the land after X years or is it bound to your race for eternity?

So, basically if you believe that an ancient claim or military might gives you the right to the land, then it belongs to the people who lived there in the past. However, if you believe that after a certain period or age that ownership "expires" then it belongs to who lives there now or in the recent past.

Now, some argue that after Muslims took control of "Palestine" most of the Jewish population converted to Islam due to taxes against non-Muslims in that time, the rest stayed in Palestine as Jewish as evident by the percentage of Jews in the area before 1946. If that is to be believed than it is reasonable to think that the nomads living in Palestine now are the related to those people who converted to Islam in the past.

I personally, believe that the issue is too complicated and old to have any certainty in either side claim. I also, believe that the best course of action would be to follow the 1947 U.N. resolution and form two-state solution OR form a 1 state solution encompassing both sides.

I agree its "complicated". I did not try to convince you or any other on the first 2 points. I just stated MY personal belief (yup i am entitled to have one as anyone else)

------------------
"And if the people of Gaza support hamas then im sorry but i dont "feel" for them. An entire (or majority) population wants to kill another one - that does not gain my sympathy (especially when im one of the population they want to kill)." ¬ Holas

Who told you that the majority support Hamas?

Public surveys

And even if that is true what about the minority that hates them? do you not "feel" for them?

Yes i do