Isreals media blitzkrieg!

This explains the whole Qana hoax thing.

Our problem is the foreign media shows Lebanese suffering, but not Israeli. We’re bypassing that filter by distributing pictures showing how northern Israelis suffer from Katyusha rocket attacks.”
Click to expand...

Haven't about 50 Israeli's been killed (over half of which are soldiers), when over 900 lebanese, mostly civilians, have died? Why should you expect proportionate coverage when the numbers are so small, relative to the lebanese?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']This explains the whole Qana hoax thing.



Haven't about 50 Israeli's been killed (over half of which are soldiers), when over 900 lebanese, mostly civilians, have died? Why should you expect proportionate coverage when the numbers are so small, relative to the lebanese?[/quote]

I'll ask the question asked in any court of law: who threw the first punch?
 
[quote name='camoor']I'll ask the question asked in any court of law: who threw the first punch?[/quote]

You are really ignorant of the law if you think that's a valid defense. If I walk up to you and punch you in the gut, and you pull out a gun and unload the clip into me, you're going to jail.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You are really ignorant of the law if you think that's a valid defense. If I walk up to you and punch you in the gut, and you pull out a gun and unload the clip into me, you're going to jail.[/quote]

Depends, did your punch have collateral damage that killed 11 innocent bystanders including women and childres?
 
[quote name='camoor']Depends, did your punch have collateral damage that killed 11 innocent bystanders including women and childres?[/QUOTE]

Please God, think of the childres.


I hope Isreal completely wipes out Hezbollah, Hamas, name your terrorist cell here. Unfortunately, someone else will just take their place.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Please God, think of the childres.


I hope Isreal completely wipes out Hezbollah, Hamas, name your terrorist cell here. Unfortunately, someone else will just take their place.[/quote]

FYI only Israel is real, ironically Isreal is not real.

Glass houses my friend, glass houses.:razz:
 
[quote name='camoor']Depends, did your punch have collateral damage that killed 11 innocent bystanders including women and childres?[/quote]

Funny, I though the punch involved capturing two soldiers.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Haven't about 50 Israeli's been killed (over half of which are soldiers), when over 900 lebanese, mostly civilians, have died? Why should you expect proportionate coverage when the numbers are so small, relative to the lebanese?[/QUOTE]

Alonzo, why do you insist on feeling sorry for these people? They are all martyrs and get to sit at the right hand of allah with 72 virgins after being killed in a war with the jews. It's what they WANT, isn't it? If it's not what they want, then why not just give the kidnapped soldiers back and call it quits - no harm, no foul ?

How dare israel put so much value on a soldier's life anyway. After all, they're not REAL people, they're just war machine pawns.
 
Mulligan, put 2 soldiers against 100 civilians and the soldiers should be sacrificed every time.

And, despite your sarcasm, it doesn't even make sense at all since civilians aren't the ones fighting.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Thanks for the links. Those doctored photos are disturbing...[/QUOTE]

Mostly they added a bit more smoke and a few more missiles.

Cannot say Im that indignant about it, not that it is right it just seems to be grasping for straws.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Mulligan, put 2 soldiers against 100 civilians and the soldiers should be sacrificed every time.

And, despite your sarcasm, it doesn't even make sense at all since civilians aren't the ones fighting.[/quote]

I thought the "10000 dogs for one person" hypothetical arguement in another thread was stupid, but you have surpassed that in idiocy.
 
So, camoor, did mulligan not bring up the value of a soldiers life? Or did Israel not take action that would result in massive civilian deaths over a soldiers life?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So, camoor, did mulligan not bring up the value of a soldiers life? Or did Israel not take action that would result in massive civilian deaths over a soldiers life?[/quote]

It's a life being held hostage. There is no need to qualify it as a "soldier's life" - as if that somehow lowers the value.

And just how many soldiers should be sacrificed, how much appeasement is necessary before one is allowed to strike back in alonzoworld? 100 soldiers? 500 soldiers? 20% of your land-mass?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So, camoor, did mulligan not bring up the value of a soldiers life? Or did Israel not take action that would result in massive civilian deaths over a soldiers life?[/quote]

And through appeasement, allowing two soldiers to die, does Israel make future attacks more or less likely? How many soldiers would you have Israel sacrifice before they can return fire?

What is the proper response?
 
[quote name='Quillion']
What is the proper response?[/QUOTE]


And there's the question I dare someone to answer, because there is no correct answer. There is no status quo after something like this.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Mostly they added a bit more smoke and a few more missiles.

Cannot say Im that indignant about it, not that it is right it just seems to be grasping for straws.[/QUOTE]

That any major news organization used doctored photos (doctored in any way) disturbs me, and it should disturb you as well, just like it was even more disturbing when CNN promised Saddam Hussein more favorable coverage in exchange for exclusive Baghdad access.
 
