Israel, Palestine Wage Web War

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Israel, Palestine Wage Web War

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday January 6, 2009 @07:45AM from the spilling-over dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A war has erupted on the Internet between Israel and Palestine, alongside the war being fought on the ground in Gaza. A new report claims that a group called the 'DNS Team' has defaced an Israeli Website, with anti-Israel graphical images — one in a series of instances of 'e-vandalism.' This sort of e-vandalism, says the author, is not only an inconvenience for Webmasters, but many of the images contain malware links and 'redirects or Flash links to Jihadist forums or blogs.' However, while the Jihadist forums are registered in Saudi Arabia, they are hosted by companies like Layered Tech and SoftLayer in Plano, Texas. On the Israeli side, 'A fascinating approach over the last few days is being made by an Israeli Website, "Help Israel Win," which provides a download so your PC can become part of a worldwide pro-Israeli botnet. So far 7,786 have joined, already a fairly powerful global computing force...'"

951 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 07:48 · Score: 5, Funny

In before shitstorm.
1. Re:Oh boy... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 07:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Naw, this conversation about the Middle East will be totally different from the last three or four we've had. Mark my works: Peace will break out in the Middle East and it will eventually be traced back to this one slashdot discussion ;)
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
2. Re:Oh boy... by El+Torico · 2009-01-06 07:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Mark my works: Peace will break out in the Middle East...
  Yeah, a Carthaginian Peace.
  
  --
  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
3. Re:Oh boy... by Abreu · 2009-01-06 09:52 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Debellatio is another latin term that describes the aims of both parties in this conflict.
  
  --
  No sig for the moment.
4. Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  This is nowhere near as bad as what happens on Digg when this topic comes up.
5. Re:Oh boy... by statemachine · 2009-01-06 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. I get mod points the night before this article hits, and I'm not wasting them here. But, hey, it's a great mod trap for everyone else. I'll go mod where the amount of BS from both sides doesn't remind me of a Dirty Jobs episode.
  Posted "nymously" so you know I mean it.
6. Re:Oh boy... by Ihmhi · 2009-01-06 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Things get pretty peaceful after everyone is dead.
  I'll probably get the flamebait mod for that one, but that's the direction things seem to be going.
  Honestly, we need to get a like... neutral ground situation for Jerusalem and other holy sites. No religious group will let another have claim to the land, so honestly none of them should have it. Let a nonpartisan, independent group run and police the area and let everyone in there in peace.
  Bah, even if that did happen, someone on some side would probably bomb things to hell trying to get rid of the "infidels running the Holy City".
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
7. Re:Oh boy... by couchslug · 2009-01-06 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  [quote]Yeah, a Carthaginian Peace.[/quote]
  That sort is the most lasting.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
8. Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  Why not just glassball these key religious sites, then there's nothing to fight over? (Obviously they'd just come up with something new, but that would solve the multi-millenia contestation over these ones.)
9. Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  I was reading my Bible today, the Old Testament. Guess who was at war?
  That's right, Israel & Palestine.
  But good luck to anyone who thinks they can solve the problems over there, especially in a slashdot post.
  At least short of straight up nuking the entire "holy" land into oblivion.
10. Re:Oh boy... by SupremoMan · 2009-01-06 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  You sir have the power to foretell the future. No man should posses such power. I am contacting the authorities.
11. Re:Oh boy... by ChameleonDave · 2009-01-06 12:16 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  That's a typical naive post expressing the idea that it's all about childish attachment to "holy sites". The Gazans are fighting back because they have been under siege for a year and a half. Jerusalem isn't even in Gaza.
12. Re:Oh boy... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  he Gazans are fighting back because they have been under siege for a year and a half
  They wouldn't be under siege if they hadn't elected a movement whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. If you were Israel would you want to make it easy for Hamas to smuggle in offensive weaponry?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
13. Re:Oh boy... by ChameleonDave · 2009-01-06 14:17 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I don't ask myself questions such as "what if I were Israel?", "what if I were Apartheid South Africa?", "what if I were Genghis Khan?", "what if I were the British Empire?". Such questions tend to reduce insight into the situation and empathy for the victims, not increase them.
14. Re:Oh boy... by pirhana · 2009-01-06 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  > They wouldn't be under siege if they hadn't elected a movement whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel.
  
  They call for the destruction of Israel in present form because it has occupied a lot of other's land and kicked a lot from their home.
  
  > If you were Israel would you want to make it easy for Hamas to smuggle in offensive weaponry?
  
  If you were kicked out of your home, wouldn't you fight against the occupier ? or just sit idle and pray for him ?
  
  --
  http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
15. Re:Oh boy... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 14:38 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They call for the destruction of Israel in present form because it has occupied a lot of other's land and kicked a lot from their home.
  Israel didn't occupy anybody else's land beyond the original mandate until she was attacked by her neighbors. And what of all the Jews that were kicked out of their homes in the neighboring countries? Why don't we see any mention of them? Your sympathy is pretty one-sided.
  
  If you were kicked out of your home, wouldn't you fight against the occupier ? or just sit idle and pray for him ?
  When my country launches a war of aggression with the intent of destroying a neighbor and loses said war then I'll worry about being kicked out of my home.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
16. Re:Oh boy... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 14:39 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  empathy for the victims, not increase them.
  There's nothing wrong with empathy for the victims. There's everything wrong with blaming Israel for their predicament. If Hamas obeyed the laws of war and fought in the open under uniform I suspect that civilian casualties would be greatly reduced.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
17. Re:Oh boy... by pirhana · 2009-01-06 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sir, you dont answer to my question
  
  1. If Israel is ready to have comprehensive peace for a complete withdrawal from all the occupied territories, why dont they say that ? that will give them solid credibility.
  
  2. Where is the evidence to your allegations that many jews were kicked out of their home in neighboring countries ?
  
  --
  http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
18. Re:Oh boy... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 15:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Where is the evidence to your allegations that many jews were kicked out of their home in neighboring countries ?
  Evidence
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
19. Re:Oh boy... by pirhana · 2009-01-06 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  You have still not answered to the first one.
  
  Regarding your evidence, one(in Israel) is official government activity and its EXPANDING its border by doing this(kicking out Palestines and settlement) where as in Arabs countries it was not official(though some acts from states have helped it) and Arabs are not expanding their border by doing this. But still, I absolutely condemn any mistreatment of Jews(or anyone) by anyone. That includes what seems to have happened these Arab countries.In many cases Zionist movement was the catalyst for the exodus(from your link only). But in not a single case of Palestine displacement was caused by any such movement. To sump up, I repeat very first argument in this thread. The solution is simple if Israel is willing to roll back complete settlement and illegal occupation and ask the Arab/neighboring countries to give a written UN mediated assurance for peace in return.
  
  --
  http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
20. Re:Oh boy... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  The solution is simple if Israel is willing to roll back complete settlement and illegal occupation and ask the Arab/neighboring countries to give a written UN mediated assurance for peace in return.
  No, it's really not that simple. If it was that simple it would already be solved. The settlers aren't particularly popular in Israel and there'd be no point to the occupation if the Arabs weren't busy conducting terrorist attacks against Israel.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
21. Re:Oh boy... by pirhana · 2009-01-06 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  > No, it's really not [wikipedia.org] that simple. If it was that simple it would already be solved. The settlers aren't particularly popular in Israel and there'd be no point to the occupation if the Arabs weren't busy conducting terrorist attacks against Israel.
  
  I still don't understand why is it not simple.And nowhere in your posts, you explain why is it not simple. If you have engaged in occupation, then there is no other solution than ending it completely. You can never ever live peacefully without doing that. Thats what we are seeing in the forms of rockets and suicide bombs. Whether settlers are popular in Israel or not is not relevant. What is important is Israel as a state engaged in settlement and occupation and they are not sleeping peacefully because of that.Though that doesnt mean that I agree with all the response it received for it's activity.
  
  --
  http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
22. Re:Oh boy... by Meski · 2009-01-06 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  Mark my works: Peace will break out in the Middle East... Yeah, a Carthaginian Peace.
  But I'm on a low salt diet!
23. Re:Oh boy... by Meski · 2009-01-06 17:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  empathy for the victims, not increase them.
  There's nothing wrong with empathy for the victims. There's everything wrong with blaming Israel for their predicament. If Hamas obeyed the laws of war and fought in the open under uniform I suspect that civilian casualties would be greatly reduced.
  If Hamas did that they'd get wiped out in the first week. And they would have to know that, so they fight in a way that gives them a chance.
24. Re:Oh boy... by Meski · 2009-01-06 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  When my country launches a war of aggression with the intent of destroying a neighbor and loses said war then I'll worry about being kicked out of my home.
  But hasn't that already ... oh, nevermind.
25. Re:Oh boy... by Neoprofin · 2009-01-06 18:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And leads to the death of the population they represent. Sounds pretty selfish, unless you buy into the Hamas rhetoric that they "are the people" and "are the culture" in which case there are no victims.
26. Re:Oh boy... by ChameleonDave · 2009-01-06 19:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  When the French Resistance killed German occupiers there were reprisals against the native population too. Who do you side with on that one?
27. Re:Oh boy... by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  Oh deary me. I don't think there's a question of moral superiority on this one...
  But seriously: there's a difference between "reprisals" and "collateral damage" - one is deliberate murder of civilians, the other is accidental death in the course of an attack on a legitimate military target. Israel is guilty of the latter. It's not right, but it sure beats the hell out of revenge killings.
28. Re:Oh boy... by bassam122 · 2009-01-07 00:01 · Score: 0
  
  Hello, what the Germans did is wrong, and also what terrorist Israel is doing is wrong too, I'm from Jordan, I'm arab and muslim, and I say: If Israel attacks and kill the resistance only, then I call this fair, but what Israel is doing is the exact opposite of that, their primary objective is to kill as much Palestinian as possible from civilians, in what religion and laws this is allowed? How can any one says that Israel is defending itself by killing children and women and old people? the children are killed by bullets in their chest, this is intentionally done.
29. Re:Oh boy... by Shakrai · 2009-01-07 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  I still don't understand why is it not simple
  It's not that simple because the Palestinians want the right to return to the homes in Israel proper (not the West Bank or Gaza) that they lost during the various wars that were waged against Israel. This would be a demographic disaster for Israel and the Israelis would never go for it. It would be the equivalent of the United States having to absorb 150,000,000 new people -- people that don't believe in our system of government and with whom we've been at war with for the last 60 years.
  If you don't understand why it's not simple then I really suggest you look into the matter more closely before purposing "solutions" that have already been discussed (and rejected) on much higher levels than Slashdot.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
30. Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 04:31 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  When the French Resistance killed German occupiers there were reprisals against the native population too. Who do you side with on that one?
  I have heard this line of reasoning many times before; it seems to be a popular one made in support of the Palestinians' actions against Israel, and against Israels' actions towards the Palestinians. Let's take this one apart and expose the errors of reasoning at work:
  1. Brief History of the Region: the region has historically been populated by both Jews and Arabs. The Ottoman empire controlled the region until the British took it from them during World War I. The British denied both Jews and Arabs any real self-governance. After World War II, the Palestinian land was divided into Israeli and Arab regions by the UN as a compromise. The Arab states around Israel promptly invaded the new nation in 1948, and were beaten back by the newly-formed state of Israel, which annexed parts of the Arab lands during the wars. Subsequent wars have erupted, notably in 1956, 1967, and 1973, with territory continuing to change hands both during the wars and afterwards in treaties and agreements between Israel and the Arab nations.
  From point #1, we see that, while France has been French for a relatively long time, the same cannot be said of Israel or Palestine, both of which comprise regions historically occupied by the two peoples currently at war, regions in dispute to this very day. To treat such a gray area as black-and-white is to ignore the heart of the matter entirely.
  2. The German army invaded a sovereign nation, France, unprovoked, and then occupied it, extracting money from it and requiring mandatory labor of its inhabitants. The Israeli army has blockaded Gaza, but has not invaded it until now. During the blockade, the Palestinians have had self-governance; money has not been extorted from them, nor has the Palestinian population been made to attend forced labor camps. The invasion came in response to constant rocket fire from Gaza, a clear provocation.
  From point #2, we see that the circumstances under which each invasion was perpetrated were very different from one another. The French did not fire rockets or send suicide bombers into Germany prior to the German invasion, and the Germans occupied and exploited France for years.
  You're so close to proving Godwin's law! Just take it one step further and call Ehud Barak Hitler, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete.
31. Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  It reminds me of sorcerer entry on kobolds.
  Arabs: if attacked will fight back, if not attacked will fight back anyway.
32. Re:Oh boy... by ChameleonDave · 2009-01-07 13:50 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  1) You are wrong. Palestine has been mainly Arab for centuries.
  2) You are wrong. This is not the first invasion of Gaza.
  Also, the Palestinians did not attack Europe and America before being occupied by a colonial force sent from there. In just the same way, the French did not attack Germany before being occupied by it. In just the same way, Tibet did not attack China before being occupied and colonised by it. In all cases, there has been subsequent resistance.
33. Re:Oh boy... by pirhana · 2009-01-07 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  > This would be a demographic disaster for Israel and the Israelis would never go for it
  
  It would be a demographic disaster for Israel because they have been expanding their borders by occupying others land.
  
  > It would be the equivalent of the United States having to absorb 150,000,000 new people
  
  No its NOT. US has never occupied its neighbors land and expanded its borders. US has done many bad things. But it has not expanded its border by occupying other's land. So your comparison is absolutely wrong.
  
  --
  http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
34. Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  1) Okay. Well, I say you're wrong, because Jews have lived in the area for centuries longer than there has even been a people called the Arabs. In fact, Arab was historically used to describe the people of the region, including the Jews and then later the Christians. That's right, there were Arab Jews and Arab Christians. In that sense, I should give you credit for being kind of right. There are plenty of sources on the Internet or in your local library by which you can verify what I'm claiming.
  But let's go one step further. By your logic, I assume you want the U.S. government to turn complete control of the United States over to the Native Americans, because the U.S. has been mainly Native American for centuries. In fact, maybe you should just page through "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond and make a list of all the peoples who have been displaced over the course of time, so you can press the displacing nations to give those peoples their land back.
  2) You're right, this is not the first invasion of Gaza by Israel. Similarly, this is not the first time Gaza has fired rockets or sent suicide bombers into Israel. I think you're missing the point, so let me clarify it for you: Israel has never invaded Gaza *unprovoked*. By contrast, Germany invaded France *without* provocation.
  3) What do the Western colonizing forces have to do with anything? Did you know that the Jews who lived in the area also resisted the colonial forces? The act of resistance seems to carry a lot of weight for you; since the Jews were also resisting the colonists, does that mean the land is theirs? Is it proportional to who did the most resisting, or maybe to who resisted the hardest? Maybe, because the Jews have lived in the area the longest, we should turn your analogy around and say that it's the Jews who are resisting the Palestinians (note to readers with no sense of humor: I am being sarcastic, please read on to see what I really think).
  The long and the short of it is, this is a very complicated situation, and not at all reducible to the black-and-white analogy you are claiming. Both sides have lived in the area for a very long time, both have legitimate claims to the land, and both need to figure out how to share it with one another.
  Your turn now.
35. Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  and Why nobody talks about the 50 MILLION Christians thrown to death by soviet union Jew Leaders huh? What Israel is doing now is worst than the Nazi holocaust just because at least Nazis put Jew children to work in steel factories not bombed their ass out for pleasure with.. OHHHH American Apaches, F16's and F15's. Someday you will pay for that and you know it.
36. Re:Oh boy... by Ihmhi · 2009-01-08 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  The Gaza Strip is not particularly a holy site, yes, but the issues with Jerusalem is one of the major problems, is it not? That's why I think it should all just be under some blanket, ostensibly nonpartisan authority like the U.N.
  A lot of places, most major religions don't fight over it. I don't think the Muslims want to get their hands on the Vatican, nor do the Jews or Christians want to get their hands on Mecca and Medina really. But Jerusalem? The Jews want their old home back. The Christians launched like, what, ten or so crusades to try and capture it? And of course the Muslims were the reason for a lot of the crusades. That kind of conflict still continues to today, albeit not on as large of a scale.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
37. Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps Hamas should stop hiding behind women and children like cowards. When the bullets come, Hamas ducks behind the old and infirm, just to jump up later to wail and gnash their teeth about how evil Israel is. Then they lob some bombs randomly into Israel towns before ducking back behind the infants.
  Israel has made some unwise moves, and cannot be painted as pure, but Hamas is utterly, utterly despicable.
38. Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-09 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  Let me help you out with some of your facts:
  
  1) You are wrong. Palestine has been mainly Arab for centuries.
  The area known as Palestine has indeed been Arab for many centuries. What you are overlooking is that the word "Arab" has historically been used to describe the people from that region. So there have been Arab Jews, Arab Christians, and Arab Muslims. There have even been Arabs that don't belong to any of those faiths. In the context of the discussion, you are probably claiming that the Arab Muslims who comprise the majority of Gazans have the most legitimate claim to the land. But that doesn't seem fair to the Jews who lived there for centuries before the founding of the Islamic faith. Many groups of people have lived in the area for a very long time. Why should either side of the current conflict be more right than the other? Can't they both be wrong? Wouldn't it be better to encourage them to come to some kind of agreement and live peaceably side-by-side, instead of egging them on by taking sides and claiming one has a more legitimate claim than the other?
  
  2) You are wrong. This is not the first invasion of Gaza.
  That's true. In fact, the very first invasion was by Egypt, which invaded Gaza in 1948 during the first Arab-Israeli war. Israel took Gaza from Egypt in 1967 during the Six Day War. Israel then ceded control of the region to the Palestinians with the 1994 Oslo Accords. It's most recent invasion, however, was in response to provocations by the Palestinian government (Hamas), which has been firing rockets into Israel for some time. Germany, you may recall, invaded France unprovoked. France hadn't sent any suicide bombers or rockets into Germany prior to Germany's invasion, nor was there a long history of such provocations.
  
  Also, the Palestinians did not attack Europe and America before being occupied by a colonial force sent from there. In just the same way, the French did not attack Germany before being occupied by it. In just the same way, Tibet did not attack China before being occupied and colonised by it. In all cases, there has been subsequent resistance.
  I'm not sure what these various colonial forces have to do with anything. These are further unprovoked invasions. But, as I just mentioned, rocket fire from Gaza into Israel preceded Israel's invasion. That doesn't make the invasion right, but it certainly makes it different from every unprovoked invasion you've listed.
39. Re:Oh boy... by thexile · 2009-01-09 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Does that means it's alright for Hamas to kill Israelis? Moreover, there're reports saying that Hamas are concealing themselves among Palestinians civilians. Hamas 'decorated' bombarded areas with corpses of Palestinians.
40. Re:Oh boy... by NIckGorton · 2009-01-10 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I always find that same argument to be inane. Those with at least an order of magnitude greater financial and capital power (Israel) complain that the far less well funded and enfranchised group (Hamas) doesn't fight fair because they are not respecting the 'rules of engagement'.
  
  If I were forced to fight someone substantially larger and more powerful, I would feel no qualms about 'fighting dirty'. Its not a fair fight to start with and whining about someone not being 'fair' is ridiculous.
41. Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-13 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  So setting up a network of cybercriminals is OK if it's run by Israel.
Why is this News? by WED+Fan · 2009-01-06 07:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is a natural extension of war now-a-days. This is akin to saying, "Soldiers Now Using Bullets in War".

--
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
1. Re:Why is this News? by DriedClexler · 2009-01-06 08:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is a natural extension of war now-a-days. This is akin to saying, "Soldiers Now Using Bullets in War".
  If the dominant hand-held projectile weapon were still the musket, or people just still believed that, then yes, it would be news!
  Anyway you may be interested in knowing that not but 5 months before, in the Russia/Georgia war the previous August, exactly the same thing was going on and an intrepid Slate reporter got involved in downloading botnet software from pro-Russian hackers.
  
  --
  Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
2. Re:Why is this News? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  This style of combat is still new. Note that these are not (officially) government supported groups, just what are for all practical purposes militias fighting each other and occasionally burning down some buildings.
3. Re:Why is this News? by philspear · 2009-01-06 08:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's news for 2 reasons
  1. War of any type, even in places where there is always war, is news
  2. Its a step up from the usual tactics of this place.
4. Re:Why is this News? by laejoh · 2009-01-06 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Wait 'till they start using them in powerpoint presentations! Scary as hell!
5. Re:Why is this News? by IceCreamGuy · 2009-01-06 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  So if all they used were swords, you don't think people using guns would be newsworthy?
6. Re:Why is this News? by sumdumass · 2009-01-06 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm wondering if people who willingly join bot nets can be liable for criminal actions taken with their computer?
  I mean if you steal my gun and rob a store shooting the clerk, I'm pretty safe from prosecution. If I give you the gun knowing you wanted to rob the store, I'm an accessory to murder and conspirator and possibly other things for my part in helping you commit the crime.
  The interesting thing about this is, if you willingly become part of a bot net that commits crimes, even if it is just defacing websites or denial of service attacks, who's laws apply and would any of the criminal activity have to happen in your home country in order for your country's laws to apply? The US and UK both have some pretty tough laws on computer trespass and so on.
7. Re:Why is this News? by cayenne8 · 2009-01-06 09:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually, I saw something on one of the news channels that kinda pissed me off. Some Pro-Israeli group had bought TV time nationally, for people to join them, log onto their website, etc....and pronounce their support for Israel in the current war.
  WTF is that?? Are they doing this in other countries? Kinda pissed me off to see another country, 'advertising' their side of the war in another country.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
8. Re:Why is this News? by DriedClexler · 2009-01-06 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm having a hard time understanding what about that upsets you so much. Don't they have a right to present their case to the world? So what difference does it make if they, on terms available to anyone else, buy advertising for purposes of promoting that message? (and it sounds like that's not even Israel, just like-minded people)
  What do you think about Israel getting its message out through Twitter on their page?
  By the way, I submitted that as a story, and, because merit has nothing to do with the selection process here, it didn't make it. But you can smirk at this part anyway:
  backlotops: 1 side has to stop. Why continue what hasn't worked (mass arial/grnd retaliation)? Arab Peace Initiative?
  israelconsulate: we R pro nego. crntly tlks r held w the PA + tlks on the 2 state soln. we talk only w/ ppl who accept R rt 2 live.
  
