Israeli Textbook Admits Jewish State a Tragedy for Palestinians

[Yarn]

Nobody is willing to counter refute, anything they say which I refute. Should I take this as a complement?

Honestly, if you can't defend what you believe, how can you be sure it is true? Are your beliefs on these very worldly matters faith based alone?

What most debate forums suck at, is that there is little tendency for most to either stand their ground, or move to a new view. Instead most just sidestepping to the point counterarguements; ignoring them.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Yarn Nobody is willing to counter refute, anything they say which I refute. Should I take this as a complement? Honestly, if you can't defend what you believe, how can you be sure it is true? Are your beliefs on these very worldly matters faith based alone? What most debate forums suck at, is that there is little tendency for most to either stand their ground, or move to a new view. Instead most just sidestepping to the point counterarguements; ignoring them.

It might not be your arguments rather your style. Learning the quote system is really not the difficult!

[pikatore]

Quote by: Yarn Human shields bearers are as responsible for the killing of their shields, as are the people who actually kill their shields to get at them. Isn't this obvious? Isn't it immoral to have innocents be killed in the name of self-preservation?

If a man robs a store, and takes a woman hostage, using her as a shield, and a sniper shoots through her to get at him, the sniper is the person that people, and the relatives and friends of the woman will be more angry at. Sure the robber was a criminal, but the sniper showed less regard for the woman's life than the robber. The robber used her as a shield, recognising the moral dillema he would present, much like Hezbollah's guerilla tactic. Unfortunately, we are in very sad times if a US backed government and military decides to ignore this dilemma altogether and blast through civilians to get at a few militants.

Quote by: Yarn What Israel did-kill a 1000 civillians, cause millions to flee their homes, cripple an economy which was just beggining to get back on its feet-all to try to destroy an organization which had conducted only one small attack on Israel in the 6 years prior-was evil, but that doesn't make Hezbollah good, or it not partly responsible for much of what happened.

I totally agree, but as misguided as Hezbollah ideals are, they were effectively using tactics based on thier circumstances. Israel suprised everyone by not really giving a damn about civilian life, and passing it off as 'collateral damage'.

Quote by: Yarn Maybe Hezbollah is good overall, but it is evil in the way it conducts war.

Hiding amongst the people is not evil, it is clever. What IS evil is knowing full well you are pressing a button or pulling a trigger that will kill innocent people. Which of course includes Hezbollah's use of the katusha rockets that it fired at Israel.

Quote by: Yarn The conflict lasted a month. Hezbollah had time to adjust to reality, and stop imbedding itself among civillians, and worse having its missle sites be right next to civillian homes. It could have easily evacuated such homes at the very least, but didn't. Israel has always been willing to give up foreign civillian lives in order to kill militants. Hezbollah wasn't stupid, it was evil.

Hezbollah isn't stupid, or evil as such, I think a better term would be stubborn. They can't go out into the open and fight in the same way Israel is fighting, because they are easily outmanned and outgunned. Thier tactic isn't exactly one option of many to choose from, if they want to pose a threat to the Israeli military.

Quote by: Yarn I don't applaud merit, or even willpower and courage, which when misguided can be a source of enormous strife. What I applaud is sound action based on the pursuance of good moral values.

I applaud courage based on whatever grounds, be it moral or not. However, the ACTION that the individual takes is what I am more critical of. I think that Hezbollah has fought well against Israel despite the odds, it doesn't mean I'm backing Hezbollah. It was a sidenote, relating to how Hezbollah as a inferior militia has to resort to different tactics, and if that means spreading out through the civilian population, then that's how it is.

Although I am in no way comparing the Israelies to Nazi Germany, I think you'll find that Hezbollah employs tactics in a sense similar to the French when they were under occupation. And that wasn't to engage the enemy out in the open, but rather to be much more clever about it.

Quote by: Yarn If Hezbollah had become non-militant or non-existent, after Israel left Lebanon in 2000, as Israel had expected Hezbollah would, none of this would have ever happened.

I think that the older people in Hezbollah are still as incensed as ever at Israel, and are not so quick to forgive and forget.

Quote by: Yarn The only thing that has ever brought Israel into Lebanon has been anti-Israeli militants.

You do know how Israel was founded, right?

[Yarn]

If a man robs a store, and takes a woman hostage, using her as a shield, and a sniper shoots through her to get at him, the sniper is the person that people, and the relatives and friends of the woman will be more angry at.

A police sniper? Well of course I would be more angry at the police sniper-by virtue of the fact he is a police man, I should be able to expect him to act responsibly. That doesn't mean however that the robber deserves to be looked at as having not done an immoral thing (in the act of making the woman a human shield). That having been said I wouldn't blame him for the death, because the police sniper acted in a way he could not have been expected to do. Police forces are known for being very careful and cautious in hostage situations; to try very hard to not let hostages be killed. Them killing hostages themselves is difficult to believe and dubious to predict.

Sure the robber was a criminal, but the sniper showed less regard for the woman's life than the robber. The robber used her as a shield, recognising the moral dillema he would present, much like Hezbollah's guerilla tactic.