[quote name='Quillion']And through appeasement, allowing two soldiers to die, does Israel make future attacks more or less likely? How many soldiers would you have Israel sacrifice before they can return fire?

What is the proper response?[/QUOTE]

Just remember alonzo has already asserted some time ago that soldiers' lives in his mind mean less than civilians' lives, so probably the answer is yes, let the soldiers be tortured/killed for "peace."
 
[quote name='elprincipe']That any major news organization used doctored photos (doctored in any way) disturbs me, and it should disturb you as well[/QUOTE]

Did you even read what I wrote?

Its not right what they did, however for it to be used as an example of some kind of conspiracy is grasping at straws.

BTW on the debate on whether a soldiers life is "worth" less than a civilians life thats not an uncommon nor illogical view.

Soldiers are payed,trained, armed and equipped to face danger, civilians are not.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's a life being held hostage. There is no need to qualify it as a "soldier's life" - as if that somehow lowers the value.

And just how many soldiers should be sacrificed, how much appeasement is necessary before one is allowed to strike back in alonzoworld? 100 soldiers? 500 soldiers? 20% of your land-mass?[/quote]

So anything less than bombing all of Lebanon is appeasement?

And since when do you engage in actions that will kill hundreds to save 2?

And through appeasement, allowing two soldiers to die, does Israel make future attacks more or less likely? How many soldiers would you have Israel sacrifice before they can return fire?
Click to expand...

They were unlikely to die, as they were valuable as a bargaining tool to get captured Lebanese back.

And, considering the failure of previous attempts (ie. invasion of Lebanon in the early 80's), this make future problems more likely.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So anything less than bombing all of Lebanon is appeasement?

And since when do you engage in actions that will kill hundreds to save 2?[/quote]

You realize that any israeli death, concession, or withdrawl is considered a victory by those peace-loving-freedom-fighter groups, right? By using limited countermeasures, they play into the terrorist propoganda that Israel is weak and will capitulate,.... I mean negociate.



They were unlikely to die, as they were valuable as a bargaining tool to get captured Lebanese back.
Click to expand...

Not true. A 2004 Israeli prisoner exchange traded over 400 palestinians for 3 dead bodies and 1 live war pawn. In fact, the history of prisoner exchanges had little to do with whether they were still breathing.

But how much is enough, alonzo? Do you just keep letting them kidnap soldiers ad infinitum? When does it reach the point that you gove permission to fight back?

And, considering the failure of previous attempts (ie. invasion of Lebanon in the early 80's), this make future problems more likely.
Click to expand...

What makes future problems more likely is agreeing to a cease fire when you have your enemies surrounded and have the ability to cripple them but choose not to do it becuase of a wonky world opinion that you are being unfair and not allowing your enemy to kill more of your soldiers.

Disproportionate force is the only way to settle a conflict like this one. The egyptians got their asses kicked enough times that they decided to make a real peace. These groups need a few real ass kickings to wake up and realize the world isn't going to let them fuck with israel anymore.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Did you even read what I wrote?

Its not right what they did, however for it to be used as an example of some kind of conspiracy is grasping at straws.

BTW on the debate on whether a soldiers life is "worth" less than a civilians life thats not an uncommon nor illogical view.

Soldiers are payed,trained, armed and equipped to face danger, civilians are not.[/QUOTE]

As for the value of a soldiers life vs a civilians I think its a moot point in this case (and many others) since Israeli soldiers are mostly conscripted right out of high school. They didn't really volunteer or go for the pay so they are basically just civilians who are forced to fight. I for one don't think this makes their lives worth any less than the average civilian. I wouldn't think their lives were worth less if they volunteered either, although at least in that case you could make the argument that they willingly gave their lives up to their cause and therefore can be used as their government wills.

As for the lives of 2 soldiers vs 200 civilian lives, I don't think that was the point that started the war any more than WMD's started the war in Iraq. It was a convienent public excuse to start a large scale offensive against Hezbollah in retaliation for the various attacks/kidnappings it has been involved in for a long time.

As for the war itself, yes Israel had a reasonable excuse to start it since they were being attacked but it was still a bad idea (as are most wars). The main reason being that Israel is hated by pretty much all of its neighbors and is only viable in the region due to its strong military force. Using this force especially in a way that highlights how ineffective it can be and kills many people who aren't even involved in the fighting has the potential to turn the whole region against them and makes future wars/attacks more likely. They should have fully exhausted diplomatic measures first and then if that failed went with a more limited offensive.
 
[quote name='miker8']As for the value of a soldiers life vs a civilians I think its a moot point in this case (and many others) since Israeli soldiers are mostly conscripted right out of high school. They didn't really volunteer or go for the pay so they are basically just civilians who are forced to fight. I for one don't think this makes their lives worth any less than the average civilian. I wouldn't think their lives were worth less if they volunteered either, although at least in that case you could make the argument that they willingly gave their lives up to their cause and therefore can be used as their government wills.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough and I do understand where you are coming from.