  --
  Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
9. Re:Why is this News? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  Who put this propaganda bs up anyway? People are raining fire on each other and they are worried about "e-vandalism"? The double thh the double think.
10. Re:Why is this News? by genner · 2009-01-06 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  So if all they used were swords, you don't think people using guns would be newsworthy?
  A massive sword battle would definately be news worthy.
11. Re:Why is this News? by BlackSnake112 · 2009-01-06 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  So if all they used were swords, you don't think people using guns would be newsworthy?
  A massive sword battle would definitely be news worthy.
  and possibly fun to watch.
  *ducks*
12. Re:Why is this News? by z00_miak · 2009-01-06 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Are you kidding me? War is news worthy, why shouldn't a "natural extension" of a war be news worthy to the people who are interested in that particular extension, case in point: /. and a web war.
  I'm not sure how you got rated as insightful.
13. Re:Why is this News? by aussie_a · 2009-01-06 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Do I have to join an army to be able to join a war?
14. Re:Why is this News? by Keen+Anthony · 2009-01-06 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  On one hand, it's a bit like humanitarian groups buying ad space asking for us to step up and do something about Darfur; but on another hand, it's nothing like humanitarian groups doing this because in the case of Israel, there are a couple of extra qualifiers:
  1) Israel has an ongoing decisive victory against anti-Israeli groups. Look at the death tolls, the squeeze that Israel maintains on the occupied territories both economically and militarily, the mounting UN criticism against Israel, the charges of human rights violations by the Israeli state, etc.
  2) These ads are asking for the involvement by American citizens, not the government. In a manner of speaking, these ads are asking that we help Israel fight this one alongside them.
  3) It is often noted that our government is in the pocket of the Israeli lobby. Candidates for federal office in this country feel a special need to show public solidarity with pro-Israeli and Jewish groups in a way they don't feel with Greek, Russian, Persian, or African American groups. Israel features prominently in so many discussions in American politics. Some people, perhaps many, might be offended that we feel this mandatory responsibility to Israel that we don't feel to other nations.
  This all just a stab in the dark here. Would the OP be equally offended if pro-Palestinian groups advertised their side? Actually, I wonder how Americans in general would react to a spot ads by Palestinian groups.
15. Re:Why is this News? by CmdrGravy · 2009-01-06 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  If people are participating in this without actually being a signed up member of Israels armed forces or wearing a uniform doesn't this make them illegal combatants and shouldn't whichever country they live in immediately arrest them and send them of to their equivalent of Guantanamo Bay ?
16. Re:Why is this News? by WED+Fan · 2009-01-07 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  War IS news worthy. Web defacement and cyber attacks are just par for the course.
  
  --
  Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
17. Re:Why is this News? by sumdumass · 2009-01-08 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds about right. Except that some countries can actually hire professional soldiers (soldiers of fortune) to help in their battle without them actually joining their army. In the US, we frown on it but don't do anything unless they move against us or one of our allies.
Awesome! by GeorgeMonroy · 2009-01-06 07:49 · Score: 1

I will join my PC to a botnet for some dumb online war!

--
You got the touch!
1. Re:Awesome! by jbeaupre · 2009-01-06 07:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Too bad there's not two bot nets battling where you can watch the statistics. Sort of like live CNN war footage for the command line crowd.
  
  --
  The world is made by those who show up for the job.
2. Re:Awesome! by tritonman · 2009-01-06 07:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  yea, if I'm going to waste my CPU cycles to donate to an online war, it will be something useful, like a war between Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie.
3. Re:Awesome! by orangesquid · 2009-01-06 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  A help-israel-win botnet is an interesting idea, but... err... what about when it's (inevitably) hijacked?
  (Or is the hijack-resistant Storm open-source now? *g*)
  
  --
  --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
4. Re:Awesome! by UncleWilly · 2009-01-06 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  OMG, a Business Model!
5. Re:Awesome! by phozz+bare · 2009-01-06 08:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It should be noted that local Israeli media is strongly recommending to stay away from this website and not to download the software it is offering, citing reasons of the illegality of the action and the obvious possibility of your PC being hijacked for other purposes.
  Sorry, I couldn't find a link in English.
  http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3650277,00.html
6. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  Too bad there's not two bot nets battling where you can watch the statistics. Sort of like live CNN war footage for the command line crowd.
  What about google fight?
  http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=israel&word2=palestine
7. Re:Awesome! by aliquis · 2009-01-06 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Where do I sign up for the other side? Pro-Israel my ass :D
8. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:37 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  They should just log into QuakeLive and kill each other until they're bored...
9. Re:Awesome! by CynicalTyler · 2009-01-06 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in the interweb. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by botnets. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: to build and maintain those botnets.
10. Re:Awesome! by jafiwam · 2009-01-06 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  You could always get a plane ticket, go join the human shields, and get run over by a bulldozer.
  Think of it this way, you'd only have to pay for a one way flight, the trip back would be in the cargo hold.
11. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Hey - I've seen that video!
12. Re:Awesome! by sumdumass · 2009-01-06 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Nah.. The wars of the future will always need to have some element of violence that forces one side to give up.
  If it were possible to do otherwise, we would be playing games or tossing coins to settle wars without losing one life today. Obviously that doesn't happen, at best, the online war will be for propaganda to demoralize support and sway public opinion (didn't work in Iraq and isn't working for hamas in the Palestinian territory like it did Hezbollah in Lebenon), provide corrupt and misleading information, and degrade the communications abilities of the enemy. In all, the computer cannot replace humans killing other humans when human lives are at stake. In Israel, the aggression is a response to Hamas firing rockets into Israeli civilian population. You won't see that answered with the interweb only very often regardless of what country it is. Even if they do something like on Star Trek where people report to a machine to be killed that the computers determine were killed by a fake war.
13. Re:Awesome! by camperdave · 2009-01-06 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  "Death, destruction, disease, horror... that's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. But you've made it neat and painless - so neat and painless, you've had no reason to stop it, and you've had it for five hundred years. Since it seems to be the only way I can save my crew, my ship... I'm going to end it for you - one way or another."
  
  "You realize what you've done!"
  "Yes, I do. I've given you back the horrors of war. Vendikar will now assume that you have violated the treaty and are preparing to wage real war with real weapons. They'll want to do the same... only the next attack they launch will do more than count up numbers on a computer. They'll destroy your cities, devastate your planet. You, of course, will want to retaliate; if I were you, I'd start making bombs. Yes, councilman, you have a real war on your hands. You can either wage it with real weapons, or you might consider an alternative - put a stop to it! Make peace."
  "There can be no peace! Don't you see - we've admitted it to ourselves! We're a killer species! It's the same with you - your General Order 24!"
  "All, right - it's instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings, with the blood of a million savage years on our hands. But we can stop it! We can admit we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes. Knowing that you're not going to kill... today. Call Vendikar; I think you'll find them just as horrified, shocked, as appalled as you are -- willing to do anything to avoid the alternative I've given you; peace or utter destruction. It's up to you."
  "As a third party, interested only in peace, I would like to offer my services as mediator between you and Vendikar; I've had some small experience in such matters."
  "There's a direct channel to Vendikar's High Council... it hasn't been used in centuries."
  "Then it's long overdue."
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
14. Re:Awesome! by sumdumass · 2009-01-06 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  lol.. Nice..
  It's pretty much true in spirit too.
  BTW, did you have that memorized or was there a somewhere with it?
15. Re:Awesome! by camperdave · 2009-01-06 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  BTW, did you have that memorized or was there a somewhere with it?
  
  This is the internet: a collection of networks put together by science geeks and computer nerds... Of course there's a site.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
16. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 17:25 · Score: 0
  
  Actually one way plane tickets to Israel from the US are usually oddly more expensive than round trip.
Reality check people by sunking2 · 2009-01-06 07:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Lets have a little bit of perspective and not put some web sites being trashed in the same category as bombs and missiles flying around. The world could do with a little less drama and over statements. Honestly, its OK, you are still important.
1. Re:Reality check people by Spazztastic · 2009-01-06 07:56 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Lets have a little bit of perspective and not put some web sites being trashed in the same category as bombs and missiles flying around. The world could do with a little less drama and over statements. Honestly, its OK, you are still important.
  You forget that they could attack something mission critical, and it could escalate as it has in the past. What if they were to penetrate the network of a hospital? Of a police station? How about the government's network? Sure, they don't have the "LAUNCH MISSLES.EXE" in the root folder, but they sure could cause some damage on a military network.
  
  --
  Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
2. Re:Reality check people by Goaway · 2009-01-06 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  put some web sites being trashed in the same category as bombs and missiles flying around.
  Who exactly is doing that? I'm not seeing it.
3. Re:Reality check people by morgan_greywolf · 2009-01-06 08:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sure, they don't have the "LAUNCH MISSLES.EXE" in the root folder, but they sure could cause some damage on a military network.
  And what is a military network doing being connected to the public Internet?!
  Oh wait. They don't actually do that.
  *phew*
  
  --
  My blog
4. Re:Reality check people by gnick · 2009-01-06 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Well put. Hacking a phone system and disrupting your enemies communications infrastructure? That's cyber-war. DDOS on emergency services? That's cyber-war. Maybe if they're really disrupting commerce for major web-sites this would be worth calling out, but this looks like it's just silly vandalism.
  I have to admit, though, when I saw that 'Death to the West' graphic in TFA, my first thought was that it looked pretty cool...
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
5. Re:Reality check people by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  And what is a military network doing being connected to the public Internet?!
  Well how else do you expect those of us without landlines and acoustic-coupler modems to play global thermonuclear war?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
6. Re:Reality check people by fm6 · 2009-01-06 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  How about a nice game of chess?
7. Re:Reality check people by fm6 · 2009-01-06 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Excuse me? I don't see the level of drama you're complaining about. Yes, cybercrime is less important than people getting killed and dismembered. But it's still pretty darn important.
8. Re:Reality check people by Shagg · 2009-01-06 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Lets have a little bit of perspective and not put some web sites being trashed in the same category as bombs and missiles flying around.
  Good thing nobody did that.
  
  --
  Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
9. Re:Reality check people by Chandon+Seldon · 2009-01-06 08:39 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The "hacking" part is a distraction from the important part of this story: A massive propaganda war. And the outcome of that propaganda war could be as significant to the outcome of the conflict as the bombs. Even if it just makes either side shy away from targeting civilians, it's still hugely important.
  
  --
  -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
10. Re:Reality check people by slugtastic · 2009-01-06 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Not violent enough.
11. Re:Reality check people by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  Well how else do you expect those of us without landlines and acoustic-coupler modems to play global thermonuclear war?
  How 'bout this? Even runs on Linux!
12. Re:Reality check people by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  How 'bout this? [introversion.co.uk] Even runs on Linux!
  I've actually already got it. It's a pretty slick game. Wish they had a 'realism' mode with no anti-missile defenses and realistic subs (a real boomer can unload hundreds of warheads in a minute or so -- not five warheads in 10 minutes) but what can you do?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
13. Re:Reality check people by nicolas.kassis · 2009-01-06 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  tic-tac-toe is, destroyed the machine.
14. Re:Reality check people by Eponymous+Bastard · 2009-01-06 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  What if they were to penetrate the network of a hospital? Of a police station?
  Oh, noes!! They could stop all of people's pace makers! And turn on all the police cars and drive crash them into walls!!!
  Err, no. This isn't Terminator 3, you know. And no medical device that I know of is normally networked. You can't trip the power breakers either.
  The best they could do is take down their web site, or erase admission records and such. annoying, yes. Big monetary loss, yes. At a level matching the rest of the war? Not really.
  Who knows, maybe someday there will be international treaties not to hack hospitals, like the Geneva convention protects doctors. Just to shut you up.
15. Re:Reality check people by PeeAitchPee · 2009-01-06 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  It's OK: their code goes something like this:
  while (1) { status = GetRadarInfo(); if (status = 1) LaunchMissiles(); }
  Uh oh.
16. Re:Reality check people by sumdumass · 2009-01-06 09:49 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Which other side are we talking about?
  Israel, while it has hit civilians is doing it's best to not target civilians specifically while Hamas is purposely trying to hit civilians with it's rocket attacks. I don't think propaganda will stop Hamas, The leaders of Palestine couldn't, the international community couldn't, Irael retreating from the Gaza stip had no effect. Israel is already attempting to not hit civilians (even though there are still civilians casualties) and is justifying their targets with Military goals like Hamas operatives or weapons stashed.
  This won't be like the Hezbollah situation a while back, for one, Hamas did more then kidnap and kill a soldier, they are launching rockets into civilian populations. Hezbollah didn't launch rockets until after Israel went into Lebanon to attempt to get the soldiers back. For two, Israel refused to respond militarily for quite some time while attempting to exhaust diplomatic efforts with the elected leadership of the Palestine territory before mounting the current military operations. Finally, when all else failed, Israel defended itself.
17. Re:Reality check people by mi · 2009-01-06 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  I have to admit, though, when I saw that 'Death to the West' [emphasis mine -mi] graphic in TFA, my first thought was that it looked pretty cool...
  Your level of confidence is amazing... I must admit, I recoiled a bit from these people's desire to kill me . Or are you not from the West? A decent person would've recoiled too in that case, I think...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
18. Re:Reality check people by my_left_nut · 2009-01-06 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  And no medical device that I know of is normally networked.
  At least not yet. Give it time, though. I can see some doofus thinking it a good idea to WiFi-enable a pacemaker, and storing historical data on it, or putting a piece of flash memory on it and use it as a built in thumb drive. Or worse, allowing it to receive commands that allow one to control the voltage leads in order "To facilitate treatment".
19. Re:Reality check people by gnick · 2009-01-06 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I'm in the West. I saw my flag on the pile of skulls down there. The fact that the image is horrible and obviously inciting violence against me and many others is horrible.
  But, horrible or not, you have to admit that the graphic design quality is much better than it is on most of the radical Islamic propaganda that you see posted on CNN, BBC, etc. Rather like looking at a highly artistic, gold flaked swastika I guess...
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
20. Re:Reality check people by Chandon+Seldon · 2009-01-06 10:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I see that Israel is doing pretty well on their side of the propaganda war. Your comment is pretty much exactly what Israel is saying, and it's completely different from what the Palestinians are saying. Israel has traditionally had a lock on the news coverage of this dispute, especially in the United States. The interesting part about the Web in this story is that Palestine is managing to get their side out somewhat more effectively than usual - see, for example, http://www.reddit.com/r/politics
  
  --
  -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
21. Re:Reality check people by alx5000 · 2009-01-06 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly, since (status = 1) always evaluates to true...
  
  --
  My 0.02 cents
22. Re:Reality check people by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, Death to the West is great if suicide's your game and you live in the West. In fact, it sounds pretty damn good.
  Oh god. Now I have a reason to like these people...
23. Re:Reality check people by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 12:16 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Reddit is ridiculously biased. More than half of the anti-Israel videos are found to be taken out of context or just plain lies.
24. Re:Reality check people by grumbel · 2009-01-06 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Israel, while it has hit civilians is doing it's best to not target civilians
  The best way to not kill civilians would be to not start a war. Its really as easy as that.
25. Re:Reality check people by Eponymous+Bastard · 2009-01-06 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, they can already be reprogrammed wirelessly, but not via wifi or bluetooth, nor at any reasonable range.
  Since only doctors have to change the settings, it is profitable for the pacemaker companies to make pacemakers require a special handheld programmer using a special low-power protocol and built by the same company. Vendor lock-in of doctors and all that.
26. Re:Reality check people by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  I think you'll find that its "LAUNCH~1.EXE"
27. Re:Reality check people by dakameleon · 2009-01-06 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not violent enough.
  Whoosh!
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
28. Re:Reality check people by sumdumass · 2009-01-06 17:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually, I get quite a bit of my news from outside the US. Al Jazeera does a good deal of reporting in the area and they have a pretty neutral tone. The BBC is reporting pretty much the same as I have claimed and most of the other foreign press that have English sites that I have seen do the same.
  Anyways, if you think Palestine is getting their message out, I would argue that they have been for a while. It's probably why your sitting there trashing Israel's version right now. Well, not really trashing but raising the point of suspicion. If you follow the plot so far, Israel backed out of Gaza completely pursuant to a cease fire agreement brokered by the Egyptian government. It ended in December around the 19th or so. In october, Hamas start launching mortars and rockets into Israel at a slow pace and Israel attempted to get the elected Palistinian authority to make it stop pursuant to the agreement. This appeared as if it worked then stopped working then worked then stopped again. For a Christmas present, Hamas launched some 30 rockets into Israel which Israel finally responded to taking out a mortar team, killing one and injuring two others. Hamas stepped up it's attacks and Israel went full blown into what we are seeing now. Hamas has closed a checkpoint along the Egyptian border which was has loads of medical aid. Egypt has offered to take critical patients and offered to set up refugee camps for the innocents at the border. Hamas has stopped the aid from getting in and stopped the injured from getting out. They have even stopped the innocent civilians from moving to the borders by firing on their own civilians who were fleeing to it. A representative from Hamas attempted to portray it as an unjustified response because there is an election coming in Israel in February 2009. Hamas Claimed it was being attacked so the politicians could manipulate the elections. A reporter asked about this bit of news floating around and the interview ended. I can't find the actually link to the report I originally read.
29. Re:Reality check people by sumdumass · 2009-01-06 17:24 · Score: 2
  
  So Israel is supposed to sit there and take the rocket and mortar attacks and watch their civilians with no connection to the military die?
  Seriously, Israel tried the do nothing approach and it simply didn't work. Hamas provoke this round of war and frankly, I think Israel is more then justified in their attempts to defend their people.
30. Re:Reality check people by grumbel · 2009-01-06 18:57 · Score: 2
  
  So Israel is supposed to sit there and take the rocket and mortar attacks and watch their civilians with no connection to the military die?
  No, but any action they do better be one that doesn't cause more human death. This whole mess needs police work and negotiation, not the military.
  Fighting evil by doing even larger evil just doesn't make you look much like a good guy.
31. Re:Reality check people by ultranova · 2009-01-07 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Who knows, maybe someday there will be international treaties not to hack hospitals, like the Geneva convention protects doctors.
  
  They aren't hospitals, they are enemy treatment centers. And they heal terrorists.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
32. Re:Reality check people by Cederic · 2009-01-07 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Irrespective of the intent to cause civilian deaths, one side is causing far more than the other.
  That's pretty hard to justify.
  Anyway, the Israeli civilians aren't civilians. They're an occupying force on land that was taken from the people shooting at them.
  It's all in how you look at it..
33. Re:Reality check people by Cederic · 2009-01-07 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Tell that to Gary Mckinnon.
  Better yet, tell it to the cunts in the US that keep trying to fucking extradite him, and to the cocks in the UK that want to let them.
34. Re:Reality check people by sumdumass · 2009-01-08 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Lol.. So what in your magical world should they do?
  I mean, Israel had completely removed it's presence from Gaza, it has completely removed the settlements, the police, and what little presence they did have in Gaza before this was completely consented to by the Palestinian authority (you know, the elected leaders of Palestine). They exhausted everything rational to make it end so what could they do?
  It's easy to sit there and pretend to have the high moral ground while not offering any answers. The bottom line is that most rational people who actually have cognitive resonance know that sometimes you have to make a stand. War was the last resort, it wasn't the first, it was after many other failed attempts. What are you going to do if I attemp to break in your house and kill you family? Are you going to let them die while you wait from someone else to come around and stop them for you? I would think that even cowards would put up some sort of resistance. You can't run to the safety of your home because I'm in there right now.
  That's right, you will have to do something or die. It's that simple. Resorting to doing evil to protect yourself doesn't make you or anyone else evil, it makes you alive and human with the desire to stay alive.
35. Re:Reality check people by sumdumass · 2009-01-08 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Irrespective of the intent to cause civilian deaths, one side is causing far more than the other.
  That's pretty hard to justify.
  
  Well, no it isn't. Israel fortifies it's schools and spends vast amounts of money on bomb shelters and hardened structures with early warning systems. of course there is less then 15 minutes warning of rocket and mortar attacks making them best wishes efforts. Many of the private citizens have built bomb shelters too.
  The Hamas and other terrorists in the area, they on the other hand, rely on women and children for human shields. The civilian death toll is going to be higher there. There is video of hamas shooting mortars from the UN schools that were hit, both of which suffered damage un-proportionally to the types of ordinances used against the Hamas positions. The head master at one of the schools was actually a senior Hamas rocket engineer and used the school to make weapons.
  
  Anyway, the Israeli civilians aren't civilians. They're an occupying force on land that was taken from the people shooting at them.
  
  Actually, not they are not. Palestine was never it's own country, the jews owned and purchased the lands they were living on. Most of the lands they purchased was by invite from the Ottoman empire who was the reigning government of the area for over a century. I'm willing to bet that you one of those people that think Israel happened after WWII. If I'm right, that would make you a revisionist and a willfully ignorant sole.
36. Re:Reality check people by grumbel · 2009-01-08 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  What are you going to do if I attemp to break in your house and kill you family?
  Following your argumentation I should bomb the house of the criminal, kill 10 of his neighbors that had nothing to do with this and call it self defense. Oh, and the criminal isn't even breaking into your house murdering your family, he his throwing rocks over your high fence.
  As said, police work and negotiations are the answer, not killing more civilians. The goal should be to break out of this cycle of violence, not to do everything to repeat it. And yeah, that might mean to just suck it up when some terror attack happens, because what you want to fight is the ground on which terrorists grow.
37. Re:Reality check people by sumdumass · 2009-01-08 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  I like how you avoided the question of "So what in your magical world should Israel do?" by posting an asinine comment in return. I actually doubt you have an answer, at least not one that doesn't make you look like a lunatic if you mention it to someone else.
  For that reason, I will provide the answer, it's the same answer to Israel. You do anything in your power to stop it and save the life of yourself and your loved ones.
  BTW, the casualty rate for innocent civilians have been extremely low so far. Your entire kill 10 neighbors for one criminal just shows how your attempting to skew anything and everything. The civilian death rate has been less then 25% to date. so it would be more like killing 100 criminals hiding among 25 civilians.
  
  As said, police work and negotiations are the answer, not killing more civilians. The goal should be to break out of this cycle of violence, not to do everything to repeat it. And yeah, that might mean to just suck it up when some terror attack happens, because what you want to fight is the ground on which terrorists grow.
  
  Are you stupid? The police work and non violent means have not worked. Fuck, what the hell is your problem? Are you purposely not paying attention? The violence will end when the threat ends. That happens by either stopping hamas from firing rockets and grenades or by killing the members of Hamas. The non-violent means simply failed. Or are you suggesting that they act as retarded as possible and continue shouting don't shoot while dodging bullets and mortars? Fuck dude, haven't you been paying attention to anything? I even spelled that out in my last post, nothing else was working!
  Fight the ground that terrorists grow? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Hamas is the KKK of the middle east. They got Israel out of gaza, they got the settlements torn down and the people relocated, the blockades didn't happen until the rockets started going off 8 years ago and with ever relaxation of them, more rocket fire is there. Hamas doesn't want to live peacefully, they want to exterminate the jews. They are the KKK of the middle east. Hezbollah is their southern chapter. Both hide among the civilians and shoot at Israel. You should be praising Israel that more civilians haven't been killed.
38. Re:Reality check people by grumbel · 2009-01-08 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  Fight the ground that terrorists grow? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
  Not killing civilians. The whole issue is that Hamas has the sympathy of the people because of what Israel does, if Israel would oppress and kill Palestina people on a regular basis Hamas would have very little ground to stand on. You seem to have a problem understanding that in a cycle of violence there isn't a single guilty party, the action of party A are directly caused by party B and vice a versa. If you retaliate after every problem you can continue that cycle for a long long time.
  
  The civilian death rate has been less then 25% to date.
  They have killed around five times more civilians with their "cleanup" then Hamas killed with their rockets. Thats not low, thats sky high. And thats not even considering that not every middle aged man that got killed is a Hamas terrorist and that it isn't ok to kill Hamas terrorist without trial.
  If you want to do something, they could have installed some Phalanx anti-missile units.
39. Re:Reality check people by sumdumass · 2009-01-09 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Not killing civilians. The whole issue is that Hamas has the sympathy of the people because of what Israel does, if Israel would oppress and kill Palestina people on a regular basis Hamas would have very little ground to stand on. You seem to have a problem understanding that in a cycle of violence there isn't a single guilty party, the action of party A are directly caused by party B and vice a versa. If you retaliate after every problem you can continue that cycle for a long long time.
  