Israel has had a long history of killing civillians in order to get at militants, so Hezbollah made a concious decision to preserve itself and win the PR war, by having innocent civillians be killed.

Unfortunately, we are in very sad times if a US backed government and military decides to ignore this dilemma altogether and blast through civilians to get at a few militants.

Israel has been doing this for ages. Sad times they may be, but certainly not unparalleled. I do not support what Israel did, does, or has been doing since its inception.

I totally agree, but as misguided as Hezbollah ideals are, they were effectively using tactics based on thier circumstances. Israel suprised everyone by not really giving a damn about civilian life, and passing it off as 'collateral damage'.

What Israel did was unusual only in its scale.

Here is some of what it did of this nature, just prior to the Lebanon conflict:
PCHR Weekly Report
PCHR Weekly Report

Here is a hub, which tells of what its done of this nature (a lot) in the past decade:
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights | Press Releases

Hiding amongst the people is not evil, it is clever. What IS evil is knowing full well you are pressing a button or pulling a trigger that will kill innocent people. Which of course includes Hezbollah's use of the katusha rockets that it fired at Israel.

Effectually Hezbollah did pull the trigger. It did what it knew would lead to the death of innocent civillians, again all for self preservation and popularity for its cause.

Hezbollah isn't stupid, or evil as such,

Hezbollah isn't stupid in many ways. Whether it is evil. Well what do you define as evil?

If it is not evil, than I attest neither was Hitler.

Belief that evil is good does not provide absolution in so far as I am concerned for commission of evil.

I think a better term would be stubborn.

Hezbollah is stubborn.

They can't go out into the open and fight in the same way Israel is fighting, because they are easily outmanned and outgunned. Thier tactic isn't exactly one option of many to choose from, if they want to pose a threat to the Israeli military.

They believe pursuance of their cause (which in how they do it, should obviously be percieved as vain) is worth the lives of innocents. I can't justify their killing innocents in order to try to do what they cannot.

They can't destroy Israel, and their existence as a military organization may have routed Israel from Lebanon in 2000, but they are now Israel's only pretext for not leaving Lebanon alone.

I applaud courage based on whatever grounds, be it moral or not.

Then you applaud a great many evil men and women.

However, the ACTION that the individual takes is what I am more critical of. I think that Hezbollah has fought well against Israel despite the odds, it doesn't mean I'm backing Hezbollah. It was a sidenote, relating to how Hezbollah as a inferior militia has to resort to different tactics, and if that means spreading out through the civilian population, then that's how it is.

Hezbollah is one of many semi or flat out effective guirella military organizations, which have succeeded in resisting a numerically superior and better equiped enemy, by appealing to its unwillingness to commit full scale genocide.

Although I am in no way comparing the Israelies to Nazi Germany, I think you'll find that Hezbollah employs tactics in a sense similar to the French when they were under occupation. And that wasn't to engage the enemy out in the open, but rather to be much more clever about it.

The French resistance was much more quiet than Hezbollah ever has been.

I think that the older people in Hezbollah are still as incensed as ever at Israel, and are not so quick to forgive and forget.

The world is the way it is for reasons. My point here is that the moral thing for Hezbollah to have done, was not do that which was liable to provoke Israel back into to Lebanon, and immediatly take advantage of the absence of Israeli occupation beggining in 2000 to start arm itself to the teeth, but rather to have then disarmed itself, and so brung Lebanon lasting peace, and lasting freedom from Israeli occupation.

You do know how Israel was founded, right?

Yes. It was founded on Palestine.

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: GHook93 It might not be your arguments rather your style. Learning the quote system is really not the difficult!

We agree on SOMETHING after all:eek:,

[Yarn]

So thats your excuse?

Yet your willing to refute Ghooks posts, which contain malformed sentences, spelling mistakes, and no sources.

Willing to learn English for the purpose of communication, but unwilling to refute posts containing qoutes not in blue boxes for the same purpose?

The only post of mine which you have refuted, contained quotes in italics.

Your not being honest. Thats not your real reason. Your just lazy, and find Ghook is easier to refute.

[Ibn_Sina]

Quote by: Yarn So thats your excuse? Yet your willing to refute Ghooks posts, which contain malformed sentences, spelling mistakes, and no sources. Willing to learn English for the purpose of communication, but unwilling to refute posts containing qoutes not in blue boxes for the same purpose? The only post of mine which you have refuted, contained quotes in italics. Your not being honest. Thats not your real reason. Your just lazy, and find Ghook is easier to refute.

Come on Goku, you know very well that Vigita doesn't back down from a challenge. I'm the Sayen Prince for crying out loud. :)

Your posts are difficult to follow. As soon as you master the art of posting like everyone else, I will deal with you..

[Yarn]

Your not Vegita, though I like you trying to cool down the mood. I do hope you realize that with Vegita translated from Japanese to English, what you just said was you are underpants.