However what you are saying is that "Oh the Israeli Soldiers are just like civilians, except for the Weapons the pay the training and the fact that they arent civilians".
 
[quote name='miker8']They should have fully exhausted diplomatic measures first and then if that failed went with a more limited offensive.[/quote]

Diplomatic measures? Such as having Hezbollah make a Mel Gibson style apology?

The president of Lebanon is extremely weak, neither he nor the government were going to do anything about this. I wonder how partial to diplomatic negotiations you would be if rocket mortars were detonating in your streets.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Alonzo, why do you insist on feeling sorry for these people? They are all martyrs and get to sit at the right hand of allah with 72 virgins after being killed in a war with the jews. It's what they WANT, isn't it? If it's not what they want, then why not just give the kidnapped soldiers back and call it quits - no harm, no foul ?

How dare israel put so much value on a soldier's life anyway. After all, they're not REAL people, they're just war machine pawns.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because all them damn sangniggers is crazy fundamentalists. That while "innocent civilian" stuff is a load of bullshit, they are all terrorists.

fuck their brown asses. Their children need to be killed so their stupid little race can die out.

Right?
 
[quote name='camoor']I'll ask the question asked in any court of law: who threw the first punch?[/QUOTE]

That depends how many decades/centuries you go back.

I'm not an expert, but I'd pick 1948 - the UN gives the jewish people half of palestine/israel to give them a place to live (that was after the holocaust, remember); immediately later, they were attacked by all the surrounding arabic nations.

Others, from both sides, will tell you horrible stories; some of which are true, some aren't.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Did you even read what I wrote?

Its not right what they did, however for it to be used as an example of some kind of conspiracy is grasping at straws.

BTW on the debate on whether a soldiers life is "worth" less than a civilians life thats not an uncommon nor illogical view.

Soldiers are payed,trained, armed and equipped to face danger, civilians are not.[/quote]

It being used as an example of some conspiracy is not grasping at straws at all. It is a BETRAYAL OF TRUST!! How are we to know when they are telling the truth and when they aren't? Just like the Dan Rather incident. They are betraying us when all news agencies are supposed to do is REPORT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS!! NOT TRY TO INFLUENCE US!!
 
[quote name='schuerm26']It being used as an example of some conspiracy is not grasping at straws at all. [/QUOTE]

Last time I checked Conspiracy by definition includes more than one person.

I can actually hear the spittle splash against your monitor.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']That's a perfect example of opposing sides. One side would view the formation of Israel as the punch, the other would view the attack as the punch.[/QUOTE]

Except that the formation if Israel was the result of a U.N. vote, and the attack was an act of violence - war, specifically. Not exactly comparable.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Except that the formation if Israel was the result of a U.N. vote, and the attack was an act of violence - war, specifically. Not exactly comparable.[/quote]

Well, should the u.n. be able to vote to make california an independent Hispanic state? And, if they did and someone actually tried to enforce it, what would the response be? And would the response be considered unprovoked?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Last time I checked Conspiracy by definition includes more than one person.

I can actually hear the spittle splash against your monitor.[/quote]

Come on. Do you actually think the Reuters news organization thought the pictures weren't doctored? Every expert that has commented on the pics say they were easily detected. These left wing news organizations need to realize they can't get crap by like they could before. Makes you wonder how much crap went on in the days before the internet and mainstream Conservative talk radio.
 
[quote name='eldad9']That depends how many decades/centuries you go back.

I'm not an expert, but I'd pick 1948 - the UN gives the jewish people half of palestine/israel to give them a place to live (that was after the holocaust, remember); immediately later, they were attacked by all the surrounding arabic nations.

Others, from both sides, will tell you horrible stories; some of which are true, some aren't.[/quote]

Well, we can go back in time and have a merry old time discussing American Indians, Crusades of the Middle Ages, Slavery, Ghengis Kahn, etc

Muslims need to come to terms with the terrorists in their midst. Today. As an American, I like many others speak out against the new crusades - imperialism in the name of spreading democracy and stability must cease. However you almost never hear non-American Muslim leaders speaking out against the terrorist cause - and whether it's fear, apathy, or silent agreement - there's just no excuse.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Come on. Do you actually think the Reuters news organization thought the pictures weren't doctored? Every expert that has commented on the pics say they were easily detected. These left wing news organizations need to realize they can't get crap by like they could before. Makes you wonder how much crap went on in the days before the internet and mainstream Conservative talk radio.[/QUOTE]

Yes I would say Reuters had no clue said photos were 'Shopped.

BTW every expert in the country planet or known universe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top