  Lol.. You must be ignoring things on purpose. You see, Hamas does A, Israel responds with B. Hamas won't stop A because of X, Y, or Z or anything else they have tried. Israel has to resort to B or live with Rockets and mortars spreading havoc on their cities causing property damage and loss of life.
  If there is a problem here, it is that Hamas continues to do A. Israel won't stop B until Hamas stop's A. B is the result of A therefore A needs to be taken care of so B can go away. The problem as you see it is one of communication. You don't seem to get that B is a result of A, it is an attempt to stop A. If A went away, B would stop. If it looked like B was going to stop for good, X and Y would most likely go away too. The idea that Israel is killing civilians is only because the Cowardly Hamas is hiding in them and doing A, essentially putting them in danger. The UN "aid" truck that was hit had fertilizers and components for the rockets that were banned in the area, the head master at one of the schools hit was a lead Hamas Rocket engineer and was killed outside one loading rockets onto a truck, the other school was hit by the weapons cache and not the tank SABO round that targeted the hamas operatives. It was actually their ordinances that caused the damage to the school. But Hamas has some help in their slanting of the activities.
  
  If you want to do something, they could have installed some Phalanx anti-missile units.
  
  Well, maybe you were thinking of the Phalanx CIWS or this and this
  My understanding is that there simply aren't enough of these that can be deployed as of yet. I'm not even sure that we are selling them to Israel but we are deploying them in our two wars as fast as they can be built. You would need quite a few of them because you would need to protect the entire Gaza border. Those do great jobs protecting a ship or a small base (Multiple units can link together and protect larger areas). I believe the Australians have a modified version for their navy ships that use 50cal ammo instead of the 20mm which isn't nearly as effective. I can't find any data on it's success rates but I think they got most of the bugs out. Ideally, Hamas could be convinced to stop fireing rockets. But they can't be, they are the KKK of the middle east and won't stop until either they are dead or the jews are. It looks like they are on the losing end of that. Maybe this system can be installed in teh future and make the rockets and mortars of Hamas pointless and obsolete.
40. Re:Reality check people by grumbel · 2009-01-09 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  Israel won't stop B until Hamas stop's A.
  And Hamas won't stop A before Israel stops B. Guess what, thats the circle of violence and B is part of the problem, not of the solution, its that simple.
41. Re:Reality check people by sumdumass · 2009-01-09 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  What fucking Circle, Israel wasn't doing B until well after Hamas started A. Now Hezbollah seems to want to get into it.
  Do you think Israel doesn't have a right, a duty, an obligation to it's people, Jews, Muslims, Christians alike?
  Here are the choices Hamas stops firing into Israel. This will be accomplished either by Hamas's complete annihilation, their being beaten into submission and stopping, them getting a sudden stroke of genus and realizing that they are the problems and stopping A then choosing a peaceful means to settle disputes. But there is no circle at all. Israel showed great restraint and held off on military actions for quite a bit of time while attempting to pursue a non-violent solution. But there comes a time when there is a thorn in your ass, where you have to remove the thorn to stop the pain. All Israel wants is A to stop and it will stop attempting to remove the thorn.
Hicks is right by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 07:49 · Score: 1, Funny

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Joining a Botnet on purpose? by mrdoogee · 2009-01-06 07:51 · Score: 1

Now I've heard everything.
1. Re:Joining a Botnet on purpose? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 07:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You've never installed a Windows-based operating system on one of your machines??
2. Re:Joining a Botnet on purpose? by slugtastic · 2009-01-06 08:05 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  But its not "joining on purpose", more like under-conscious submitting of the self to the malware overlords.
3. Re:Joining a Botnet on purpose? by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ohmigod. Are you saying that I'm helping the Arab war effort by running Windows to play video games?
Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 07:51 · Score: -1, Flamebait

an Israeli Website, "Help Israel Win," which provides a download so your PC can become part of a worldwide pro-Israeli botnet.
I think I will download the software and I strongly suggest that you all do the same. To put the two sides in perspective:

Jews: Isreal has the most gender-neutral society in the entire world.
IslamoSavages: Maim their wives and daughters for showing too much ankle. Frequent gang-rape and forced marriage of underage girls.

Jews: Have the right to a homeland.
IslamoSavages: Wish to indoctrinate the world into the cancer known as Islam.

Jews: Act only in self-defense, strike from afar only at those whose fingers are on the trigger or detonator. Collateral damage is accidental.
IslamoSavages: Set out to instill terror by maiming innocent women and children while indoctrinating their own into suicide missions.

Jews: Don't really care that much about religion.
IslamoSavages: Submit to Allah or die.

Jews: Leading contributors to cutting-edge science and technology.
IslamoSavages: haven't done shit since 1000 B.C. when they gave up the last of their rational humanistic thought. Sit on large patches of oil and get fat.

Jews: Kicked 4 Arab nations' asses only to preserve Israeli existance.
IslamoSavages: Lost some of their land in an ass-backward attempt to conquer Israel, continue to whine about it to this day as if it were Israel's fault like a beliggerent crybaby who got beat up by a man 1/4 his size.

Jews: At worst, rich greedy hooknosed masters of Hollywood.
IslamoSavages: At worst, do you really want to know?!
1. Re:Put things in perspective... by Brigadier · 2009-01-06 07:55 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  wow, at first I was going to say your obviously pro Jew however, to be honest just by your own rhetoric you sound more like a extremist very similar to that of hamas(sp)
  hatred is negative no matter who uses it, and the fact is truth and history will always come down to a matter of perspective.
2. Re:Put things in perspective... by eleuthero · 2009-01-06 08:06 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  When I started reading, I interpreted the above as a joke (albeit in poor taste). I am now thinking it was perhaps more flamebait.
  
  The notes at first seem to be correct on the Israeli side with exaggeration on the Islamic side. They then goes into more extremist positions.
  
  The point to which I take special exception is perhaps a minor one in the mind of many--the "leading contributors..." line for Islamics contains a ridiculous statement--The entire force of Western educational structure developed as a result of interaction between Christian and Islamic theologians/scholars in the 1100s and following. Avicena, though I disagree with his philosophical base, was a clear thinker and prompted a response from many in the West.
3. Re:Put things in perspective... by Ethanol-fueled · 2009-01-06 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well, while the post was a bit extreme and even funny at the end, I can understand where that guy's coming from. But only if there were a true dichotomy, supporting either/or with no option to remain neutral and no chance of diplomacy or compromise given the states of the two sides at present.
  
  People tend to sympathize with the underdog, and that works well in football or choice of operating system, but it's a lot less practical in matters of global warfare(note: not as in "WWIII", at least not yet, but global because "cyberspace" is involved).
4. Re:Put things in perspective... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well, he is an extremist but he actually hit one valid point, IMHO:
  
  Lost some of their land in an ass-backward attempt to conquer Israel
  People seem to forget that Israel has been attacked by her neighbors three or four times in the last 60 years. Is it any wonder that they have a siege mentality?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
5. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm a Jew and definite supporter of Israel, but some of your points are frighteningly mistaken.
  "The cancer that is Islam"? Come on. Every religion has it's share of crazy fundamentalist quacks reading too much into parts of their holy literature - currently, the fundamentalists of Islam just happen to be a little more numerous and (considerably) more vocal than those of the other major religions. Look back in time - at one point, Christians had a little thing called the Crusades. Hindus in India have been known to form mobs and beat and kill their Muslim neighbors. As for Jews...well, some might even consider the current crisis an example of fundamentalism, though I vehemently do not.
  Which leads me the next point: the fallacy that Jews somehow "don't really care that much about religion". What? Sure, they may not go out and scream "TO THE GLORY OF YWHW" before blowing themselves up in a crowded mosque, but that doesn't mean they don't have an incredible fundamentalist and mainstream religious fervor. Watch people rock back and forth in tears and prayer in front of the Wailing Wall and then tell me Jews in Israel "don't really care that much about religion."
  "Haven't done shit since 1000 B.C. when they gave up the last of their rational humanistic thought. Sit on patches of oil and get fat." Oy vey. For one, there are Muslims outside the Arab world. For another, back to point one: stop generalizing. Just because a religion has a few (or even a lot) of nutjobs, doesn't mean that the religion itself is to blame.
  The rest of your flamebait suffers the same problem. You say Muslims are savages. It would be more accurate to say some some Muslims are savages. It would be more accurate still to say some people are savages.
6. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:16 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Jews: At worst, rich greedy hooknosed masters of Hollywood.
  I'd say bombing a school and killing 40 children like they did earlier today is worse than that.
  Not that I'm supporting the Palestinians here.
  They're both sufficiently evil where I can't hold my nose and support either one.
7. Re:Put things in perspective... by Captain+Splendid · 2009-01-06 08:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  To be fair, considering what the Jewish people have gone through in the last few thousand years, I'd wager the siege mentality predates the state of Israel.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
8. Re:Put things in perspective... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 08:32 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  To be fair, considering what the Jewish people have gone through in the last few thousand years, I'd wager the siege mentality predates the state of Israel.
  No doubt. But being invaded three different times isn't very likely to end that siege mentality is it?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
9. Re:Put things in perspective... by poetmatt · 2009-01-06 08:33 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Israel has every citizen sign up for the military but that doesn't mean they require everyone to go frontlines and risk their lives. There are so many people in the army that they don't need everyone to be frontline and there are other places where people serve more benefit. It's more like requiring people to take PE up to and through college.
  The last 3 comments and "muslim comparisons" of the guy are off in varying ways, the rest characterize the PLO and other violent palestinian orgnizations accurately (not all muslims). At some point Palestinians are going to realize that Jews/Israeli's are Palestinians too, and at that point it will show how stupid all of this crap is.
10. Re:Put things in perspective... by Martin+Blank · 2009-01-06 08:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is one of the things that puzzles me. All of the battles launched by the Arabs began with, "We will be victorious and wipe Israel from the map, God willing." And yet they were unsuccessful in 1948 and 1973, and caught off-guard in 1967 when Israel attacked prior to a likely attack by the forces from three Arab nations. Hezbollah and Hamas repeatedly cite their mere survival as God showing them favor (despite the kill ratio of 50:1 or more enjoyed by the Israelis).
  I understand the idea that they may perceive these as challenges from God to be overcome, but at some point, someone has to be thinking that maybe these are messages from God telling them that they're not going to win.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
11. Re:Put things in perspective... by techprophet · 2009-01-06 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  Well put, but no botnet for me. I need my CPU cycles.
12. Re:Put things in perspective... by techprophet · 2009-01-06 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  No it isn't
13. Re:Put things in perspective... by fishbowl · 2009-01-06 09:03 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Think of Gaza as basically the South Philly of the Near East. It is a tiny place, densely populated. By provoking a retaliatory attack on their own tiny, densely populated city, the Arabs sealed the fate of innocent civilians. There is no way to wage war in this area without hitting civilian targets. It's not as if there is some big "military/political" sector separate from some "civilian" sector. If you expect Israel to be nicer / more careful after this most recent provocation by the Arabs and the Hamas leadership, you are not paying attention. Israel is saying the line has been drawn and crossed, and they aren't going to back down.
  
  --
  -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
14. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:05 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  "We will be victorious and wipe Israel from the map, God willing." And yet they were unsuccessful in 1948 and 1973, and caught off-guard in 1967 when Israel attacked prior to a likely attack by the forces from three Arab nations. Hezbollah and Hamas repeatedly cite their mere survival as God showing them favor (despite the kill ratio of 50:1 or more enjoyed by the Israelis).
  Joke's on them. Allah is Jewish.
15. Re:Put things in perspective... by nicolas.kassis · 2009-01-06 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  in all cases they would have lost had it not been for help by a much more powerfull ally thousands of miles away. But in any case, currently their old enemy is the best chance, aka egypt. I'd like Egypt to step up and realize that Gaza should be taken over by them and order brought in. I don't like the current goverment in egypt for their human rights position but they have done a much better job then Israel at containing extremist muslim groups like the muslim brotherhood which is ancestor to hamas. Of course Egypt doesn't want the problem and so this will never work.
16. Re:Put things in perspective... by eleuthero · 2009-01-06 09:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  for those interested, the YWHW was intended to reference the name God gives himself when speaking to Moses... it should read, YHWH (yod he waw he)- unless his transliteration is seeing H's as waw's/vav's (w and v roughly interchangeable here). the name YHWH comes from a root for the verb "to be" and basically means "the one who exists"
17. Re:Put things in perspective... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  in all cases they would have lost had it not been for help by a much more powerfull ally thousands of miles away
  Umm, Israel prevailed in 1948 with very little help from the outside World and in 1967 with almost no help from the United States. Most of Israel's weaponry in the early years came from France, not the US.
  
  But in any case, currently their old enemy is the best chance, aka egypt
  Best chance of what?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
18. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  "Christians had a little thing called the Crusades."
  
  Let's get this straight. Do you think that Christians handed over those countries to the Muslims? They were being knocked over left and right by Muslim armies. They were massacring pilgrims going to Jerusalem. They destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchr. Yeah - Christians started the Crusades, but as an answer to Muslim actions.
19. Re:Put things in perspective... by eihab · 2009-01-06 09:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I'm a Muslim and my lunch break is almost over so I can't really write as long of a post as I wanted.
  I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
  The solutions presented by both sides so far are ridiculous:
  a) Throw them in the sea (Palestinian solution)
  b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
  Both sides are idiots, hard headed and are in serious need for an adult conversation.
  As a side note to the GP regarding extremist Muslims (or as I like to call them douche bags), if they read Quran they'll stop this my god is bigger than your god bull, here's a quote:
  Al Baqara (002.136)
  
  Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.
  P.S.: It's refreshing to see a post like yours on Slashdot :)
  
  --
  If you can't mod them join them.
20. Re:Put things in perspective... by nicolas.kassis · 2009-01-06 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Of peace. Seriously, there is no chance in hell that Israel will manage peace by directly because their is no trust between the two party and won't be for a long time.
21. Re:Put things in perspective... by smoker2 · 2009-01-06 10:05 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  The very first act of Israel as a nascent state was to attack Egypt. And there had never historically (before '48) been a State of Israel, all they had was vague mutterings of a "promised land". Where was this promised land - Palestine ! Who promised it ? The imaginary guy in the sky. Fuck worrying about intelligent design, what about the Israelis, murdering people to preserve a homeland that they basically promised themselves. There is a good reason why the diaspora happened - because they are a bunch of trouble makers and always have been. If it wasn't for what happened during WW2, they would have had their asses handed to them years ago. They've been playing the victim for far too long IMHO. Even christ freaked out because they used the temple as a branch of the local savings and loan.
  
  I don't care what religion anybody subscribes to, but I do object to them starting fights every time you turn your back.
22. Re:Put things in perspective... by rednip · 2009-01-06 10:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Allah is Jewish.
  Actually, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons, all worship the same God, they just disagree on who was the last prophet.
  
  --
  The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
23. Re:Put things in perspective... by Abreu · 2009-01-06 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up!
  The current problem in Israel and Palestine is that the violence has hardened the population to the point that the most extremist people in both groups are in control of goverment actions.
  We need moderate Israelis and moderate Palestinians in charge, so that they can finally hammer a two-state solution that brings peace to the region.
  Sadly, due to the ever increasing spiral of revenge, I don't see this happening anytime soon.
  
  --
  No sig for the moment.
24. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  Hezbollah and Hamas have had totally different results against the IDF. Israel more or less moves in and out of Gaza at its own free will, while the last incursion into Lebanon the IDF met very heavy resistance from a massively outgunned Hezbollah and besides blowing a lot of things up didn't achieve much else. Based purely on a military level (removing questions about terrorism from the discussion) Hezbollah are almost as impressive as the IDF is when it comes to what they can do with so few people. Hamas seems to have only one method of fighting - suicide bombers. Hezbollah on the other hand is quite at home fighting a conventional battle too.
25. Re:Put things in perspective... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  because they are a bunch of trouble makers and always have been
  And I'm the one who gets a troll mod? Got any other bits of racism that you'd care to share with us?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
26. Re:Put things in perspective... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Hezbollah are almost as impressive as the IDF is when it comes to what they can do with so few people
  Take the kid gloves off the IDF and I don't think Hezbollah's results would have been as "impressive"
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
27. Re:Put things in perspective... by citylivin · 2009-01-06 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  "at some point, someone has to be thinking that maybe these are messages from God telling them that they're not going to win."
  Except that there is no god, only men and countries. Men and countries making deals with other men and countries. Men and countries writing propaganda on slashdot telling them that god says they won't win.
  
  --
  As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
28. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Your right. Every religion has the extreme nuts that take things out of context. however in the case of Islam the nuts are the ones who want peace. the Koran is VERY clear about there being no peace until all have been converted. It commands that Jerusalem be taken then Rome. most of the savage verses are repeated multiple times in different wording to be sure that none can be taken out of context. The koran is not cryptic the way that christian and jewish texts are. it is very straight forward.
  You are also right that most (all) religions have a dark history. however most move on. Christians had the crusades. which was aimed more at other types of christians than muslims. But they grew out of that. The core message of christianity, and judaism, and buddhism, and most other world religions is one of peace, and tolerance. They are sadly abused often. But islam starts there. to abuse its message would be to offer peace to the infidels.
29. Re:Put things in perspective... by RiotingPacifist · 2009-01-06 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  a) Throw them in the sea (Palestinian solution)
  b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
  If only there was some kind of old border that would keep both sides more content and willing to speak to each-other.
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
30. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  That whooshing sound you heard? It wasn't an airplane.
31. Re:Put things in perspective... by Flavio · 2009-01-06 11:11 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Actually, Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons, all worship the same God, they just disagree on who was the last prophet.
  I respectfully disagree.
  The Christian God is Triune, and this "last prophet" is actually the Christian God. The fact that Jews, Muslims and Christians disagree regarding Christ means that they have differing opinions regarding the essential nature of God.
  Muslims worship a God which is not triune. Therefore, the Muslim God cannot be the Christian God.
32. Re:Put things in perspective... by downhole · 2009-01-06 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  I am also Jew. While the Israelis may be too hard-headed sometimes, saying that their position is to exterminate the Palestinians is a bit over the top. If they really wanted to do that, they could have done it already. They do have the technical capability to do that, though not the desire. And if there is any Israeli group with at least a moderate level of public support whose position is to exterminate the Palestinians, I have yet to hear of them.
  Meanwhile, it seems that the publicly stated position of Hamas is to kill all of the Jews everywhere - even Hitler was not so ambitious. And it seems that the people of Gaza, with full knowledge of this position and as free of an election as can be arranged in the area, elected Hamas to lead them. What are they do to with these people? I sure don't know. How do you have meaningful negotiations with an opponent who seeks nothing less than the death of your entire race? I can't think of anything better to do than pretty much what the Israelis are doing now.
  But I can think of lots of better things for the Palestinians to do. Abandon the goal of killing all of the Jews and set up as reasonable and prosperous of a community as they can with what they have right now. If you must fight, make every possible effort to fight only against the soldiers of the other side. If they demonstrate the ability to have some sort of stable society somewhere, I think there'd be much greater sympathy for their desire to have a legitimate homeland. I think that Israel itself has shown that having just living as your primary goal leads to a much better life and a better ability to fight than having slaughtering the other side no matter what happens to you and your side as your primary goal.
  
  --
  I don't reply to ACs
33. Re:Put things in perspective... by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 11:26 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  You call the Israeli Labor and Kadima parties extremists? Seriously? Have you never heard of Shas, UTJ, and the other settler and ultra-Orthodox parties?
  I know it sounds nice to say "both sides have too many extremists", but if you visit Israel it quickly becomes apparent that Israel isn't run by extremists. People inside Israel live normal lives when the wars stop, while groups like Hamas dedicate their time and effort to making sure that, for the Palestinians, the war never stops.
34. Re:Put things in perspective... by s6135 · 2009-01-06 11:58 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Please don't lump Hindus with other lunatics. Read your history write. India - Hindus - is the only country where Jews were not persecuted. If Hindus are killing Muslims in India, ask where did these Muslims come from? Please read, understand, think before you post.
35. Re:Put things in perspective... by XchristX · 2009-01-06 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying I disagree with you, but why is it that whenever Muslims are criticized this way, an entire army of apologists and propagandists pounces upon the criticizer with accusations of bias and bigotry, but when Jews, Christians or Hindus are attacked in this way, it's the same apologists who cheer the attackers on? All this even though the one major thing that Christians, Jews, Buddhists , Hindus and even minority Muslim sects like Ahmadiyyas have in common is that they all either have been or are being persecuted by the Sunni-Shia Muslim hegemony (Jews in Iran, Hindu minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Christians in East Timor, Buddhas of Bamiyan).
  Methinks some kind of Stockholm's syndrome is at work here.
  
  --
  l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
36. Re:Put things in perspective... by theStorminMormon · 2009-01-06 12:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Muslims worship a God which is not triune. Therefore, the Muslim God cannot be the Christian God.
  From your response I can tell you are a Southern Baptist who has been exposed to "The Mormon Question" or know someone who has. It saddens me to see you so naively misled. Using the doctrine of the Trinity as a bright-line distinction between Mormons and Christians (or Muslims and Christians in this case) might be the kind of comforting safety blanked that lets you rest easy, but sadly it has no basis in fact.
  The fact is that there's no such thing as the Trinity in the Bible.
  "The formal doctrine of the trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament." - Harper's Bible Dictionary (Protestant Source)
  "The formulation of 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century... Among Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - New Catholic Encyclopedia (Catholic Source)
  The Bible's teaching on God's nature is ambiguous. Sure, Christ says he's "one with the Father", but then he also prays that his disciples will be one in the same sense of the word, which seriously jeopardizes subsequent metaphysical gymnastics required to invent the "one in three, three in one" formulation. At best the Bible is compatible with the Trinity, but it most certainly doesn't require it or preach it.
  Oops.
  
  --
  The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
37. Re:Put things in perspective... by theStorminMormon · 2009-01-06 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Israel offered to give Gaza to Egypt.
  Egypt didn't want it.
  Not that I blame them, of course.
  The Palestinians are just pawns for the Arabs, who are only posturing as anti-Israel to quell their own internal radicals. Well, now they are pawns for the Persians, which just makes the whole thing more complex.
  Sure, Muslims and Jews historically don't get along, but neither do Arabs and Persians. So now it's a three-way battle.
  