Translation to simple English* at your service:

Israeli Textbook Admits Jewish State a Tragedy for Palestinians
Israel would use nukes if its existence were under true threat. That Russia and/or China would use nukes on Iran's behalf is questionable, though possible, and even if true, would be irrelevant if I. As a general rule, you don't back nuclear armed countries into a corner, or they will become desperate enough to use their nukes. Israel has shown itself willing to impoverish millions to get rid of Hezbollah, which attacked once in the past 6 years, and was willing to have peace again immediatly after that strike.

Actually this is a kind of mangled up paragraph. :(

Essentially here are the points of it (expanded a bit):

a. Russia and China have never to my knowledge said that they would nuke Israel if Israel nuked Iran. If that was something Russia and China intended to do, they would announce so, so that Israel would be less likely to nuke Iran.
b. If we assume Russia and China would nuke Israel, if Israel nuked Iran, and that Israel knew that; Israel still might nuke Iran if it had nothing to lose (if it were about to be beaten, and wiped off the map).
c. Given Israel's history of relative amorality, we can't trust it to make the moral choice regarding nukes, if doing so doesn't serve its interests, which might include petty revenge in a scenerio where it was about to be beaten/wiped off the map.

Hows that for simple English?

I judge it as better but still not there. It is difficult to phrase somethings simply.

Given its history, pilots, superior size and technology, I would say that the Israeli airforce would beat Iran's airforce, but possibly mightn't not do so exceptionally quickly and/or without taking some loses.

A good paragraph/sentence in my opinion, but i'll redo and expand it.

a. Israel's airforce has a history of always winning against other airforces. Iran's airforce was better in the Iraq-Iran war than it is now, and only did an ok job in that conflict.
b. Israel's airforce has been known to have aces/good pilots, and so its pilots are probably better the Iranian airforces pilot.
c. Israel has 1000 planes in its airforce, Iran has up to 700 planes in its airforce.
f. All of Israel's planes are completely modern. Iran has:

"Today, Iran has only about 150 aging US-built aircraft left. These include 66 F-4D/Es and 25 F-14-A/Bs, which are about 60 percent serviceable, according to a net assessment drawn up by Cordesman. Iran has long tried to evade the US embargo on parts for these airplanes by purchasing through third parties.

The backbones of the Iranian air force today are 24 Su-24 Fencers and 30 MiG-29 Fulcrums. These Soviet-era aircraft are about 80 percent serviceable, claims Cordesman. If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the Fencers could be used as an interim delivery capability, pending perfection of an adequate ballistic missile."
-http://www.afa.org/magazine/dec2002/1202iran.asp

150 times .6=90=60 percent of 150
54 times .8=43=80 percent of 54

Iran has 90 really old fighters, 43 sort of old fighters, 43 pretty new Chinese fighters: Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

,and this is what it is said to possibly be hiding:

"There have been reports of some 10 F-8Ms "Finback", 7 Tu-22Ms, 19 MIG-27s, and several MIG-31s (Russia's most modern fighter aircraft, US$40 million) being present in Iran, but these are not confirmed. "
-http://www.afa.org/magazine/dec2002/1202iran.asp

g. And so the Israeli airforce would certainly beat the Iranian airforce in a fight, given its better in all areas.

The US and Israel both have very good track records in defeating conventional armies, and it is guirella forces which they have trouble with, and guirella forces can agitate but not really win in any other fashion then making their enemies give up. Furthermore guirellas cannot preservere where they do not have popular support (in Israel itself). They have been trying unsuccessfully to get rid of Israel for 40 years, with no success, and much strife to point to as a result of the effort.

a. The US and Israel have trouble beating guerilla armies. Hezbollah is a guirella army. A guirella army is made to aviod and annoy other armies. The National Gaurd is not a guerilla army. It is an army created to meet and defeat other armies. It is an conventional army.
b. The US and Israel have always won, when they fought conventional armies, and so Israel could probably beat the Revolutionary gaurds all things (airforce included) considered.
c. Guerilla armies cannot beat other kinds of armies in most circumstances. They are effective however, at making other kinds of armies give up.
d. Guerilla armies can't survive where they don't have any popular support from the populace. So they can't successfully invade countries whose people don't support their invasion.
e. A Guerilla army can't therefore wipe Israel off the map.
e. Iran is far away from Israel, and without running into the US or Saudi Arabia, the National Gaurd could only get to Israel via Syria and then Lebanon.
f. The Gaurd would take a while to get to Israel, and would eventually have to attack it from the border between Israel and Lebanon, which is small and consequently very defendable.
g. It would constantly be attacked Israel's airforce. Remember 1991. Given enough time Israel's airforce would destroy the gaurd.

If you respond to this, I might "translate" my 21st post as well. At any rate, i've proof read this post, but I miss things, so it still might not all I intend it to be.

I actually do like doing this bulletin board format. I feel like I am more comprehensive (and hopefully readable) when I use it.

*-My english teachers have assured me my writing is good, so if it is difficult, it is so for the right reasons. I usually don't use simple langauge in my posts, and they are probably among the harder to read ones in these forums, by virtue of the fact they are of kind of a high reading level.

[Ibn_Sina]

I will reply when I get back online tonight.

I'm still Vigita.