  --
  The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
38. Re:Put things in perspective... by Trillian_1138 · 2009-01-06 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  For what it's worth, you can be racist and still have a grain of truth.
  As I've said elsewhere on this thread, I identify as culturally Jewish, but was raised in a religiously Jewish household. And in spite of (or, perhaps, because of) all that, I don't support Israel; not it's creation by UN mandate and not its current policy of war. Not that I support the Palestinians (or anyone else) attacking Israel, either... 50 years after Israel's creation, the Middle East is between a rock and a hard place and no one is willing to budge.
  So while I 100% agree that smoker2 is more than a tad bit racist, I also agree that divine intervention should not be a qualification in granting real estate to a group of people...
  -Trillian
39. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to be taking a stance that you don't like Hezbollah therefore they are stuffed at what they do. That's just as erronous as someone claiming that the IDF is hopeless just because they don't like Israel. The IDF has never used 'kid gloves' in its operations. It can't afford to. Most commentary on the last incursion into Lebanon suggest that the IDF met far stronger resistance than it ancitipated, it is only biased opinion that carries the line that the IDF didn't have as easy as a campaign as they wanted to because they were playing nicely.
  Note that saying Hezbollah's military campaign was impressive is an entirely different thing to saying that I support Hezbollah - I don't. Unprovoked rocket attacks and incursions are what justifies the IDF's hard response in Lebanon and now in Gaza.
40. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a Muslim and my lunch break is almost over so I can't really write as long of a post as I wanted.
  Now a Jew would just keep lunching into work-time and finish that post. Then deduct the extra time, claim it as a tax break and knock out another crappy comedy script staring Ben Stiller...
41. Re:Put things in perspective... by XchristX · 2009-01-06 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  Furthermore Hindus are the biggest supporters of Israel outside of the western world. You'd think that this would foster some mutual understanding...
  Apparently not.
  
  --
  l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
42. Re:Put things in perspective... by XchristX · 2009-01-06 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's not really true...
  Hint: Muslims did not build the Kaaba. The "appropriated" it.
  
  --
  l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
43. Re:Put things in perspective... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  I also agree that divine intervention should not be a qualification in granting real estate to a group of people...
  What "divine intervention"? Divine intervention may have been the motivation for certain Jews moving to that region (although not all of them, particularly after the holocaust) but the fact remains that there was a substantial Jewish population living in the area when the UN partitioned it. The Arabs refused to accept the partition and decided to contest it militarily. Israel soundly defeated them on the field of battle and we've been living with the consequences ever since.
  Religious motivations may have encouraged some people to move there in the first place but I don't think the UN vote to partition the land was based on the Hebrew God descending from the heavens and stuffing the ballot box.....
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
44. Re:Put things in perspective... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  The Palestinians are just pawns for the Arabs, who are only posturing as anti-Israel to quell their own internal radicals.
  Ding ding ding! Give the parent a cookie.
  If it wasn't for the distraction of "Palestinian suffering" the Arab leaders might actually have to answer some tough questions at home. Nothing better to distract a populace from your own corruption and oppression than to blame it all on some external (real or imagined) enemy.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
45. Re:Put things in perspective... by NeutronCowboy · 2009-01-06 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Both sides are idiots, hard headed and are in serious need for an adult conversation.
  Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that adult conversation will only come about once every side has bled too much for the current state to continue. Yes, this means that Israel will have to bleed just as much as the Palestinians.
  I don't know how that will happen, but it will have to be something where both sides cry uncle. Judging from what hasn't made either side cry uncle, I can only shudder at what that might be.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
46. Re:Put things in perspective... by Chris+Burke · 2009-01-06 13:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We all worship the God of Abraham. Jesus said to worship this God. It's the same God even if there are disagreements about Him.
  Oh and the last Christian prophet was of course John the Baptist. ;)
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
47. Re:Put things in perspective... by NeutronCowboy · 2009-01-06 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Can you just explain to me what that line is, and how Israel expects Hamas to step back? What is the endgame here? You're right that there's no way to wage a war in that area without collateral damage. But that also means that there is no way to wage a war without making combatants out of everybody - and that just leads to genocide. Do you really want to go down that road?
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
48. Re:Put things in perspective... by Paradigm_Complex · 2009-01-06 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  People tend to sympathize with the underdog, and that works well in football or choice of operating system,
  Gee, I can't think of anyone who sympathies with Microsoft Windows's declining market-share. *wink*
  
  --
  "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
49. Re:Put things in perspective... by Flavio · 2009-01-06 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  From your response I can tell you are a Southern Baptist who has been exposed to "The Mormon Question" or know someone who has. It saddens me to see you so naively misled.
  You're very off base. I'm not Southern Baptist. I'm not even American.
  Here's the deal: Muslims claim Jesus was just a man. Christians claim that Jesus is God. Therefore, the God of Islam cannot be the God of Christians (because a regular man obviously cannot be the one and only God). QED. No need to invoke the Trinity.
  Any religion which rejects Jesus as God is automatically incompatible with Christianity. Reducing the role of Jesus to that of a prophet contradicts the New Testament and the Christian concept of salvation through grace.
50. Re:Put things in perspective... by pirhana · 2009-01-06 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  > The Arabs refused to accept the partition and decided to contest it militarily. Israel soundly defeated them on the field of battle and we've been living with the consequences ever since.
  
  Israel had occupation agenda from day one. Otherwise, why can't they say that they are ready for a total withdrawal from all occupied land for complete(written) peace agreement with all the neighbors. If they say anything like this, it would give them some element of credibility rather saying craps like "promised land" and "Arabs attacked us and lost so we can kick out every Palestine out there out of their home"
  
  --
  http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
51. Re:Put things in perspective... by theStorminMormon · 2009-01-06 14:47 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Any religion which rejects Jesus as God is automatically incompatible with Christianity.
  If you'd said that in the first place I wouldn't have argued the point. That's just true from definition. But you brought up the Trinity. That's a different matter entirely, because the location of the Trinity within Christian orthodoxy is a controversial topic.
  Whether or not you are aware of it, this identical argument (that any one who rejects the Trinity isn't really worshiping the same God as the true Christians) is a lynch-pin in the Baptists explaining why Mormons are an evil devil cult rather than a different branch of Christianity.
  
  --
  The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
52. Re:Put things in perspective... by pirhana · 2009-01-06 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  > If it wasn't for the distraction of "Palestinian suffering" the Arab leaders might actually have to answer some tough questions at home. Nothing better to distract a populace from your own corruption and oppression than to blame it all on some external (real or imagined) enemy.
  
  This is the key point. Palestine people have suffered because of these family dictators called Arab leaders(who are absolutely controlled by US). But its strange that people take these Arab leaders stupidity as an excuse for Israel to do every inhuman act and occupation against people of Palestine.
  
  --
  http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
53. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 15:01 · Score: 0
  
  You correctly reflected the elected govt of Palestine's (Hamas') solution - but I don't think you fairly reflected Israels elected government's solution by saying extermination. (And you can't say a tit for tat soln by some radical jew seriously represents a solution proposed by Israel's side).
  Otherwise, I'd have called your post refreshing too - but unfortunately your unfair comparison fails to make it such.
54. Re:Put things in perspective... by pirhana · 2009-01-06 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  > You call the Israeli Labor and Kadima parties extremists? Seriously?
  
  Wasn't here any illegal settling(i.e kicking out Palestines out of their home) under any of these ? Wasn't there any illegal occupation under these people ? for me, it qualifies them to be called as extremists.
  
  --
  http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
55. Re:Put things in perspective... by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, illegal settling takes place under nearly every Israeli government. That's why it's called "illegal": it violates local law. The Israeli government isn't like the American one; it's not divided into branches that get held by one majority party each.
  Kadima (center on The Situation, center-right economics) and Labor (left on both, but not far enough to the Left to be morons) are not extremist parties, but they often have to form governing coalitions with extremist parties because Israel's parliamentary system is too democratic: it literally takes less than one percent of the vote to win one of the 120 Knesset seats. And it only takes 10 or so seats to become a jackass little kingmaker party that goes for one coalition or another based on who will give you the most special privileges.
  Also, Israel doesn't have a civil service as we understand the term here in America. They have "state employees". The sheer laziness and corruption of those in a month people would, from what I've heard, give the American media scandal fodder for a year.
  So yes, settlements continue to be built under governments led by mainstream, moderate parties like Kadima and Labor because no single political party has the power to stop them: that would require at least a supermajority of the Knesset by a single party and a complete clean-out of Israel's executive branch of government. Well, that or a peace deal with the Arabs.
56. Re:Put things in perspective... by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  I correct myself, Wikipedia indicates that the Knesset has a 2% electoral threshold for a seat. That remains extraordinarily low compared to many countries, and compared to most with stable coalition governments.
57. Re:Put things in perspective... by PPH · 2009-01-06 16:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
  That's not the problem. The majorities on both sides are willing to negotiate. They are just not able to keep the lid on their respective radical factions.
  We have ours in the USA as well. And we can't control them either.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
58. Re:Put things in perspective... by Ironlenny · 2009-01-06 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  Christians believe in a trinitarian God where God the Father, God the son (Jesus), and God the spirit (also called the holy spirit/holy ghost) exist in a quantum entangled state. The founder of Christianity (Jesus) is said the have been the biological and spiritual son of God, the father.
  Muslims believe in a non trinitarian God with Mohammad as his prophet. They believe that Jesus's claims and the trinitarian view of God are false.
  Jews believe in a non trinitarian God. They do not believe either Mohammad's or Jesus's claims, and they believe that the trinitarian view of God is false.
  Mormons believe in a Godhead, three separate beings united in purpose with God the father at the top, then Jesus, then the Holy Ghost. They do believe Jesus's claims of divinity, but they believe that after he ascended into heaven that the Church became corrupted.
  To say that these four religions believe in the same God demonstrates a gross lack of understanding. While the differences may appear to be superficial, they have profound theological implications, that have been expounded upon through the centuries. Those differences also are what define these four religions as separate, independent religions, and to say otherwise belittles all of them.
  It should be noted that I am a Christian of the Pentecostal denomination.
  
  --
  There is a system for subverting the system and you should use that system!
59. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 16:42 · Score: 0
  
  b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
  MSM is bad for you (and everybody else), Israel is not trying to genocide them.
  How can I tell? Because they wouldn't need more than a few days to completely obliterate every square inch of Gaza if they wanted to even if they were only using conventional weapons and there would be absolutely no need to send in any ground troops.
  Does Gaza still exist? *Check* Ok, issue settled.
  That said it's refreshing to read a Muslim unafraid to disrespect Hamas and all the rest of the hyper-violent "muslim" assholes.
60. Re:Put things in perspective... by eihab · 2009-01-06 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  Alright, I'll bite.
  I've responded earlier and included a quote from Quran that basically says as a Muslim you have to respect all God's prophets and that all his prophets are equal.
  Here's another Surat for you (the whole thing so it's not a snippet out of context):
  Al-Kafiroon (109):
  
  109.001
  Say: O disbelievers!
  109.002
  I worship not that which ye worship;
  109.003
  Nor worship ye that which I worship.
  109.004
  And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
  109.005
  Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
  109.006
  Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.
  That hardly sounds like no peace until all have been converted to me.
  Look, all religions have a dark history because humanity has a dark history. Look at what's happening in the world _today_ in the name of god, religion, freedom, peace, oil or whatever.
  Stop the hatred, it's getting old.
  
  --
  If you can't mod them join them.
61. Re:Put things in perspective... by fishbowl · 2009-01-06 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  >Can you just explain to me what that line is, and how Israel expects Hamas to step back?
  I don't know how many times Israel offered a truce if Hamas would kindly stop lobbing rockets and mortars into populated areas, but the number of rockets was in the 6000 range. While Hamas was negotiating a truce, they were also digging a tunnel with the purpose of kidnapping Israeli soldiers. Israel doesn't expect them to "step back." Israel expects them to die, and die some more, until maybe, if they happen to step back to the extent that Israel takes notice, maybe the punishment will stop. Maybe not.
  >Do you really want to go down that road?
  Not I. I do not seriously believe it is in my power to affect this situation.
  
  --
  -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
62. Re:Put things in perspective... by RightSaidFred99 · 2009-01-06 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  Take the US's military funding out of the IDF, and I don't think the IDF would be as "impressive".
63. Re:Put things in perspective... by rednip · 2009-01-06 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  To say that these four religions believe in the same God demonstrates a gross lack of understanding.
  Sure the dogma is different, but the root of all four was Abraham.
  
  Those differences also are what define these four religions as separate, independent religions, and to say otherwise belittles all of them.
  
  Perhaps it's a little flippant of me to say that 'only the last prophet is different', but as a broad generalization, I don't believe that it's wrong. However any discussion of religion is fraught with challenges. For example you describe Christianity as belief in the Holy Trinity, but as you likely well know, even within the Christian churches, there are profoundly different views on that doctrine. Even your denomination has a branch that rejects it altogether. Of course you might not consider such people as Christians (or Pentecostal for that matter), but hey, that's one of the things wars are fought over.
  
  --
  The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
64. Re:Put things in perspective... by kwikrick · 2009-01-06 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  Who started the war? Jews, Christians, Muslims? It doesn't matter which religion started the war. All wars are started by the rich and powerful, to gain more riches and power. They use religion to motivate and scare the poor into fighting for them. That doesn't make one religion worse than another, it makes them all bad. Religion is bad because its an instrument to keep the masses ignorant and to manipulate them. Sure, religion can be used for good things too, and good and bad things also happen without religion, but the point it, people shouldn't let themselves be blindly guided by religion, because religion can and will be abused by politics.
  
  --
  assignment != equality != identity
65. Re:Put things in perspective... by rednip · 2009-01-06 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  well, it's late, and I reread the Oneness Pentecostalism article, and 'rejects it altogether' is certainly too strong of a statement, but that's kinda my point; religion is a tough subject. We should focus on what we share in common, rather than what separates us; perhaps there will be fewer wars if we do.
  
  --
  The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
66. Re:Put things in perspective... by lewko · 2009-01-06 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a Muslim and my lunch break is almost over so I can't really write as long of a post as I wanted.
  And you wasted valuable lunch-break writing that paragraph.
  The solutions presented by both sides so far are ridiculous:
  a) Throw them in the sea (Palestinian solution)
  b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
  You've correctly enunciated the Arab agenda since before 1948.
  However, your accusation against Israel is unfounded. If Israel wanted to wipe them all out, it could do it in seconds. They haven't, so your argument is little more than propaganda.
  Jordan killed more Palestinians in a week during the seventies, than Israel have in the last 60 years.
  Either you are not telling the truth, or Israel isn't trying hard enough.
  It would be nice if you could base your views on some facts, rather than what you have heard.
  
  --
  Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
67. Re:Put things in perspective... by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  If I was a nutjob fighting a country supported by the world's most powerful countries and I avoided annihilation I might consider it a sign of God on my side. By the same token the Jews have been persecuted for hundreds of years, is that not God sending a message? Oh course not because what you are saying is ridiculous .
68. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 20:42 · Score: 0
  
  It is a common belief among many fighters that if you do not fear death, you are invincible - at least against those that fear death. This is the basis of terrorism. In some ways the theory is applied to nearly all martial arts.
  http://www.shadowhand.com/essays/five_f.html
  In fact, after years of post traumatic stress your ability to produce fear when required simply shuts down (like the movie death wish). So, the natural affect of post traumatic stress is to turn you into a fearless combatant (possibly prone to violent psychotic episodes).
  this isn't new, this is the last and most dedicated land battle of WWII, sixty years of indoctrinated hatred. They cannot lose, because they are prepared to die, they cannot win, because they are vastly outclassed, disorganized, and underfunded.
  The political dillema is that they are embracing genocide, even though their enemy may not want to commit it, nor are all of their people ready to die. They are proving that terrorism (a lack of fear of death) is indeed an effective political tool on a global scale.
  I guess you could try to arrest the volotile refugees, but Isreal hasn't got the resources for that, and it would still be a political shit-storm.
  But you know that's just my opinion.
69. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 20:50 · Score: 0
  
  Look back in time - at one point, Christians had a little thing called the Crusades.
  An ironic example as the crusades started as responses to attrocities committed against Christian Arabs by Islamists.
70. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 22:36 · Score: 0
  
  You will find that over the years the military funding of the IDF from the USA has actually dropped significantly as a proportion of total IDF military expenditure. These days the IDF is quite self sufficient. For a country in their position full self sufficiency would have been very high on the agenda.
71. Re:Put things in perspective... by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. The one time I forget to sign in and people actually pay attention.
72. Re:Put things in perspective... by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  What? Are you fucking kidding? Every Arab state in spitting distance converged on Israel the instant they declared independence and you want to suggest that they started it? Mod down this fucking troll, please.
73. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 23:19 · Score: 0
  
  And if there is any Israeli group with at least a moderate level of public support whose position is to exterminate the Palestinians, I have yet to hear of them.
  Actually there was such a group, called Kahana, and they were outlawed
74. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  I have always been annoyed by the "Look back in time" argument. Why would looking back in time at one religion help anyone understand what is happening TODAY with another religion and its followers? Each time someone brings up this argument, the golden rules of decent debate are broken. "Hey, look, aren't a lot of the followers of this religion very violent because of the way thir religion lets loose of manipulation, or for literally pushing them to violent behavior? Oh, yeah, your religion did this and that 1k years ago" WTF?!
  "Just because a religion has a few (or even a lot) of nutjobs, doesn't mean that the religion itself is to blame. " - well, you tell me then, who/what is it to blame? Some people are savages. For a strange reason, a lot of them are muslims.
75. Re:Put things in perspective... by Nicholas+Hill · 2009-01-07 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  The Jewish bible has God telling Abraham that his children (the Jews) will be constantly oppressed.
76. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Actually - the Old Testament as a lot to say about Israel and it's unfaithfulness to God being the reason for the wars. Generally it meant they had a secular government that were ignoring him.... Kinda like now perhaps. ;)
77. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  it's sad that a rediculously large amount of atrocity in the last few centuries has been because of 'sibling rivalry'
78. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  There's a third option: Somebody needs to supply Hamas with Jets and Bombs do they can do equal damage to Israel.
79. Re:Put things in perspective... by eihab · 2009-01-07 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a Muslim and my lunch break is almost over so I can't really write as long of a post as I wanted.
  
  And you wasted valuable lunch-break writing that paragraph.
  I don't know about you but it doesn't take me that long to type a sentence shorter than 20 words :)
  
  You've correctly enunciated the Arab agenda since before 1948.
  Glad we agree on something, although I wouldn't say it's before 1948 and wouldn't slap a cross borders "Arab" label on it.
  
  However, your accusation against Israel is unfounded. If Israel wanted to wipe them all out, it could do it in seconds. They haven't, so your argument is little more than propaganda.
  Jordan killed more Palestinians in a week during the seventies, than Israel have in the last 60 years.
  Either you are not telling the truth, or Israel isn't trying hard enough.
  It would be nice if you could base your views on some facts, rather than what you have heard.
  Really? why don't you look at history and do your research before accusing me of spreading propaganda and lying? Tell me that the Sabra and Shatila massacre wasn't about extermination.
  Sure, Israel could wipe Palestinians off the map, but look at the global uproar that resulted from the 300-3500 slaughtered in Sabra and Shatila, you think they'd do it even if they have the technical capability to do so? I think not.
  You can point fingers all you want (from either side) and say "but look at what they did!", which is exactly what's been going on and exactly why this war will never stop until everyone lets bygones be bygones.
  I've stated my position clearly, I believe both sides need to grow up. They both have enough blood on their hands to shame a nation for eons.
  
  --
  If you can't mod them join them.
80. Re:Put things in perspective... by nidarus · 2009-01-07 08:45 · Score: 1
  The solutions presented by both sides so far are ridiculous:
  a) Throw them in the sea (Palestinian solution)
  b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
  Actually, it's more like:
  
  Try to reach a peaceful two-state solution (Israel and the Palestinian Authority - or what's left of it).
  Lob missiles at the other side, until they pack and leave (the HAMAS, Islamic Jihad and a few other factions).
81. Re:Put things in perspective... by renoX · 2009-01-07 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  [[For another, back to point one: stop generalizing. Just because a religion has a few (or even a lot) of nutjobs, doesn't mean that the religion itself is to blame.]]
  A particular religion, no as each and every religion has their nutjob, as once you starts to curtail rationalism with 'blind faith' which is the basis for religion, then there is no easy way to separate 'normal' religious people with nutjobs..
82. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-10 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  "doesn't mean that the religion itself is to blame"
  Yes, it is. As long as various religions propagate the lie that there is a soul, and a 'better world' out there somewhere, and that 'better world' is our true home, and that this world is a holding pattern in existence, then any barbarism committed against people is permissible because the flesh is, when all is said and done, irrelevant.
  So yes, my mistaken friend, religion itself is to blame.
83. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-10 14:05 · Score: 0
  
  Fighting within their means and resource, Hezbollah and Hamas did pretty good. Israel didn't defeat Hezbollah fighters and most of those who were killed in the war were Lebanese civilians targeted by the Israeli cowards. They destroyed buildings and civilian target.
  Resilience and defiance by Hezbollah and Hamas will eventually destroy Israel. Israel is digging its own grave and Zionist knows it.
84. Re:Put things in perspective... by Antlerbot · 2009-01-11 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
  That's not the problem. The majorities on both sides are willing to negotiate. They are just not able to keep the lid on their respective radical factions.
  We have ours in the USA as well. And we can't control them either.
  As evidenced by the fact that they ran the place the last 8 years. :)
85. Re:Put things in perspective... by Antlerbot · 2009-01-11 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Hiya - I'm the guy who wrote the parent. Just did it anon...for some reason.
  
  I'm a Muslim and my lunch break is almost over so I can't really write as long of a post as I wanted.
  I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
  The solutions presented by both sides so far are ridiculous:
  a) Throw them in the sea (Palestinian solution)
  b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
  Both sides are idiots, hard headed and are in serious need for an adult conversation.
  As a side note to the GP regarding extremist Muslims (or as I like to call them douche bags), if they read Quran they'll stop this my god is bigger than your god bull, here's a quote:
  Al Baqara (002.136)
  
  Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.
  P.S.: It's refreshing to see a post like yours on Slashdot :)
  Thanks! There are some truly beautiful and inspiring lines in the holy books of (almost) all religions. Its a shame they get lost among the drivel, misreading, and misunderstanding.
  One niggling issue, though: I don't believe there's any mainstream support in Israel for extermination of the Palestinians. In fact, the reason I support Israel in this whole thing is precisely because they don't have such a position, while Hamas has stated time and again that they would like nothing more than to wipe every last one of us (Jews, that is) off the face of the Earth. In a way, you might even call my support of Israel self-preservation. :)
86. Re:Put things in perspective... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-12 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a Jew and definite supporter of Israel, but some of your points are frighteningly mistaken.
  "The cancer that is Islam"? Come on. Every religion has it's share of crazy fundamentalist quacks reading too much into parts of their holy literature - currently, the fundamentalists of Islam just happen to be a little more numerous and (considerably) more vocal than those of the other major religions. Look back in time - at one point, Christians had a little thing called the Crusades. Hindus in India have been known to form mobs and beat and kill their Muslim neighbors. As for Jews...well, some might even consider the current crisis an example of fundamentalism, though I vehemently do not.
  Which leads me the next point: the fallacy that Jews somehow "don't really care that much about religion". What? Sure, they may not go out and scream "TO THE GLORY OF YWHW" before blowing themselves up in a crowded mosque, but that doesn't mean they don't have an incredible fundamentalist and mainstream religious fervor. Watch people rock back and forth in tears and prayer in front of the Wailing Wall and then tell me Jews in Israel "don't really care that much about religion."
  "Haven't done shit since 1000 B.C. when they gave up the last of their rational humanistic thought. Sit on patches of oil and get fat." Oy vey. For one, there are Muslims outside the Arab world. For another, back to point one: stop generalizing. Just because a religion has a few (or even a lot) of nutjobs, doesn't mean that the religion itself is to blame.
  The rest of your flamebait suffers the same problem. You say Muslims are savages. It would be more accurate to say some some Muslims are savages. It would be more accurate still to say some people are savages.
  if israeli jews were not religious fanatics they would just let the 1947-refugees back in and give the people occupied in 1967 a citizenship. then there would be no conflict.
  As what concerns violent fanaticism you don't have to join the martyr brigades for that as an israeli. you just join the army. there you can kill many more without any consequences for yourself.
  people sympathetic with the Machpela murders or the Rabin assassination are still numerous.
  I, by the way, am one of those people you mentioned who rock back and forth in frenzy at the temple wall.
87. Re:Put things in perspective... by eihab · 2009-01-13 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for responding and for your original post.
  I might have been a bit harsh, but things like the Sabra and Shatila massacre and this recent conflict leads an observer like me to believe it's really that bad.
  I just hope everyone can let bygones be bygones and work together for a better tomorrow :)
  
  --
  If you can't mod them join them.
88. Re:Put things in perspective... by Antlerbot · 2009-01-13 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  Heh - God willing, right? The very thought.
Beware of joining any of these Botnets! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 07:54 · Score: 3, Funny

The EULAs require participants of the botnets that lose virtual battles to report to suicide booths.
1. Re:Beware of joining any of these Botnets! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  i get it now. that's how they recruit suicide bombers.
Mark MY words. by drewvr6 · 2009-01-06 07:56 · Score: 1

Obama will take care of it for us.

--
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
If only... by mcgrew · 2009-01-06 07:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wish all wars were web wars. The papers today said the Isralies killed dozens in a UN school, and that nowhere in Gaza was safe.
Go, web warriers! Go away, bullet and rocket warriors. He who lives by the RPG dies by the RPG.

--
Free Martian Whores!
1. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  Rocket Propelled Grenade?
2. Re:If only... by slugtastic · 2009-01-06 08:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The papers today said the Isralies killed dozens in a UN school
  To be fair, it seems that (according the army) terrorists were firing mortar shells from structure moments earlier.
3. Re:If only... by Smidge207 · 2009-01-06 08:27 · Score: -1
  
  Role Playing Game. Think WoW in real-life. (Yes, it exists.)
  =Smidge=
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
4. Re:If only... by smooth+wombat · 2009-01-06 08:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To be fair, it seems that (according the army) terrorists were firing mortar shells from structure moments earlier.
  
  Yet, amazingly, for all the aerial drones, balloons (yes, balloons) and other visual devices they have, no image of said mortar firing will ever be provided for the public to view. Instead, we're supposed to rely on the word of a military who attacked a U.S. warship in international waters, who deliberately rammed and nearly sank a humanitarian aid ship and who in 2006, destroyed the only power plant in Gaza.
  
  I'm all for people retaliating when they are attacked, but to deliberately kill journalists, attack your "friends", deny humanitarian aid to those who need it, attack refugee camps, and a whole list of other offenses, is where I draw the line. You want to shape world opinion to your point of view? Quit playing the victim card and start acting like you learned something from everything that's been done to you.
  
  And since when is someone defending their land from an invader a terrorist? Apparently all those Iraqis who fought against the U.S. invasion were terrorists. Same goes George Washington. Hell, by that standard, Red Dawn was nothing but a propaganda story about terrorists.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
5. Re:If only... by jgtg32a · 2009-01-06 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.07.09.PaliBodyArmor-X.gif
6. Re:If only... by LandDolphin · 2009-01-06 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  What do Role PLay Games like D&D & EQ have to do with War?
  
  /Insert World of Warcraft joke
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
7. Re:If only... by antibryce · 2009-01-06 08:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Uh, they posted video of mortars being fired from that school last week. Was it currently being used? We have no way of knowing, but that's how all intelligence works.
  Point being the elected government of Gaza was using a UN non-military building as a base of operations to launch attacks on a civilian populace.
8. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  To be fair its not nice anyway you spin it war never is.
  If you had people lobbing rockets over your border at your towns you would expect your country to do something about it as well.
  One way or another this is going to go down.
  You have two peoples with different views sharing a small area. Both parties are obviously against trying to work it out peacefully.
  Airstrikes and rocket attacks going both ways. It just sucks for the people that are just trying to live when the stronger side flexes its muscles.
9. Re:If only... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 08:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Same goes George Washington
  George Washington managed to fight for American independence without blowing up women and children in downtown London.......
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
10. Re:If only... by antibryce · 2009-01-06 08:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  just to be specific they posted the video last week, however it was shot in Feb/2008.
11. Re:If only... by antibryce · 2009-01-06 08:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  er 2007.
  that's what I get for trying to be specific.
12. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  downtown London.......
  That's Central London.
13. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:00 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Google is your friend. Here's a drone video of palestinian terrorists firing from that same school:
  http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/israel-hits-terrorist-rocket-launch.html
14. Re:If only... by mcgrew · 2009-01-06 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure there is at least one role playing game with rocket propelled grenades!
  I miss Quake...
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
15. Re:If only... by LWATCDR · 2009-01-06 09:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "ell, by that standard, Red Dawn [imdb.com] was nothing but a propaganda story about terrorists."
  Yes it really was and a bad movie as well.
  When you are killing your own countrymen your a terrorist. The Iraqi solders that fought the invasion where solders. The ones that are killing innocent Iraqi's are terrorists.
  The ones that are killing US troops are insurgents.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
16. Re:If only... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-01-06 09:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Nothing much happened in London; but the sheer unpleasantry of the American Revolution ought not to be underestimated. You don't think that substantial numbers of loyalists moved to Canada just because they loved king George a whole lot, do you?
17. Re:If only... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  You don't think that substantial numbers of loyalists moved to Canada just because they loved king George a whole lot, do you?
  Revolutions aren't for the faint of heart and war is always hell. Nevertheless I think the comparison between Washington and terrorists whom purposefully target civilians is absurd.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
18. Re:If only... by catbertscousin · 2009-01-06 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm all for people retaliating when they are attacked, but to deliberately kill journalists, attack your "friends", deny humanitarian aid to those who need it, attack refugee camps, and a whole list of other offenses, is where I draw the line.
  Please provide links to your claims so we are not relying merely on your word.
  
  --
  No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
19. Re:If only... by Mashiki · 2009-01-06 09:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Shock and surprise? He was a rocket maker and it even makes reuters, I mean seriously.
  Lets not forget that the Pallies regularly used ambulances in the past to transport everything from IED's, suicide bombers and belts to rockets and mortars, and also break every rule that we have regarding the laws of war too. That includes using civilian structures, religious buildings and hospitals as attack points. Because we know that any bad press from counter attacks is just bad for us.
  Too bad the world media would rather use stringers rather then investigate, now I'm not even going to get onto the whole Pallywood thing with staged photos or anything but they do that too(Oh Green Helmet Guy...). Lets not forget that the journalists and I use that term loosely here, often embed directly with them. Their lives are their own if they're getting shot at.
  Oh lets not forget that there's a pile of aid sitting at the egypt/gaza border either but hamas won't open it. I mean seriously do a bit of research.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
20. Re:If only... by sumdumass · 2009-01-06 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  You mean this Polywood that you didn't want to get into?
21. Re:If only... by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Oh lets not forget that there's a pile of aid sitting at the egypt/gaza border either but hamas won't open it. I mean seriously do a bit of research.
  Seriously? I heard that Egypt wouldn't open the Gaza border because they don't want the Palestinians fleeing into Egypt, where they would cease being Israel's problem.
22. Re:If only... by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, George Washington also helped to ruthlessly exterminate the natives of the land he lived on, so perhaps the comparison is a little better than you thought.
23. Re:If only... by Culture20 · 2009-01-06 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  comparison between Washington and terrorists whom purposefully target civilians is absurd.
  Now Sherman during the U.S. Civil War...
24. Re:If only... by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  You want to shape world opinion to your point of view?
  Actually, this whole idea of propaganda war is retarded and fails to account for the fact that people have biases that they will default to no matter how much propaganda they are fed.
  
  Quit playing the victim card and start acting like you learned something from everything that's been done to you.
  
  Now which side are you talking to here again? I honestly can't tell.
25. Re:If only... by Mashiki · 2009-01-06 10:58 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Pallywood = The exploitation of grief.
  Where either the dead are used over and over again, pulled out of the same buildings, and/or the same person/people are trumped in front of the cameras for shock value. That's Pallywood.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
26. Re:If only... by Mashiki · 2009-01-06 10:59 · Score: 2
  
  This is partially true. The other half is that hamas is refusing to allow in any as well, Israel is allowing aid in every 48hrs from their side of the border however.
  You're welcome to think about that as you will.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
27. Re:If only... by MikShapi · 2009-01-06 11:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  2007. 2006. Bah.
  How about at the time the school actually got done in?
  Two known militants among the dead who are known to be associated with rocket-firing squads. Named.
  The palestinians elected a government that will hurt its neighbours and put their kids in the line of return fire. They got exactly what they asked for. Their own kids, dead.
  One of Israels leaders said once that Israel will have peace with its neighbours the day they love their children more than they hate Israel. Egypt and Jordan wisened up. The palestinians haven't yet.
  
  --
  -
28. Re:If only... by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, George Washington also helped to ruthlessly exterminate the natives of the land he lived on
  Those natives also sided with the British and raided civilian settlements along the western frontier. You join a war you takes your chances.....
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
29. Re:If only... by alexandre_ganso · 2009-01-06 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  and that nowhere in Gaza was safe.
  Well, some Brazilians who live in palestina as palestinians were called to go back to their country, but they refused to, saying they feel safer in Gaza.
  Now that's a weird world...
30. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 14:16 · Score: 0
  
  Point being the elected government of Gaza was using a UN non-military building as a base of operations to launch attacks on a civilian populace.
  I know the IDF has developed some pretty cool tech, but are you saying they can now determine people's political persuasion from the air?
  Remember, this is the same IDF which, despite their claims on CNN (and elsewhere) of exercising "extreme restraint" just hit a building used by its own soldiers with a tank, killing four.
31. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 14:50 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously seriously? All they have to do is throw the friggin aid over the fence then.
  Really - What sort of crap excuse is that, basically trying to blame it on the Israelies. I thought Hamas being the elected govt of the Pallies would actually care about their people...
  but obviously not - and they have fanboys like you to encourage them along.
32. Re:If only... by idlemachine · 2009-01-06 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, war, where our dead our horrendous wrongs that must be revenged, while theirs are just another opportunity for propaganda.
33. Re:If only... by RightSaidFred99 · 2009-01-06 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Seems kind of pointless though, doesn't it? Israel is just breeding the next generation of terrorists. Also, comparing Egypt and Jordan to the Palestinians is downright laughable. To say it's apples and oranges is an understatement.
  The dumb terrorists will die, new terrorists will be born, and the terrorists who survive will be the smart ones. Good plan there, Israel - a nice crucible they're building.
34. Re:If only... by hnile_jablko · 2009-01-06 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  The palestinians elected a government that will hurt its neighbours and put their kids in the line of return fire. They got exactly what they asked for. Their own kids, dead.
  
  One of Israels leaders said once that Israel will have peace with its neighbours the day they love their children more than they hate Israel. Egypt and Jordan wisened up. The palestinians haven't yet.
  
  Your comments above are a bit lopsided.
  
  Palestinians sit in a very different position than Egypt and Syria. The latter are countries which border Israel and have standing armies. Palestinians are a group of people living within Israel's international border (note that the Paelstinian territory is NOT a country). Through the 1920's, Jews and Palestinians lived relatively peaceful co-existence in Palestine under British Rule (where the Jewish Population was roughly 10%). There were some sporadic nutjobs on all 3 sides of the religious line (Jew, Christian and Muslim) terrorising the other, but these events were rare and generally dimissed by all as idiots.
  
  Then Hitler came to power in 1933 and things really shifted. Suddenly the war is over and the country is flooded with Jews and Zionism really has a firm hold. Palestinians fear the rising Jewish population will take what little they have and marginalise them and the Jews are wanting a safe place to call their own which sadly will have to be at the expense of another group of people.
  
  I was born in 1970 in the US in the state of Missouri and raised a Catholic. If the same thing happened in 1948 in Missouri as has happened in Palestine, I can assure you that nearly every Missourian would be supporting or doing EXACTLY what the Palestinians are doing and probably worse. I would do whatever it took to get rid of the people who took my grandparents home, or killed a family member or neighbor and made me live under apartheid like rules (limited travel capabilites, held in prison with prosecution or access to a lawyer, branded a terrorist for resisting, etc).
  
  Make no mistake. There is a right and wrong position in this. The right are the ones trying to gain their dignity and fight for what was once theirs and the wrong are the ones who moved in and took it. Think long and hard about if someone were doing to you what Israel has and is doing to the Palestinians. They are not savages or terrorists. They are fighting for what was taken from them.
35. Re:If only... by majid_aldo · 2009-01-06 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  yeah.. move the palestinians out of their land so it won't become israel's "problem" either.
  
  --
  --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
36. Re:If only... by lewko · 2009-01-06 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  The whole Arab world hates the Palestinians. The only reason they feign support, is because they hate the Jews more.
  Why do you think there have been so-called Palestinian "refugees" for the last 60 years, when every other refugee group on Earth, since WWII has been re-settled?
  Answer: The Arabs don't want them, but they serve as a useful political weapon against Israel, where conventional military aggression has failed.
  
  --
  Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
37. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 20:49 · Score: 0
  
  Yea, and it couldn't have been repeated now, because war is so much more gentelemanly and fair.
  Give me a break.
38. Re:If only... by Cigarra · 2009-01-07 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  That's interesting. They posted the video a few days before attacking. It turns out they (IDF) have a YouTube user posting -propaganda- videos all the time.
  
  Just two thoughts:
  1)That school was clearly marked as a target from months ago. Couldn't they at least WARN the civilians, knowing it was being used as a refuge?
  2)I wonder how many other info of future targets they're giving away with all those videos.
  
  --
  I don't have a sig.
39. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  Fighting back by launching mortars from a UN school.
  Promote two year olds and Kindy kids to 'fight Israel'...
  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=245_1231192390
  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb7_1231153405
  Nope - I don't think those comments were lopsided.
40. Re:If only... by MikShapi · 2009-01-07 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  You're right.
  And in light of the fact that 2500 explosive munitions have been chucked straight into Israeli cities (which don't even sit on disputed land or have any significant military/strategic value worth bombing) in the past year alone, with a steady 100% annual increase figure, with associated civillians, women, children who get hurt, you, in the boots of the Israeli leadership, would do.... what exactly?
  Do you have a better idea?
  I understand why war sucks, why collateral damage sucks, why killing kids sucks (I have two and I shudder every time I see or read about a story with a parent that loses a kid irrespective of side). But... the Hamas itself is ensuring that there is no path but war on one hand, and that there is absolutely no other way but to have collateral damage on the other :(
  What whould *you* do? Let this turn you into a sponge that can be kicked around?
  
  --
  -
41. Re:If only... by Steve525 · 2009-01-07 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a little late to this party, but this was one of the better and more balanced posts I read. I do have some comments, and a question.
  Through the 1920's, Jews and Palestinians lived relatively peaceful co-existence in Palestine under British Rule (where the Jewish Population was roughly 10%).
  Is that 10% number for all of the Mandate of Palestine, (this would include Jordan), the biblical border of Israel, or within the green line border?
  In any case, from the Palestinian point of view, it certainly seams that they were kicked off their land after an influx of Jews. However, what is always ignored in these discussions is that a similar number of Jews were kicked out of Arab countries (and into Israel) following the formation of Israel. A more regional point of view would say that the Jews and Arabs simply separated their populations. The Jews welcomed their brothers, while the Arabs told their brothers to rot until maybe one day the Arabs can take back the land that they were forced out of (and that all Middle Eastern Jews were forced onto). Remember, for nearly 20 years after Israel was formed, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were under the control of Egypt and Jordan.
  But, as you said, the Palestinians were kicked off their land in a war and naturally they want it back. They could care less about the Jews that may have been forced out of Arab countries. They are indeed victims in this. I, however, disagree that Israel is on the wrong side of this. I don't blame the Jews for wanting a safe place, and fighting for Israel. Particularly, after what history has done to them. As you said, the Jews wanted a safe place place to call their own, and that necessitating taking land from someone. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, they were that someone.
  Yes, I get your analogy about fighting to take back Missouri if it was taken away. But you know what? The Palestinians aren't the first refuges to occur on this planet, and they won't be the last. Can't we just find a way to make their lives better and move on. If you were to fight for Missouri when you have no realistic chance to win, instead of looking for a better life, I'd think you were idiot.
  The Palestinians can either continue to beat their chests, and try to make Israel miserable. (Which will just make themselves even more miserable). Or, they can try to put this behind them and try to create the best future they can for themselves. Yes, Israel doesn't make it easy for them, and they may feel they are entitled to more. However, like it or not, Israel is stronger than them. They'll likely only be able to prosper in the future with Israel's help. Call me crazy, but I think Israel is much more likely to be helpful if they stop calling for Israel's destruction.
42. Re:If only... by RightSaidFred99 · 2009-01-07 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  I would make a measured response. Using the rocket attacks which have killed fewer than 20 people in 7 years as a pretext to kill several hundred is a little silly now, isn't it?
  As for what Israel needs to do, they need to stop the blockade first. Oh, did you forget that these people are packed like sardines in a little strip of land with no incoming resources? Rockets being fired should be treated as a police action - send in troops to find the people responsible and kill or capture them.
  What I wouldn't do is pretend war is free and it's OK for me to lob bombs and have massive civilian casualties because I'm unwilling to risk my soldiers. You're right - war does suck, and Israeli soldiers will need to risk their lives to go in and clean up these assholes lobbing missiles. Doing it with a bomb from 5 miles away regardless of who gets killed is a problem.
43. Re:If only... by advance512 · 2009-01-07 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  The attack of the U.S.S. Liberty was a mistake that happened during the Six Day War, and it is acknowledged as such by both Israel and the US.
  Don't know what exactly happened with the humanitarian aid ship, but keep in mind it was going into a closed military zone by sea, without any proper authorization while disregarding completely the Israeli army. Do you know how many ships try and do the same to insert fire arms into Gaza?
  About the power plant - this was done in retaliation of an attack on an Israeli outpost. Also, keep in mind that Israeli power plants supply power to Gaza, so the purpose of destroying the power plant was to make the Palestinians less self reliant, and thus less likely to attack Israel at the fear of losing power. This didn't work at all - more than 2000 rockets were fired into Israel in the last year, with next to no Israeli retaliation - until now.
  Finally - if Native Americans start proclaiming they want their own land in north America, for their own self-governed state, they will not be terrorists. If they start wearing explosives and go and explode inside civilian malls - they will be. Notice the difference?
44. Re:If only... by Mashiki · 2009-01-08 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  No, faking news and lying for the sake of lying.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9pRu-sRPb0
  By the way, the 'doctor' is a Hamas apologist, his name is Mads Gilbert. There's a difference between propaganda and deception in order to fuel hate isn't there?
  I also see those that don't like opposing views have been busy.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
45. Re:If only... by sumdumass · 2009-01-09 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  I had to look at it twice but yea, I saw the doc. I thought it was somewhat interesting that when the doctor said he was dead, he had to point to the Stat monitor for the camera. I bet that touched millions of people in the heart.
  As for the "those that don't like opposing views have been busy", I have noticed quite a few more of them this time. It's actually more then I remember from other stories. It's like they are purposely ignoring stuff in order to push their points and run the "Israel is evil" routine. Perhaps this is part of the propaganda war the article was talking about, or the effects of it. The Video on demand production seems to be very effective. I guess that's what happens when people get their news from fake news shows and are proud of it.
46. Re:If only... by MikShapi · 2009-01-09 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  wtf?
  You are falling down the same hole you're accusing Israel of falling.
  A measured response is
  "they killed 3 people, let's kill 3 of theirs". A primitive tit-for-tat, instead of a goal-oriented stop-the-bombs-from-falling approach.
  You and I disagree on what due diligence is. due diligence towards your citizens means to make the ongoing bombing stop, not nail a proportional number of theirs.
  As for stopping the blockade, no, they don't need to stop it.
  If canada was ***violently*** harassing the US by bombing civillian cities, I don't see a single reason why the US should continue opening up its borders so canadians can come and work on us soil and otherwise prosper from its facilities, why the US should continue feeding a country that is actively kicking it, openly endorsing violence and ignoring any prior agreements made between the two by former administrations. To me that just *doesn't* *make* *sense*.
  You can't tell a country what to democratically elect - that's the palestinians right to choose the leadership that represents them. But, if you're Israel, you don't have to like what they elect either.
  The blockade, an extension of the quartet+US embargo that was in place prior to the hamas having gone into power, is a NON-VIOLENT means to achieve purpose. Purpose being to accept Israel's existence, revoke violence as a means of attaining its goals, and (the big deal-breaker here) accept agreements signed by its opposition when it (the fatah) was in power.
  The gazans are responsible for where they are. They're responsible for not doing what is required of them to be in a better place.
  Israel didn't pack them there, Israel isn't to blame for the fact that Egypt doesn't want to touch these people with a 10-meter-pole and sealed its own border with Gaza, effectively sealing them in. They've been putting zero effort into and showing utter disinterest in rebuilding themselves, behaving badly towards their neighbours and now their neighbours (both, not just Israel) shun them.
  You can only do so much for someone who doesn't want to be helped.
  Have a look at the (SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED) conditions in the other palestinian territories -
  they're talking to Israel (rather than exchanging gunfure), Israel is talking to them, and they're all collectively in the process of digging themselves out of the shit and rebuilding the palestinian economy. Case in point: there is nothing that Israel wants more than someone to talk to, and will happily talk to its neighbours.
  It *has* made peace with Jordan and Egypt. It will eventually have fully-normalized relationship with the Fatah. It *has* ended its wrongdoing through settling gaza and vacating southern lebanon.
  Israel seems like it is doing what it can to fix shit. I don't see this kind of behavior coming from Hammas. Not even an inkling of it.
  You can't make peace with someone who doesn't want it. And if he keeps on hurting you, you can (and should) break his arm.
  
  --
  -
47. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-11 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Same goes George Washington
  George Washington managed to fight for American independence without blowing up women and children in downtown London.......
  The sovereign government (like it or not) against whom George Washington fought adopted the same US/Israeli belief (see Savage-Rabbit above) when dealing with the natives in Londonderry (Derry) in 1972, taking out quite a few children and their minders in the process - an event known since as Bloody Suday. The fact is that only continued struggle to deeply hurt the aggressor or a cut-off in his overseas support will change anything.
Combatants by bigattichouse · 2009-01-06 08:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

It could be construed through participation in the botnet, since you are directly aiding in an armed conflict between two foreign powers, that you are in fact becoming an enemy combatant, esp if you look back on the old (now defunct) NSA munitions definitions of software. This happens all the time, but could cause you some difficulties if you need to make an insurance claim on system damage - some insurance companies might consider counter-attacks that damage your files/servers/etc to be acts of war, and outside your policy. Granted this would all have to be tested in court, but particpating in a war as a private citizen is generally discouraged, if not illegal in many cases.

--
meh
1. Re:Combatants by Beyond_GoodandEvil · 2009-01-06 08:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Granted this would all have to be tested in court, but particpating in a war as a private citizen is generally discouraged, if not illegal in many cases.
  At least without a Letter of marque.
  
  --
  I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
2. Re:Combatants by mapkinase · 2009-01-06 08:27 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Since when any person helping "Israel" in any way has been declared "enemy combatant"?
  Was there ever any non-Muslim declared as "enemy combatant"?
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
3. Re:Combatants by slugtastic · 2009-01-06 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  There was an DDoS attack launched at the Estonian websites by Russians. Nobody was arrested (well, except one Estonian guy).
4. Re:Combatants by girlintraining · 2009-01-06 08:28 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Yes, because someone sending spam from their computer is obviously as bad as driving a car bomb into an embassy. In other news, terrorism is now a meaningless fear word. And "aiding an enemy foreign power"... is there anyone left that isn't in that category these days?
  We have always been at war with Oceana.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
5. Re:Combatants by bigattichouse · 2009-01-06 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Ever read Cuckoo's Egg? little non-secrets add up to big secrets. Little "insignificant" things add up to significant things. Willingly signing up to assist in a war is not insignificant.
  
  --
  meh
6. Re:Combatants by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they aren't declared enemy combatants but they are held to account for the laws they break.....
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
7. Re:Combatants by LWATCDR · 2009-01-06 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  And...
  1. It is really stupid.
  2. Is Evil.
  3. Did I mention really stupid. Hey once they have you as part of the bot net what else will they use your machine for?
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
8. Re:Combatants by Chris+Mattern · 2009-01-06 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  As the Wikipedia article you point to states, Letters of Marque and Reprisal have been outlawed by treaty just about everywhere for the past 150 years.
9. Re:Combatants by Eponymous+Bastard · 2009-01-06 09:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  While insighful, I'm not sure "enemy" combatant applies. After all, most of the world isn't an enemy of Gaza or Israel. There is probably some classification like that (Unlawful combatant?), though I doubt whether there even are legal consequences your country is not involved in the war. It's even less clear if you reside on a country that has a mutual defense kind of agreement with of one of these countries.
  Yes, joining on such a botnet is stupid. Yes, joining such a botnet in wartime would be stupid, possibly in a legal way. Yes, joining it while in one country would be even more stupid if your country were to lose and you get caught by the occupying army. Yes, joining while in the target country would be supremely stupid.
  But it would be interesting to hear a lawyer weigh in on this
10. Re:Combatants by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:36 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Original poster is correct:
  Also, if you have, or someday think you might need to get a US government security clearance (needed for many govt/defense relate jobs), you might won't to think twice.
  I distinctly remember answering a question relating to acting on behalf of a foreign government or terrorist entity. Israel is one, Hamas (according to our government's definition, which I happen to agree with) is both...
11. Re:Combatants by bigattichouse · 2009-01-06 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  yerp - I was thinking "Unlawful Combatant" when I wrote this - but "enemy" just slipped out
  
  --
  meh
12. Re:Combatants by nurb432 · 2009-01-06 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Forget insurance, you could also be detained by your local government in theory.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
13. Re:Combatants by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  I am the same AC who posted about issues with a security clearance (sorry about the 'won't' instead of 'want'...
  Anyhow:
  Israel is known by the government to have some unseemly things vis-à-vis US information and technology the US government deems classified (and yes I'm talking about the post Pollard era).
  Although the US is most definitely still a supporter of Israel, if one expects to be working with Uncle Sam's secrets, expect all personal and business related dealings with this country to be intensively scrutinized
14. Re:Combatants by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:37 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  More to the point, the definitions of "enemy combatant" used by both Hamas and the IDF (but not the International Red Cross or the Geneva Convention) include people providing material support. This is the justification Hamas use for firing rockets into Israel and the IDF use for destroying civilian ministries, schools, etc.
  So, do you /really/ want to start actively supporting one side?
15. Re:Combatants by u38cg · 2009-01-07 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  If as a citizen you are participating in a spontaneous act of resistance against an invading enemy, you are entitled to Geneva Conventon protections.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
Illegal by ezwip · 2009-01-06 08:03 · Score: 1

Help Israel win the war by signing up to go to prison!

--
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
Coherent plan vs. terrorism by CannonballHead · 2009-01-06 08:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

IMO, it's interesting to note the difference between the two. Israel seems to always have its military act together, beginning with the war it fought right after it got its land [back].
On one side, we have what was termed "e-vandalism." On the other side, we have a very planned strategy to do something, although I don't know what yet.
Just an interesting look into the different ... tactics, if you will.
Disclaimer for contextual reading of this comment: I am pro-Israel, anti-terrorism, and I really do think Israel wants peace and Hamas wants no-live-Jew-on-face-of-earth. This is not an anti-Jew post.
1. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by mapkinase · 2009-01-06 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  What kind of lame disclaimer is this? You have to literally kiss some asses as well, bro.
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
2. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by ShieldW0lf · 2009-01-06 08:31 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  IMO, it's interesting to note the difference between the two. Israel seems to always have its military act together, beginning with the war it fought right after it got its land [back]. On one side, we have what was termed "e-vandalism." On the other side, we have a very planned strategy to do something, although I don't know what yet. Just an interesting look into the different ... tactics, if you will. Disclaimer for contextual reading of this comment: I am pro-Israel, anti-terrorism, and I really do think Israel wants peace and Hamas wants no-live-Jew-on-face-of-earth. This is not an anti-Jew post.
  
  You may as well ask why the Anarchists of Spain didn't organize themselves into a highly regimented vertical power structure and defeat their enemies rather than being defeated. The answer is, they thought it was immoral. This is practically identical. The Islamic people call the Jews "The People of the Book", and it is their position that those sort of power structures are sinful and wrong.
  
  Disclaimer for the contextual reading of this comment: I am anti-Israel, pro-liberty, and I really do think the people of Israel are racists, thieves and war criminals who need to be stopped, not because of their bloodline, but because of their vicious ideology.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
3. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  I don't find this post interesting at all, except to insert the poster's own prejudice.
  What are you terming "terrorism"? Surely the Israeli response is more organized, but that's it. Sure "e-vandalism" doesn't sound so great, but this "planned strategy" from the Israeli response using botnets isn't somehow morally better, it's just more organized.
  If you read the article another response is simply pro-Israeli hackers keeping any Hamas websites offline. This is likely more organized and successful than "e-vandalism" but in no way would I refer to this as you have as "e-vandalism vs. terrorism."
  In fact I don't even know why you mentioned terrorism except to simply insert your own prejudice in referring to the Palestinian position as "terrorism" and the Israeli position as a "coherent plan." The article is about a web war between the two sides and that's it.
  My own disclaimer: I am pro-Palestine and don't agree with Hamas' positions, but believe the Israeli government is every bit as morally reprehensible as Hamas.
4. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by jerAzevedo · 2009-01-06 08:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well of course there are going to be different strategies. The Palestinians don't have anything. They're being suppressed by Israel who is systematically cutting off all food, water, and medicine into the region with a huge military funded by the US.
  
  Israel bombs the hell out of them and the Palestinians shoot a few rockets back and deface a couple websites.
  
  It's interesting how the media treats this as well. "Israel retaliates against terrorist rocket attacks." We have situation where an entire group of people is being oppressed by one of the most well-funded militaries on the planet, can barely get their hands on a few rockets to defend themselves, or food to feed themselves, and when Israel breaks the cease-fire agreement the US media is sympathetic to Israel.
5. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by qw0ntum · 2009-01-06 08:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If the difference between a legitimate military campaign and terrorism is a plan, what does that make the US invasion of Iraq? What does that make the Hezbollah resistance in 2006, which many would claim to have been executed with a well-defined plan? Also, how would we know that those perpetrating this vandalism are at all associated with the Hamas leadership? How are we to know what plans Hamas has for defense of Gaza, given that no journalists have been allowed inside by Israel, which has explicitly (and quite understandably) stated they want to control the images coming out of Gaza?
  Methinks your definitions are troublesome.
  Another thing that makes defining terrorism troubling. A Hamas missle hit an empty Israeli school here a few days back. That was terrorism. Today, an Israeli bomb hit a Palestinian school, killing 30. We assume good faith for the Israelis, saying their action was a mistake or that the school was really a Hamas hideout, despite what the outcome of their action was (a bunch of dead children). My gut tells me it's a lot easier to miss a target with a homemade rocket than a smart bomb, so are we so quick (in this specific instance) to demonize Hamas while being lenient towards Israel? To me, both acts were acts of terrorism.
  I'm not trying to argue with you, really. In fact, the only point I'm trying to make is calling some group "terrorists" makes a very complicated situation one with a moral "good" and "evil" side. The "good" can do no wrong, while the "evil" can do no right. That's no way to work towards a solution.
  Disclaimer: I believe that the IDF has committed acts of terrorism in the name of national defense of equal or (more often) greater magnitude to those committed by Hamas in the name of nationalism, and I further believe that my point is backed up by the deathtoll on each side over the past ten years.
  
  --
  'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
6. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  Hamas just holds the opinion that there was a small Jewish population in the Palestinian area until just after world war two when they moved in in large groups making themselves the dominant population and creating a state that everyone has an inexplicable want to support at Palestinians expense. Palestine is on the defensive but no one wants to see it in that light. I am also anti terrorist and what Israel is doing is only one step short of terrorism they make agreements they have no intent to keep knowing Hamas or someone else will get frustrated enough to fire a rocket or even just a rock, which got a young teen killed the ensuing protests and "terrorism" by Palestinians was used by Israel to justify hundreds of arrests and attacks that resulted in thousands of Palestinian deaths many who were not involved in the violence merely lived near someone who was, and can then go in smashing opposition but leaving it intact enough to come back and cause problems again so the cycle only continues with Israel taking more and more land every time while looking like they are defending themselves. The United States is not far behind either since we supply Israel with plenty of weapons as well as make sure that no stable coherent Palestine exists to be negotiated with.
7. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Samschnooks · 2009-01-06 08:41 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  ...beginning with the war it fought right after it got its land [back] and the some.
  Fixed it for ya.
8. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by CannonballHead · 2009-01-06 08:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I was not attempting to say that violence, as long as it is well planned out, was ok. I meant to simply point out an apparent difference in organization. Israel seems to always have been well organized in this area.
  I don't think Hamas is necessarily making their own rockets. Sure, Israel isn't either, but I don't think we should paint Hamas as these poor, innocent folks that barely scrape up enough metal to make a homemade rocket and it's not their fault if it misses, either. I'm not supporting killing of innocent Palestinians nor innocent Israelites.
  However, I think you miss one crucial point in not liking Hamas to be termed a terrorist group: Hamas has absolutely no qualms about their explicit mission statement to kill all the Jews. No, not "release Gaza" or "free Gaza" or "Retake their homeland," it's that they want no Jews on earth. Same thing Hitler wanted to do to the Jews (as well as a bunch of other groupings of people).
  Can Israel do wrong? Sure. Their humans, too. But at least Israel IS interested in peace. They've put up with constant terrorist attacks pretty much since 1948, as well as other countries attacking them.
  I don't think Hamas commits anything in the name of nationalism... they seem to commit what they do in the name of getting rid of an evil people (the Jews).
9. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by CannonballHead · 2009-01-06 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Shameless reply to own post.
  I'd like to also comment that I know not all Islamic peoples agree with Hamas (and many don't), and that many are peaceful people. All the more reason to distinguish Hamas from "Muslims" or "Islamic people." I'm anti-terrorism, I didn't say I'm anti-Hamas or anti-Islam, etc. If I meant that, I would have said anti-Hamas...
10. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Dan667 · 2009-01-06 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  It is ok to think that both Israel and Hamas are idiots, because they are both wrong.
11. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by mabu · 2009-01-06 09:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If the difference between a legitimate military campaign and terrorism is a plan
  No. The difference is a matter of perspective and who controls communication resources.
  A suicide bomber is merely a poor country's F-16.
12. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by TheRaven64 · 2009-01-06 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's interesting how the media treats this as well
  By 'the media' I think you mean the US media. In the UK, the media has been critical of Israel since the start of it, and the response to GWB's comment was one of shock at his idiocy. There have also been regular stories about how Obama's silence is costing him support from Muslim voters.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
13. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by qw0ntum · 2009-01-06 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
  
  --
  'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
14. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  They do not think that this kind of organization or method is wrong, as evidenced by Iran: its very existence and the terrorist methods it uses.
  The only reason that they don't do the same as Israel is that they are so divided among themselves, with so many different sections, that any agreement is impossible.
  To support that only note that what was demanded of Hamas during the 6-month cease-fire was not only to stop their own rocketing of Isreal, but to send their police to stop other sections (which they pretty much refused to do).
  Also, Isreal's internal policy has always been to support technological and scientific education and therefore has that edge in all fronts (consider that Israel hosts development centers for Intel, Microsoft, many others, and has its own garden of dynamic start-ups) While in palestine technical education focuses on building explosive belts and rockets, and general education focuses on Israel-hatred content.
15. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by slugtastic · 2009-01-06 09:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Israel bombs the hell out of them and the Palestinians shoot a few rockets back and deface a couple websites.
  Palestinians were shooting rockets for over 8 years now. A "few"?
16. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by CannonballHead · 2009-01-06 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  You talk as if this is Israel vs. Palestinians. I would venture to say that most Palestinians do not publically agree with Hamas. Mostly, I presume, because of the completely anti-peace charter and goals that Hamas has.
  But I guess we should just take everyone's word for it, and not look at what they have already vowed to do...
17. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Chris+Mattern · 2009-01-06 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, from Mohammed leading the united faithful into battle, through the caliphs, and the Turkish sultans, to such decentralized Islamic states like Iran, one can clearly see how Islam has avoided the highly regimented vertical power structure. Yep.
18. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by techprophet · 2009-01-06 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  You need to rethink a few things and do some serious research.
19. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by cowboy76Spain · 2009-01-06 09:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Islamic people call the Jews "The People of the Book", and it is their position that those sort of power structures are sinful and wrong.
  This is just plain wrong. The "People of the Book" just means that muslims faith is presented as a continuation of Judaism (in the same way christians are; only that christians believe the final prophet was Jesus, muslims believe it was Mohammed or Mahoma, and jews believe it's still due to appear sometime in the future). The Book here is the Ancient Testament, or the Torah. To muslims, People of the Book are jews, christians and muslims themselves, as opposed to pagan people (which was the first enemy of muslims).
  You are right that they don't have a religious structure like a catholic or anglican church and that to be imam all they needed is to be recognized as it by its community, but most of the muslim people live in pretty well organized countries. I suspect the issue here is that is more efficient a plain, semi-independent organization than a hierchical one when all of your offices are under constant risk of being shot a missile by Israel.
  
  --
  Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
20. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by MiniMike · 2009-01-06 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think the OP was trying to define the difference between a military campaign and terrorism, he was commenting on the different tactics. Similarly, it has been noted elsewhere that one side in the conflict is known for constructive action, while the other side only aspires to destroy.
  
  A Hamas missle hit an empty Israeli school here a few days back. That was terrorism. Today, an Israeli bomb hit a Palestinian school, killing 30.
  Hamas is indiscriminately firing missiles into civilian areas, hoping to kill as many civilians as possible. This is not self defense, or a protest, or any other attempt at legitimate action. It is terrorism, no matter who is doing it. Additionally, Hamas is firing these missiles from civilian areas (such as the UN school, there is video on youtube) in the hopes that the Israeli reprisal will kill Palestinian civilians. They have actually admitted they are using their own children as shields! Even if you don't like Israel, you have to admit that's disgusting.
  The Israeli army was not using the Israeli kindergarten to fire at Gaza, or for any other purpose. Hamas was using their school to fire missiles at Israel. Israel fired back and killed the terrorists (not "scores of children" as you put it). It is reported that secondary explosions (i.e. from bombs Hamas was storing IN THE SCHOOL (sorry for yelling, but...)) exploded and killed many nearby.
  Do we have enough reasons to see any differences between Hamas and Israel yet?
21. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:47 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Excuse me?
  The Hamas broke the cease-fire agreement.
  This war is retaliation for the rockets hitting the city of Sderot the last 2 months, thus violating the cease-fire.
  The Hamas was not defensive in breaking the cease-fire, it was outright offensive.
  The Hamas shoots rockets out of Mosques, Hospitals and Schools, do you see that as moral?
22. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by operagost · 2009-01-06 09:48 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  I would venture to say that most Palestinians do not publically agree with Hamas.
  
  Maybe they should have voted some other group into power, then.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
23. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  Excuse me, but Hamas shot first this time, however ineffectively, with their rockets. Whether or not that was justified for whatever grievances or the Israeli response proportional are separate matters, but Hamas shot first.
24. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Simulant · 2009-01-06 10:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Disclaimer for contextual reading of this comment: I am pro-Israel, anti-terrorism, and I really do think Israel wants peace and Hamas wants no-live-Jew-on-face-of-earth. This is not an anti-Jew post.
  I used to think that but then I read some history and started following current events. I now think it's "Israel wants land (which hasn't belonged to them in >2000 years) and Hamas (who represent people that they took it from) wants it back". At one point I think that the majority of Palistinians would have settled for "Just don't take any more." but that has unfortunately passed.
  You don't really buy the no-live-jew-on-the-face of-earth line do you? That's a bunch of rhetoric that you too would probably spout were you and your family evicted from your house/land.
  Jews and Arabs (and christians for that matter) have lived peacefully together, in that area, for hundreds of years at a time. There's nothing intrinsic in either religion that can't tolerate the existence of the other.
  As F$%#@ed up as Hamas is (and I in no way support their tactics), you simply can't move in, displace millions, and expect peace.
  I have sympathy for the innocent victims on both sides but Israel as a nation is reaping what it sows.
  Sadly, I see no humane solution.
25. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  what does that make the US invasion of Iraq? What does that make the Hezbollah resistance in 2006, which many would claim to have been executed with a well-defined plan?
  Those are called "war efforts". Terrorism is the tactic of deliberately killing civilians in the most violent and ugly way possible (ie: not just gunning them down, but nail-bombing them) in order to instill fear.
26. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:39 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Dear Israeli man posting AC (at least, you sound Israeli),
  Nobody is going to listen. The world has gone to the dirty hippies who think that suffering automatically gives one a moral upper ground, and who therefore won't root for Israel until the Jews have been halfway wiped out again, at which point the whole cycle will restart. Just finish off Hamas and write the history books like a good winner.
27. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:40 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Hamas was the least corrupt party on their ballot. It's understandable that they voted for Hamas, and it doesn't justify the suffering Hamas has caused them.
28. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  I figure that CNN and BBC and such must be relatively balanced in their coverage. If the Jews and Arabs both think they are biased in favor of the enemy, they must logically be balanced.
29. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, having a homeland and wanting to leave peacefully in it as a majority population with a state of our own, that is one racist and vicious ideology held by those Israelis... and the French... the Spaniards... the Germans... the Finns... the English... the Irish... the Scottish... the South Africans... the Chinese... the Japanese... the Indonesians... the Indians... the Polish... the Russians... am I forgetting anyone here?
  Anyway, we can be sure it's a vicious, racist ideology that practically everyone in the Old World needs to stop upholding.
30. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by chord.wav · 2009-01-06 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  How are you so sure that it wasn't an israeli military operation so they have an excuse to spend some ammo and fund their warfare? Just saying war is not so simple.
  Israel has the capability to detect and neutralize the launch sites with surgical precision. They should have finished long time ago it they wanted to do it. But, regardless whoever shot first, instead they prefered to invade. Gain more territory while cleverly complaining like 7 year old kids "Hey, they started it!"
  Also, it makes me sick that almost no one seems to dare to speak (or post in this care) against the anihilation that is taking place there (Not even a moderately critic speak) for fear or beign pointed as antisemitic or nazi. Those who modestly post or speak with a critic view take special care to attach a carefully written disclaimer paragraph to make sure no jew is pissed off by their comments.
  What the current Israel administration is doing there is plain genocide. They are anihilating palestinians just like the nazis did. And no one seems to care this time.
31. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by jerAzevedo · 2009-01-06 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC hamas has an 80% approval rating. They were, in fact, democratically elected by the Palestinian people.
  
  It seems like the people who side with Israel tend to have the least knowledge about the situation.
32. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Myrddin+Wyllt · 2009-01-06 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  The BBC coverage of all this has been a major surprise to me. Throughout the 70s and 80s they were so pro-Israeli it was almost a joke (subject matter notwithstanding) - in the last 20 years they have been almost painfully neutral and even-handed, although some of the coverage of the 2006 Lebanon 'situation' seemed somewhat forced and uncomfortable, especially interviews with Israeli officials.
  This latest episode leaves no doubt whose 'side' the Beeb are on; anybody defending Israel gets the full 'Paxman' treatment, no evasive answer is left to slide as it has been in the past.
  Usually when this shit happens, I try and watch a bit of Al Jazeera to get some balance - there has been no point over the last week, as you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
  On the Obama silence issue, that 'One President at a Time' answer is the only honourable one to give (not that that is necessarily his motivation) - He has to respect the Office, even if he despises the incumbent, and undermining that in any way is just not an option. It does raise the question of the timing of Israel's action, though, and you can bet that whatever plan they have requires completion before noon on January 20th.
  
  --
  [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
33. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by sumdumass · 2009-01-06 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  If the targets were military oriented yes, but they aren't, they are strictly civilian oriented so your comment would be more correct in "A suicide bomber is merely a poor terrorist's F-16"
  Hamas and Hezbollah and all aren't fighting for country. If you would spend just the minimum amount of time investigating the situation instead of being hand fed all the bent information you can handle, you would realize that Hamas and other terror groups in the area are fighting for extermination of the jews. They are little more then the KKK of the middle east and they are supported by Iran and parts of Syria. Saddam used to pay the families of Suicide bombers a $25k reward for their bravery. A suicide bomber isn't really even brave, when someone commits to it, they have a handle with them 24/7 making sure they don't change their minds and they aren't separated until shortly before the bombing.
  Sure, you can say they are repressed, in America, they would be in prison or killed by our own police. In the Palestinian territory (Palestine: which has never been a country under that name), they have pollywood and foreign instigators that have caused the repression and exaggerate it. If you seriously think Israel is the problem and the Palestinians are the poor country, you simply aren't paying any attention.
34. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Disclaimer for contextual reading of this comment: I am pro-Israel, anti-terrorism, and I really do think Israel wants peace and Hamas wants no-live-Jew-on-face-of-earth. This is not an anti-Jew post.
  Then your username is oddly appropriate.
35. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Tycho · 2009-01-06 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, having a homeland and wanting to leave peacefully in it as a majority population with a state of our own, that is one racist and vicious ideology held by those Israelis...
  Well, you did say this, and while I did quote you out of context, it is a bit racist to assume that you have the right to appropriate the land due to what happened 1800 years ago to the followers of a religion that you identify with, but you are not closely related to. If think you have the right to retake the same or a greater amount of land that these ancient religious followers lived on according to historical records. An aggravating fact in this case is that past as well as current means that were used violated international norms and standards regardless of the time they occurred in order to appropriate the land. If the government that you impose is an explicitly and extensively theocratic state with a thin veneer of democracy. Then yes, all of these would indicate that you are racist.
  
  --
  Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
36. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you did say this, and while I did quote you out of context, it is a bit racist to assume that you have the right to appropriate the land due to what happened 1800 years ago to the followers of a religion that you identify with, but you are not closely related to.
  Slight problem: I am in fact descended from those people. So are the rest of the non-convert Jews I know. Seriously, population genetic studies have been done. They show that both the Jewish and Palestinian populations have genetic links back to the ancient Israelites and Canaanites, but that the Jews have a closer link (leading to more diseases of inbreeding among Jews...) since the Arabs are well... Arabs. They are descended from people who abandoned one culture (the Jewish one) to join the Arabic one, and quite freely from what I remember of my history. So they don't get to claim the rights of Jews while calling themselves Arabs, acting Arabic, speaking Arabic, and following an Arabic religion. Instead, they have the rights of Arabs, much as Englishmen don't have the rights of French people to France despite sharing some genetic descent.
  It's all very messy, but the thing is that the Arabs have 22 Arabic states, one of them Palestinian (Jordan, which is composed of all of the British Mandate of Palestine east of the Jordan river). We only have and only want the one tiny little Jewish state. We think that holding the land of our ancestors is perfectly reasonable when the Arabs have so many other places to live! We Jews don't even all want all the land our ancestors lived on, just enough of it to live on now.
  
  If the government that you impose is an explicitly and extensively theocratic state with a thin veneer of democracy.
  Honest to God, it's "ISRAEL IS A THEOCRACY OMFG!" guys like you who make secular Jews like me less effective in getting across our message that Israel should separate religion from state even in those matters wherein such separation doesn't already exist. Please understand that Zionism began as and remains a secular movement. Attacking secular Zionism only leads to an increase in religiosity.
37. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by CannonballHead · 2009-01-06 13:06 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Jews and Arabs (and christians for that matter) have lived peacefully together, in that area, for hundreds of years at a time.
  I am not sure exactly how "peaceful" it has been since, if I remember correctly, around AD 600, when Mohammad and the Qur'an showed up.
  Yes, I do buy the no-live-jew-on-the-face-of-the-earth line. Read the Qur'an and find out what they think about Jews and the land Israel possesses. The more extreme Islamic believers, if memory serves, believe that they should have conquered pretty much the entire world already.
  There are things intrinsic in the Jewish and Islamic religions that make it difficult to tolerate the existence of the other. For the orthodox Jew, something like a mosque on top of the temple mount is going to be pretty annoying, wouldn't you say? Furthermore, in the Old Testament, the Jews were commanded to not allow any false religion in their lands, no other gods, etc.
  As for Christians, most orthodox Jews aren't too happy with Christians (Jesus == Messiah is something a Jew has to come to grips with if he is to accept Christianity). Muslims and Christians have an even bigger problem than Muslims and Jews, except that Christians are not currently occupying "their" land.
  You're right, Israel wants land that they haven't had for 2000 years (but were given it in '48 or '49, whichever year that was). Why haven't they had the land? Well let's see. First Rome decided to wipe them out (and Christians, which were seen as a Jewish sect by most of the pagan Roman empire). Next, the "Holy Roman Empire," the Roman Catholic controlled Europe, was pretty anti-Semitic as well, as well as anti-Islamic (hence crusades, etc, which - if I remember correctly, again - were more against Arabs/Muslims than Jews, as Jews were scattered - referred to as the "diaspora" at times). Muslims/Islamic groups have more or less had control since the very violent Mohammad showed up, with the crusades now and then taking over territory. My history is a bit fuzzy after that, but eventually we get to Hitler, who went on a kill-all-the-Jews-because-they-are-inferior (as well as other groups, yes) rampage. Finally, in the middle of the 20th century. Israel was given its tiny, tiny, tiny strip of land back after 2000 years.
  And if you think it doesn't have to do with religion, what DOES it have to do with? After all, it's just a very small piece of land. Not even all that great for agriculture and whatnot.
  Also, lest I come across as anti-religion, I'm not... plus, I have read both the OT and the NT, so the Jew/Christian stuff is quite familiar to me.
38. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by FleaPlus · 2009-01-06 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC hamas has an 80% approval rating.
  
  Do you have a citation for this? I can't find one.
  
  They were, in fact, democratically elected by the Palestinian people.
  That was only for a plurality (not majority) in the legislative branch. However, the way they seized control of the Gaza Strip was rather undemocratic, with Hamas killing Fatah leaders in the region, leading to the Hamas vs. Fatah "Battle of Gaza" (which Hamas won, killing more than a hundred Palestinians in the process):
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Battle_of_Gaza
39. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by FleaPlus · 2009-01-06 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  Asuicidebomberismerelyapoorcountry'sF-16.
  Yay for moral relativism!
40. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by cyphercell · 2009-01-06 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  and a militant that fires RPGs from a populated school is what? A politician trying to rally his cause when the enemy fires back?
  
  --
  Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
41. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by NeutronCowboy · 2009-01-06 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  You don't really buy the no-live-jew-on-the-face of-earth line do you? That's a bunch of rhetoric that you too would probably spout were you and your family evicted from your house/land.
  It's the same type of rhetoric that's used by government departments when budget cuts come along. Anytime a budget is supposed to be cut, all hell is supposed to break loose. Garbage will pile up in streets, parks will rot, etc. This is just the same type of exaggeration. You claim the worst to settle for average.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
42. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by mjwx · 2009-01-06 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  With the exception that an F16 is a uniformed combatant, most Suicide bombers are not. Not taking sides, just quoting the rules which neither Hamas or Israel seem to be obeying. Israel targets civilians, Hamas uses Civilians as human shields, no-one here is right.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
43. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by mjwx · 2009-01-06 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  As F$%#@ed up as Hamas is (and I in no way support their tactics), you simply can't move in, displace millions, and expect peace.
  Historically, displaced people die. See the Armenians and the American Indians (Cheyenne, I think, led on a forced march) for more information.
  
  I have sympathy for the innocent victims on both sides but Israel as a nation is reaping what it sows.
  
  So has Hamas. There is no right side here, and to me it doesn't seem right to support either. Ironic thing is, I live with Jew and work with a Palestinian, both say the same thing, they want peace. It's the leaders causing this so there's no need to vilify the peoples.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
44. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by alexhmit01 · 2009-01-06 14:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I used to think that but then I read some history and started following current events. I now think it's "Israel wants land (which hasn't belonged to them in >2000 years) and Hamas (who represent people that they took it from) wants it back". At one point I think that the majority of Palistinians would have settled for "Just don't take any more." but that has unfortunately passed.
  What time period is that? At no point has anyone on the Palestinian side said that. The 1948 partition was no good, the 1967 lines were no good for years, no the Clinton parameters are no good.
  Most of Israel has abandoned Greater Israel... Golan is a different matter than the west bank of the Jordan or the Gaza strip... and the old city of Jerusalem.
  However, if the Palestinians were serious about peace, they would agree the the Right of Return is not realistic, and that a financial settlement INCLUDING the displaced Jews from Arab lands and the displaced Arabs in now-Jewish lands would be worked out.
  If that were the case, we'd be arguing over borders.
  You are welcome to wish/dream/pray that Israel will cease to exist as a nation... but if you think that the Israelis will stand by and let that happen, you're dreaming... and you're not advocating peace.
  Israel normally gets massive amounts of terror and destruction in response to giving up land... when they do what you don't want them to do, occupy and settle land, they get relative peace and tranquility. When they abandon the land and retreat, they get attacked from that land. So regardless of what you think is right, if you were Israel, would you keep trading land for peace, or say screw it, and return to occupation.
45. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by alexhmit01 · 2009-01-06 14:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  There are things intrinsic in the Jewish and Islamic religions that make it difficult to tolerate the existence of the other. For the orthodox Jew, something like a mosque on top of the temple mount is going to be pretty annoying, wouldn't you say? Furthermore, in the Old Testament, the Jews were commanded to not allow any false religion in their lands, no other gods, etc.
  Correct, however, Islam isn't a problem. RAMBAM ruled that Islam wasn't worshiping of false gods or idolatry, and therefore a valid Noachide faith. While Ashkenazi law doesn't really deal with Islam, Sephardic law generally follows RAMBAM, and in theory for land based issues, Sephardic law governs Israel because it's in the Sephardic area. Ashkenazi customs don't dispute RAMBAM's ruling, so there is ZERO problem, under Orthodox Judaism, for Muslims to live and dwell within the land referred to as Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel, basically Jewish lands).
  The Mosque on top of the Temple Mount is a separate issue, mostly because it's inconveniently located where the Third Temple will stand. However, without an unblemished red heffer, you can't purify people to enter the holiest areas, so under Orthodox law, Jews can't enter there. So while Orthodox Jewish law may prohibit the Dome of the Rock, nobody can really do anything about it, so it's an academic issue.
  Regarding Christianity, there is no issue with non-Jews worshiping Jesus as messiah. There is a question of whether the worship of the trinity, statues of saints (in Catholic Churches), renders Christianity idolatry... but no ruling that it is... the the rule of thumb is not to enter a Church, in case it IS idolatry, but that the non Jewish Christians inside it aren't necessarily engaged in idolatry so the rules regarding idolatry don't apply either.
  Now I have ZERO clue what the law says regarding a Hindu Temple setting up shop in Israel, but that's WAY above my pay grade. If you want real explanations, and not a very lay explanation on Slashdot, consult your local Orthodox Rabbi.
  Any issues that lay Jews have with Christianity isn't theological in nature, but rather a series of rulings during centuries of Christian persecution, which likely colored the judgment of the Ashkenazi Rabbis.
46. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  No. You're wrong.
47. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  Israel has the capability to detect and neutralize the launch sites with surgical precision.
  Most of the rockets being fired on Israel are portable rockets that have timers set on to being launched much after the operators have left. Also, Hamas people have the tendency to launch rockets from within populated areas and schools. Using an automatic response would backfire on Israel, as it has in the past.
  They should have finished long time ago it they wanted to do it. But, regardless whoever shot first, instead they prefered to invade. Gain more territory while cleverly complaining like 7 year old kids "Hey, they started it!"
  Huh. Gain more territory? You think any sane Israeli want to return to Gaza?
  Also, it makes me sick that almost no one seems to dare to speak (or post in this care) against the anihilation that is taking place there (Not even a moderately critic speak) for fear or beign pointed as antisemitic or nazi. Those who modestly post or speak with a critic view take special care to attach a carefully written disclaimer paragraph to make sure no jew is pissed off by their comments.
  What the current Israel administration is doing there is plain genocide. They are anihilating palestinians just like the nazis did. And no one seems to care this time.
  I happen to be a Jew, and some of my relatives died by the Nazis. My grandparents were killed when the Nazis gathered all their town in one place, telling them that they're going to register them for work and then every single person was shot to death. My uncle lived in a meter by meter hole in the ground for more than 2 years hiding from Nazis. My 4 months old cousin was cold handedly shot in the head when found in a hiding place. Comparing any of the Nazis doing to what the Israelis are doing is insulting. Israel is doing its best and paying price for trying not to target civilians. It's not always working out, as terrorists are hiding among civilians, exploiting schools, hospitals, UN facilities and the world's naiveness. Go read a book.
48. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Detritus · 2009-01-06 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Get a better dictionary. "Few" does not mean thousands. Hamas and other militants have fired thousands of rockets into southern Israel. Be glad that you do not live in Siderot, where every time the alarm sounds, you have 15 seconds to get to a shelter.
  
  --
  Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
49. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by majid_aldo · 2009-01-06 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  "moving the palestinians" to other arab lands..is how you avoid the term ethnic cleansing.
  
  --
  --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
50. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 15:20 · Score: 0
  
  You don't really buy the no-live-jew-on-the-face of-earth line do you? That's a bunch of rhetoric that you too would probably spout were you and your family evicted from your house/land.
  Um, yes - I do believe it. Because it's not just Hamas who say it. Hamas prove they're more than capable of meaning it with their blantant disregard for human life on either side of their border.
  You not taking them serious is pretty easy to do when they're not talking about wiping you off the face of the earth, or while they're not launching rockets at your house, or putting suicide bombers on your bus.... No wait - you're right - they're just a little pissed off - but they'll get over it...when Israel ceases to exist.
51. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by jerAzevedo · 2009-01-06 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  There is a citation on wikipedia which might be a dead link now.
  http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/01/31/66888
  
  Hamas won majority election in 2006 before any major conflicts with Fatah.
  
  I do not support Hamas but the reason Hamas is so popular among Palestinians -- and don't kind yourself they are -- is because of their social programs. Hamas has done more for the Palestinian people than any other political entity in the region; building schools, hospitals, and smuggling food for starving Palestinian families (and making it clear that Hamas is responsible for these improvements, even putting their name on schools / hospitals that they build). They are not supported because of their stance wit Israel, calling for Israel's destruction. They are supported because of what they have done at home. Hamas has done a very good job gaining support in the region. Sadly this is probably at a cost to the Palestinian people because Hamas is not friendly internationally.
  
  For more information please read,
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah-Hamas_conflict
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
52. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by hnile_jablko · 2009-01-06 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  They are not trying to kill all the Jews. They are trying to get rid of an oppressor and invader.
  
  Here is my take on the conflict as someone born and raised in America:
  http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1082225&cid=26354409
  
  Should you or anyone consider responding to my brief take on the issue above consider the following: I have read extensively into the history of Palestine/Israel since well before British rule and until now, so please do not insult me with a response about needing to do some investigations. I have done a lot on my own to overcome the media and political bias dominant in the US regarding Israel. Do not ask for the entire list of books I have read because I am also immune to the ridiculous attempts to discredit them by all sorts of people. I am not an anti-Semite so do not accuse me of this. I was introduced to different perspective than what we have been spoon fed in the US about Isreal and the Palestinian savages by a Jewish friend in Australia. And so I began to think I need to learn more so I did. The places I got my knowledge are not wrong or propganda. They are academic endeavors into the history of the region layered with various memoirs and essays on the subject written by persons from many sides of the conflict (Zionists, anti-Semites, journalists and Jews troubled by a Zionism they feel has betrayed what they were taught). So if you wish to debate with me about this, do not insult me with glib comments about my lack of understanding or generalised assessments of me.
53. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 18:44 · Score: 0
  
  only that suicide bomber is targeting innocent people while the f-16 is going after military targets
54. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  You hit a point that has bothered me for a long time. When militants blow themselves up in Israeli occupied territory they are terrorists, but when Israel bombs the shit out of a school it is retaliation or an accident. To me those are both terrorism. However one is directly state sponsored and the other is sometimes, but often individual choice. If an American blew himself up in London there would be no need for them to bomb New York. But if the Royal Navy shelled Boston, it would be an act of war. Sure some bombers are Hamas linked, but certainly not all. The Israeli attacks are all sponsored by a centralized government spending American tax dollars to kill innocent civilians. If Israel wants to turn public sentiment against them, just keep this holier than though murderous shit up. Oh and fuck Hamas too, they are also evil.
55. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by lewko · 2009-01-06 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  A suicide bomber is merely a poor country's F-16.
  What a catchy, yet spectacularly naive comment.
  The Islamists, have openly stated their aim to kill all of the Jews. Read the Hamas Charter, and tell me which bit of that is unclear.
  Meanwhile, any number of other poor countries, who don't receive billions in aid like the Palestinians, also don't resort to suicide bombing - a crime against humanity - because they lack the Islamic indoctrination.
  There are no Tibetan suicide bombers. There are no Ethiopian suicide bombers. Sub-Saharan Africa doesn't have daily television inciting young African children to blow themselves up. Palestinian Children are brought up on it.
  You have completely whitewashed the Islamic background to this form of terrorism. The proof? Christian Palestinians don't blow themselves up. Ever.
  
  --
  Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
56. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by howlingmadhowie · 2009-01-06 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  after it got its land [back].
  
  as a friend of mine said to a jewish person living in new york who supported the state of israel "when you give up your house to the first native american who comes along claiming that his ancestors once lived there you can claim that a jewish state has a right to exist where it does".
  
  as it is, it may be even worse. if i recall correctly, genetic testing has shown that palestinians are the semites of the old testament. they simply stayed in the area and converted to islam.
57. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  But one is more right. ;)
58. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by PAKnightPA · 2009-01-06 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless of whether or not Hamas and other Arab states mean the "no live jew" rhetoric, I think in light of the Holocaust Israel feels as if they have to take such rhetoric seriously. I mean, after what happened in WW2, its easy to see why they might be a tad on edge when someone raises the specter of extermination.
59. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by XchristX · 2009-01-06 23:33 · Score: 1
  
  Now I have ZERO clue what the law says regarding a Hindu Temple setting up shop in Israel, but that's WAY above my pay grade. If you want real explanations, and not a very lay explanation on Slashdot, consult your local Orthodox Rabbi.
  There was a Jewish-Hindu interfaith thingie in new Delhi in 2007
  http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5788
  
  The Hindu/Jewish summit set the tone for interfaith collaboration. The "Protocol of Cooperation" -- a declaration signed by Rabbi Yona Metzger and Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the convener of The Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha -- primarily acknowledges the shared values of two of the oldest religions in the world which both believe in the one Supreme Being who is the ultimate source of reality and creation, and condemns all forms of religious violence. The summit agreed to constitute a standing committee on Hindu-Jewish relations.
  Swami Dayananda Saraswati noted the "declaration will serve as a benchmark for others to follow and emulate, resulting in a better environment for all. I have always believed in peace-full co-existence. All religious traditions should respect common values and insist on compassion. Religious leaders bear the responsibility of leading their followers to a path of peace so that the world will become a safer place to live."
  Lauding the efforts of The World Council of Religious Leaders (WCORL) who organized this summit, Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger said "though religious dialogues have increased recently, the Hindu-Jewish declaration is a significant move that highlights the necessity of expanding interfaith community.
  For thousands of years we have marched on parallel causes and have now built bridges of cooperation between the two religions. Jews have lived in India for over 2000 years and have never been discriminated against. This is something unparalleled in human history".
  The Jewish delegation included Rabbi David Rosen, former Chief Rabbi of Ireland and President of IJCIC, the International Jewish Committee that represents World Jewry in its relations with other world Religions, Oded Weiner, the director general of The Chief Rabbinate of Israel and over 10 International Jewish leaders. The Hindu participants included over 30 prominent heads of Hindu traditions from all over India.
  The summit provided the framework for Jewish and Muslim leaders to meet and discuss the significant role religion could play in promoting peace in the Middle East. On Palestine, Metzger lamented that his community had dialogue only with moderate Muslim leaders with little power and influence. "So far efforts to engage other sections who command power have proved futile. But that doesn't mean we will end our efforts".
  Also, I believe small diaspora Hindu denominations (Vaishnavites) and Brahma Kumaris people are already there in Tel Aviv, and they celebrate Janmashtami fairly openly.
  http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=6636&sec=28&con=35
  I don't know what Orthodox Jewish positions are here. But I was watching an interfaith dialogue on NPR or someplace like that and an orthodox Jewish Rabbi was saying that they have no fundamental disagreements with henotheistic , monotheistic and nontheistic Hindu denominations because their practices can be interpreted as conforming to noachide laws. Plus their complete lack of antisemitism classifies them as righteous.
  
  --
  l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
60. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 00:01 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent up.
61. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by BenoitRen · 2009-01-07 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  But at least Israel IS interested in peace.
  
  But only if they can keep the land that their fairy tale book told them was theirs.
62. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Hamas has been shooting these missiles for over 8 years at cities in Israel, killing and wounding hundreds of people. But even worse terrorizing over a million people who never know when an alarm will sound and a missile will drop. This is after Gaza was evacuated. Look at the west bank were the Palestinians aren't shooting rockets at cities, they live there lives. The peace process is going foreword with there representatives. The hamas wants to destroy Israel and doesn't care if a million Palestinians get killed in the process.
63. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  A suicide bomber is merely a poor country's F-16.
  
  I hate that line. Yes, they're both used to target military installations, and yes, they occasionally target civilians. But the F-16 doesn't fly around looking for large concentrations of non-combatants so it could make the largest headlines in tomorrow's papers.
64. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by dunkelfalke · 2009-01-07 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, Israel isn't either
  actually, they do.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
65. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Cederic · 2009-01-07 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  I really do think Israel wants peace
  Then why do they continually seek to settle land by displacing Palestinians?
  Do they really think that's going to accepted peacefully by one of the most dense populations on the planet?
  If you really think Israel wants peace then you must be as stupid as you think they'd have to be to act like this and expect it.
66. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by FleaPlus · 2009-01-07 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Hamas won a slim plurality rather less than 50%, not a majority. Also, according to a poll from November 73% of Palestinians wanted to dissolve the Hamas-controlled parliament and hold new elections in January 2009:
  http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/03/content_10300973.htm
  According to the same poll, "If new elections were held in January 2009, 48 percent of the surveyed will vote for Fatah while 12.3 will elect Hamas."
67. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by jerAzevedo · 2009-01-07 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's actually good news. Thanks for the info. Their support was greater in 2006 and was quite strong, hence wikipedia's citation verifying this claim. It's easy to see how the situation could change so quickly, what with the palestinian situation getting worse. However 76 / 132 parliament seats I would consider a majority, not a "slim plurality".
  
  You have to be careful with the polls as well. It's hard to collect data from this region; if they poll only educated palestinians you're going to have much more support for Fatah. Younger, more radical, and worse off Palestinians tend to support Hamas; and not just politically (militarily as well).
  
  There was a poll showing 80% support for Hamas, or "the current regime", probably around 2006. It might even be the link I provided earlier.
68. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by advance512 · 2009-01-07 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  Really?
  Are passenger jet planes a poor country's long range surface-to-surface missiles, too?
  I can't believe we've gotten to the point where people actually *condone* suicide bombers.
  Suicide bombers are the best example of what is terribly, horribly corrupted and wrong in Islam.
69. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by sumdumass · 2009-01-08 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  They are not trying to kill all the Jews. They are trying to get rid of an oppressor and invader.
  Here is my take on the conflict as someone born and raised in America:
  http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1082225&cid=26354409
  
  How one sides of you to ignore 1000 years of interaction in that area. The fact of the matter is that the jews and Arabs in the area were always fighting and the Ottoman empire was inviting jews to come in and settle the land since 1100 ad. This all goes further back then 1945, the entire reason the zionist picked the Palestine territory of Israel is because of the ottoman empire promoting it in the 1800's.
  
  hould you or anyone consider responding to my brief take on the issue above consider the following: I have read extensively into the history of Palestine/Israel since well before British rule and until now, so please do not insult me with a response about needing to do some investigations. I have done a lot on my own to overcome the media and political bias dominant in the US regarding Israel. Do not ask for the entire list of books I have read because I am also immune to the ridiculous attempts to discredit them by all sorts of people. I am not an anti-Semite so do not accuse me of this. I was introduced to different perspective than what we have been spoon fed in the US about Isreal and the Palestinian savages by a Jewish friend in Australia. And so I began to think I need to learn more so I did. The places I got my knowledge are not wrong or propganda. They are academic endeavors into the history of the region layered with various memoirs and essays on the subject written by persons from many sides of the conflict (Zionists, anti-Semites, journalists and Jews troubled by a Zionism they feel has betrayed what they were taught). So if you wish to debate with me about this, do not insult me with glib comments about my lack of understanding or generalised assessments of me.
  
  You are purposely limiting your knowledge and applying it to one small portion of the puzzle. This make you one sides and slanted regardless of how you want to pretend to be. The British mandate for Palestine and the Balfour proclamation would have worked completely if the Palestinian people would have gotten their act together and formed a country well before WWII like 90% of the other former ottoman empires administrated by the British after WWI.
70. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by ShieldW0lf · 2009-01-08 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  When you, as a culture, embrace the concept of Riba, that would be a big step in leaving your legacy of evil oppression behind.
  
  Funny thing about your culture... you recognize it's evil to do this sort of thing to each other, it's written in your holy books:
  
  Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it. (Deuteronomy, 23:20-21)
  
  Almost sounds like a racist conspiracy to steal from your fellow man. Oh, that must be because THAT IS WHAT IT IS. Yet, you systematically do this to other people, and then when they call you to task on it, you throw your hands up in the air and act like butter wouldn't melt in your mouths.
  
  How many bullets did the money Bernard Madoff stole from everyone else on earth and distributed to his fellow racist conspirators pay for? Do you think systematically stealing from the rest of us, engaging in wars of conquest of other nations and murdering and subjugating their people is defensible?
  
  If you had any decency, you would be ashamed to be associated with the history and continued actions of your people. You damned well should be. Personally, I hope any of you who refuse to get the hell out of there and leave those people in peace get slaughtered to the last man, woman and child. It's nothing more or less than what is deserved.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
71. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-08 21:25 · Score: 1
  
  Oy gevalt, you anti-Semitic moron. Do you know how many Jewish individuals and orgs lost their goddamn money because they trusted Bernie Madoff? Apparently not, or you wouldn't think it was all some kind of Jewish conspiracy.
  I mean DEAR FUCKING GOD, who let the Alex Jones morons on Slashdot? The country goes into one little economic recession and all of a sudden lending at interest is immoral again (funny how moral revivals tend to coincide with a culture reaping the catastrophic consequences of failing to obey more moderate moral advice in the first place*) and it's all the fault of the Jews!
  Don't even talk to me. I'm a computer science student; I don't even know anyone in banking. Come back when you're not just trying to vent your frustration at some lost money by picking on the nearest ethnic group in the headlines. It isn't your people under constant scorn for fighting the most vicious and virulent brand of religious fundamentalism seen in the world today; it isn't your people who have to defend themselves against wannabe Nazis.
  
  * -- This is my official statement on the matter of the United States debt collapse and ensuing depression, left for 'net archaeologists of the future. If everyone hadn't insisted on buying shit they couldn't afford - houses, cars, useless educations that led nowhere professionally, iPhones, cell-phone plans, vacations, food (especially food in this nation of obesity), drink, whores, and every other vice of overindulgence America has gorged itself on like a squirrel packing in for winter - this would never have happened. I repeat the simple financial advice of Saturday Night Live: don't buy things you can't afford. When you don't buy things you can't actually afford and only take loans you can realistically pay back in the future (like investment capital or student loans for an engineering degree), you will not suffer any credit crunches. When you're not so obsessed with the idea of something for nothing that you stop producing things and try to just move paper around for a living, your economy will hold up under bad conditions because it will produce real value -- real things that real people need.
  But personally, I don't think you'll follow this advice. My prediction for the future is more of the same: you'll go wildly out of control in good times and then find a scapegoat to blame in bad times. I can comfort myself with the barest glimmer of hope that perhaps your future scapegoat, when you again feel the need to blame someone for what you know deep down is your addiction to unnecessary consumption, won't just be the Jews again.
72. Re:Coherent plan vs. terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-15 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  While I might agree with most of what you said, the Hamas attacks on civilians can not be described as
  
  can barely get their hands on a few rockets to defend themselves
  These rockets are used exclusively to target civilians who live in Israel's undisputed territory.
GIYUS by ionix5891 · 2009-01-06 08:07 · Score: 5, Informative

theres also GIYUS (im not gonna link) they have 40,000 members regularly trolling on large forums and newspapers such as Guardian regarding any topic about Israel/Palestine
this been going on for long time
Warring Botnets? by GunDawg · 2009-01-06 08:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

This makes me think of the old Star Trek episode - A Taste of Armageddon, where no actual fighting takes place but a computer determines the casualties on each side and then those number of people on each side have to enter a machine to be killed.
1. Re:Warring Botnets? by planetoid · 2009-01-06 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  I never have watched Star Trek, don't really like the show... but, let me take a wild guess -- is that one of the episodes authored by Harlan Ellison? That kind of premise sounds like something only his beautiful mind could come up with.
  
  --
  Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
"Help Israel Win," by debrain · 2009-01-06 08:09 · Score: 0

What does that mean?
1. Re:"Help Israel Win," by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Cooties Rat Semen
2. Re:"Help Israel Win," by Paradigm_Complex · 2009-01-06 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  It means to help shift public opinion - and consequently manpower, money and technology - to Israel and away from Hamas et al. Directly it won't disable would-be solders and suicide bombers, but it could seriously hamper funding and efforts by Hamas.
  
  --
  "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
future of volunteering your computer into a botnet by v1 · 2009-01-06 08:11 · Score: 1

It's a sort of a seti-at-home kind of thing when you look at it that way... I wonder if in the future we'll start seeing more of that, where there are more than just a small handful of distributed computing projects that you can pick from as to where you want to donate your cycles to.
Wouldn't it be wild to see advertisements for this once it becomes a commodity? Or even to have a management app on your computer to decide what percentage of cycles you are donating to what projects. You get a list, and can fill in boxes or drag sliders to show how much you are donating to protein folding, DRM hacking, pharmaceutical research, global cooking simulations, star scanning, etc. Have a list of hundreds or even thousands of different causes you can easily select and join.
I don't see any reason why this won't come to pass in the next 10 yrs. I'm saving a copy of this post and going to see if I made a good call...

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Not to worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:11 · Score: 5, Funny

The Palestinian hackers blew themselves up after they hacked in to the Israeli website. Old habits die hard...
1. Re:Not to worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  coffee...on...monitor.....damn you!!
2. Re:Not to worry! by conan1989 · 2009-01-06 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  come on, you're on /. you should know better.
  it's crackers not hackers.
3. Re:Not to worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 00:34 · Score: 0
  
  The Palestinian hackers blew themselves up after they hacked in to the Israeli website. Old habits die hard...
  I'm just trying to figure out how blowing yourself up can possibly become a habit...
-1, flamebait by mcgrew · 2009-01-06 08:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Such hatred! Gees, no wonder people are dying right and left
Jews: Isreal has the most gender-neutral society in the entire world.
Rank bullshit. perhaps the most gender-neutral in the middle east, I don't think anyone would argue with that, but I think you'll find most European nations (and nations who were settled by Europeans) to be far more gender neutral. In the US, the third in the Presidential sucession is a woman, speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
IslamoSavages
Flamebait. Grow up, boy.
Jews: Have the right to a homeland
So do the Palestinians.
IslamoSavages: Wish to indoctrinate the world into the cancer known as Islam.
And Bhuddists sish to indoctrinate the world to Bhuddism and Christians (I'm one) want everyone to accept Christ as savior. Your point?
Jews: Act only in self-defense, strike from afar only at those whose fingers are on the trigger or detonator. Collateral damage is accidental.
Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30

GAZA CITY, Gaza - Israeli mortar shells struck outside a U.N. school where hundreds of Palestinians had sought refuge on Tuesday, killing at least 30 people -- many of them children whose parents wailed in grief at a hospital filled with dead and wounded.
Israeli ground forces edged closer to two major Gaza towns, and a total of 70 Palestinians were killed Tuesday -- with just two confirmed as militants, health officials in Gaza said. A top U.N. official called for an investigation into the mounting civilian death toll.
Savages, you say? Seventy dead innocents to kill two soldiers? That's barbaric. Israel should be ashamed of itself, if I was an Israli I'd be at the wailing wall in sackcloth and ashes begging God's forgiveness.
Jews: Don't really care that much about religion.
I see you've not met many Jews. The ones I know are very religious.
Jews: Leading contributors to cutting-edge science and technology.
Gates, Jobs, Torvalds, all Jews? Where do you come up with all this rank bullshit?
Damn it's hard to keep from responding to these damned trolls.

--
Free Martian Whores!
1. Re:-1, flamebait by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 08:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30
  
  GAZA CITY, Gaza - Israeli mortar shells struck outside a U.N. school where hundreds of Palestinians had sought refuge on Tuesday, killing at least 30 people -- many of them children whose parents wailed in grief at a hospital filled with dead and wounded.
  
  From slugtastic's post below: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651722,00.html What do you suggest the Israeli military do in a situation where they have a danger coming from a structure that may or not house civilians? The military has a responsibility, first, to its people, second, to its land, and third, to preventing casualties to other county's civilians. Those Palestinian civilians present in the school should have removed themselves once a military force began using their building as a staging ground. I will not and can not fault a military for destroying a site launching mortars into their territory immediately. It is within their purview, and if anything, civilian casualties are the militants' fault - they should be telling civilians to leave areas they they are planning to use as staging grounds. Of course, civilian deaths are all part of their public relations war - just so people like you can look at the situation and say "Oh hey look, the Israelis just killed 30 people to take out a couple militants! That's barbaric!" Bullshit.
2. Re:-1, flamebait by alexhmit01 · 2009-01-06 08:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Savages, you say? Seventy dead innocents to kill two soldiers? That's barbaric. Israel should be ashamed of itself, if I was an Israli I'd be at the wailing wall in sackcloth and ashes begging God's forgiveness.
  You seem to be confused as to the nature of war crimes. It is a SEVERE war crime, Perfidy to do what those two militants did. You are expressing outrage at the wrong side. Those two Hamas Militants caused the deaths of 68 civilians by engaging in Perfidy, their families should be mourning and begging for forgiveness for the acts of their kin.
  It is NOT acceptable for militants to hide amongst civilians so that when they are killed, there are civilian deaths.
  If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers? Any harm that comes to someone as a result of your criminal actions is your fault.
  Like the SWAT team, the IDF tries to minimize civilian casualties (called collateral damage in military matters), but should NOT be held responsible for those deaths.
  Attitudes like yours are WHY this crap goes on. If Hamas were condemned, instead of Israel, from deaths related to their acts of terror (targeting civilians with rockets), or in cases like this, Perfidy, we'd probably have a peace process. Instead, because people like you sympathize with these monsters, the Gazans are under attack because there is no way to root out Hamas. Hamas hides behind "human shields" forcing civilian casualties...
  NEARLY EVERY SINGLE CIVILIAN CASUALTY IN GAZA WOULD be AVOIDED IF THE MILITANTS WORE UNIFORMS AND AVOIDED CIVILIAN AREAS, requirements of a militia under the laws of war. Hamas has chosen to increase civilian casualties to mount political pressure on Israel. Every single person that protest this operation BECAUSE OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES has blood on their hands, because you encourage Hamas to maximize the civilian deaths in Gaza.
  Israel is targeting the 15000 militants in Hamas. Every peace of collateral damage is a result of Hamas's wanton war crimes.
3. Re:-1, flamebait by Dan667 · 2009-01-06 08:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Israel is doing everything in its power to make sure that Hamas never becomes an irrelevant fringe organization. Every mother, brother, uncle, girlfriend, etc they kill today recruits more for Hamas. Hamas recruits with now nothing to lose. Israel is creating their own problems and are clearly wrong.
4. Re:-1, flamebait by Zerth · 2009-01-06 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Rank bullshit. perhaps the most gender-neutral in the middle east, I don't think anyone would argue with that, but I think you'll find most European nations (and nations who were settled by Europeans) to be far more gender neutral. In the US, the third in the Presidential sucession is a woman, speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
  Israel was letting chicks into the military, giving them guns, and sticking them out to be shot at way ahead of the US.
  Plus, they let in hot chicks and put them on calendars. Can't do that in the US.
5. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  Rank bullshit. perhaps the most gender-neutral in the middle east, I don't think anyone would argue with that, but I think you'll find most European nations (and nations who were settled by Europeans) to be far more gender neutral. In the US, the third in the Presidential sucession is a woman, speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
  
  And Israel elected its first woman to the office of Prime Minister in 1974, with the second looking to take the office at the end of the current Prime Minister's term.
  When are Nancy and Hillary's terms starting?
  The only countries that I am aware of having elected a female as their top official are England (under Thatcher) and India (under Indira Ganghi).
6. Re:-1, flamebait by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 08:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers? Any harm that comes to someone as a result of your criminal actions is your fault.
  Some of the liberals around here whom are condemning Israel would likely be upset if the SWAT team dared to use deadly force. The robbers should have been captured alive no matter how many innocent people they kill or how many shots they take at law enforcement.....
  
  Like the SWAT team, the IDF tries to minimize civilian casualties (called collateral damage in military matters), but should NOT be held responsible for those deaths.
  Indeed. How often do the Palestinians phone the pizzeria ahead of time and warn everybody therein that it's about to be attacked and they should get out?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
7. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:58 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  you are a blinded fool and Idiot...
  If the Palestinians where treated as humans in stead of animals all this fighting was not necessary...
8. Re:-1, flamebait by Martin+Blank · 2009-01-06 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  There have been quite a few more than that. Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir were probably the first two heads of government that affected world politics, but they've not been alone, especially in the last two decades or so.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
9. Re:-1, flamebait by techprophet · 2009-01-06 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  Jews: Leading contributors to cutting-edge science and technology.
  Gates, Jobs, Torvalds, all Jews? Where do you come up with all this rank bullshit?
  
  He never mentions Gates, Jobs, or Torvalds. Simply that Jews are leading contributors.
10. Re:-1, flamebait by LWATCDR · 2009-01-06 09:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Okay to be honest I can sort of see Israel's point of view. I don't think their actions are wise. I also will not join any botnet.
  At best this is a sad stupid situation. I wish I could see a good way out. Israel tried to give a little and then got rockets in return. The Arab nations have kept the Palestinians in refugee camps for how many decades?
  Just a mess over all.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
11. Re:-1, flamebait by techprophet · 2009-01-06 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Not if Hamas is gone.
12. Re:-1, flamebait by mcgrew · 2009-01-06 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  The US had women in the military before the modern Israel existed. And do they put male soldiers on their calanders? If not, well, that's pretty sexist if you ask me.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
13. Re:-1, flamebait by jafiwam · 2009-01-06 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  If the palestinians treated other palestinians as humans in stead of animals all this fighting was not necessary...
  FIFY
14. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. Whatever else, the latest round of attacks will certainly decimate moderate opinion in Gaza. In such circumstances, why not support whoever weilds the biggest weapon in your defence?
15. Re:-1, flamebait by mcgrew · 2009-01-06 09:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers?
  If the swat team accidentally shoots innocent people, then the swat team is at fault. In fact, courts have backed this up - if you're in a bank, doing legal business, and a cop shoots you while trying to stop a robbery, you're getting your medical bills paid by the city, and if you die your family will win a wrongful death suit.
  If a police car smashes into your auto while chasing someone else, the city pays. You can't shoot me in a bank and say it's the bank robbers' fault. It just doesn't work that way.
  US soldiers have been court martialed for collateral damage, there were some airmen from here in Springfield who were in pretty deep shit because they accidentally bombed some Canadians in Afghanistan. Nobody blamed the Taliban for the Canadian deaths.
  If you're going to shoot, it is your responsibility to hit the target and ONLY the target.
  Yes, Hamas are monsters. So are the people they're fighting.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
16. Re:-1, flamebait by nicolas.kassis · 2009-01-06 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Hard to go anywhere when their a blockade in one of the most populous region of the world. Hamas is wrong and needs to be eliminated but everything Israel is doing is only helping Hamas get more power. These people thrive on this confrontation. Instead of helping the Palestinians rebuild a infrastructure capable of bringing order and controlling the place bombs rain down and destroy it. Sorry but blockades and economic sanction will never destroy such an organization and might help it since it reduces the ability of the common people to fight the extremist(name me one case where economic sanctions have yielded good result anywhere in the world). And just driving in and bombing everything you can't isn't building any support for you by the population. Don't get me wrong the rockets in Gaza have to stop but this military strategy is flawed thinking. Hamas is proving that even with all this they still are managing to launch them and they don't seem to care that others are taking the hit. The only solution is to get the Palestinians and arabs to eliminate Hamas from within. You won't stop them unless their peers do.
17. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  I've often wondered why the civilians in those countries let the militants cower in their midst?
  We learned very quickly when someone farts in class to step back as a group and point out the culprit.
18. Re:-1, flamebait by nicolas.kassis · 2009-01-06 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up. this is true. Even if you are defending your self. Where you're bullet hit is your responsibility. This actually something people who carry guns should realize if you miss and kill an innocent you will be found guilty of man slaughter.
19. Re:-1, flamebait by nicolas.kassis · 2009-01-06 09:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Cause the militants have guns and the civilians don't. Pointing a finger gets you killed.
20. Re:-1, flamebait by lwsimon · 2009-01-06 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Its something that "people who carry guns" are well aware of. I know many concealed carry permit holders, including myself, and we all know the laws forwards and backwards.
  Those same laws are incredibly complex and open to interpretation. If you ever want to give yourself a migraine, go learn about gun laws in America.
  
  --
  Learn about Photography Basics.
21. Re:-1, flamebait by lwsimon · 2009-01-06 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Men all but worship the female form. It is the most beautiful work of art ever created.
  Why you think that people wanting to appreciate beauty and the feelings that it evokes is a bad thing is beyond me.
  
  --
  Learn about Photography Basics.
22. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  So following your logic, the SWAT team should bomb the bank because a few roubers are inside?
  Far from the best tactical aproach to minimize civilian victims in contrast to what was babaricly done in reality to catch 2 militants
  As if they couldn't wait for their land troops to move in and check/patrol the school.
  Further more imo if Israel government had any respect for the UN law and respect for human rights they would have called for an international military force to patrol Gaza to stop the mortairs and avoid the unnecessary innocent bloodshed.
23. Re:-1, flamebait by agrounds · 2009-01-06 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not if Hamas is gone.
  You can kill people by the millions, but you can never kill an idea. If what they stood for still means something and actively interests even one person, then the idea is not dead and can propagate. This is why true peace can not and will not ever be achieved through war over an idea.
  This is true for both sides in any armed conflict.
24. Re:-1, flamebait by Qrlx · 2009-01-06 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  It is NOT acceptable for militants to hide amongst civilians so that when they are killed, there are civilian deaths.
  Thus, the sinking of the Lusitania was justified. The United States and Britain were terrorists, hiding a military shipment under guise of civilian transport in the First World War. Your logic demands it!
  Consequently, the Balfour Declaration, issued by Britain during the First World War, was the act of an outlaw, terrorist state. And from that act of terrorism, Israel was born.
  That about right?
25. Re:-1, flamebait by techprophet · 2009-01-06 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Very good point. I will think on this.
26. Re:-1, flamebait by downhole · 2009-01-06 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  And this is completely different from accidentally bombing a friendly force that isn't anywhere near the enemy. If the enemy sets up a mortar in a school while forcing the kids to stay there surrounding them and uses that mortar to attack civilians far away, what do you do? Sending in soldiers to try and shoot only the mortar crew takes time and puts them at risk, while every minute that you don't take out that mortar may result in dozens more of your own civilians dead. (And if the mortar crew is any good, they'll have hidden or moved to another firing position with another pile of civilians around by the time you get enough soldiers ready to attack without it being a suicide mission) If you are set up to hit them with bombs or artillery or your own mortars, you damm well do it. It isn't your fault that your enemy did everything in their power to make it impossible to stop their attack without harming their civilians. And there's a big difference between what you do when faced with that situation, and what you do when you do have the ability to avoid hitting civilians or friendly forces and you don't do it.
  
  --
  I don't reply to ACs
27. Re:-1, flamebait by Renraku · 2009-01-06 10:49 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Different situation entirely.
  Replace bank robber with foreign army. No SWAT team or rescue mission wants to kill the hostages, but sometimes it happens. Should the rescuers be held responsible for the deaths of the hostages? Depends.
  A SWAT team has a lot more to answer for than a military. If Hamas hides behind civilians and the Israelis mow them both down, who do you think is to blame? Hamas KNOWS there's an entire nation's worth of armed forces coming for them, and they KNOW that they might not stop for civilians. So they hide behind them? They're the ones that are 100% at fault for this.
  
  --
  Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
28. Re:-1, flamebait by Caboosian · 2009-01-06 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  It is a SEVERE war crime, Perfidy to do what those two militants did.
  It is NOT acceptable for militants to hide amongst civilians so that when they are killed, there are civilian deaths.
  NEARLY EVERY SINGLE CIVILIAN CASUALTY IN GAZA WOULD be AVOIDED IF THE MILITANTS WORE UNIFORMS AND AVOIDED CIVILIAN AREAS, requirements of a militia under the laws of war. Every peace of collateral damage is a result of Hamas's wanton war crimes.
  You know, I really cannot grasp the concept of war crimes. Not that I can't understand their intention - limit the horrors of war - but I can't understand the point. War is not a civilized, rational action. War is barbaric - war is what humanity does best, but mostly, there are no rules to war. When the end result is that either you or your enemy is dead, you cannot possibly enforce rules - so what's the point? It's just an excuse for people to say "oh those Hamas terrorists are commit war crimes, they're evil". They're not evil - they're sick motherfuckers, they're monsters to hide amongst civilians, but you know what? They think it's their best shot at winning. They will stop at no end to destroy Israel, and if you think crying "war crimes" is going to do a damn thing, you're completely foolish. It's not a game. You don't respawn, you don't take turns, you don't follow any rulebook. Just because you make it illegal to hide amongst civilians as a militant doesn't mean terrorists are going to stop. It's called winning, you don't do it by following the "rules."
  Rules. If you think rules matter to anyone fighting a war, if you think there is some sort of standards in mass murder, you may want to rethink just exactly what war is. Sheesh. You might as well outlaw terrorism (I'm sure it already is) - I'm sure that'll stop it in its tracks.
  After all, you can't break the rules.
  Note: I am not a Hamas supporter, and I'm not an Israel supporter. I've given up on that part of the world. Furthermore, I do not believe in the concept of "good and evil". Sure, maybe you could say Hamas is evil by our standards - but by their standards, they're the epitome of good. Who's to say who's right? God? I don't believe in him either, but both their gods would accuse the others of being "evil". So no, I believe in nothing more than opposing viewpoints. Everyone has their own set of morals, their own idea of good vs. evil - and when looked at from a unbiased point of view (impossible, but one can try), when accounting for all the different ideas/standards of good vs. evil, good and evil lose any meaning. Hitler thought the holocaust was a good and noble task - pretty sure everyone else thought he was the most evil person to ever live.
29. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30 [yahoo.com]
  GAZA CITY, Gaza - Israeli mortar shells struck outside a U.N. school where hundreds of Palestinians had sought refuge on Tuesday, killing at least 30 people -- many of them children whose parents wailed in grief at a hospital filled with dead and wounded.
  Israeli ground forces edged closer to two major Gaza towns, and a total of 70 Palestinians were killed Tuesday -- with just two confirmed as militants, health officials in Gaza said. A top U.N. official called for an investigation into the mounting civilian death toll.
  Savages, you say? Seventy dead innocents to kill two soldiers? That's barbaric. Israel should be ashamed of itself, if I was an Israli I'd be at the wailing wall in sackcloth and ashes begging God's forgiveness.
  No.
  Hamas should be ashamed of itself for launching rockets from a school!!
  Israel has no blame here. Go freshen up on the Geneva Convention.
  1) Putting military targets in a civilian area is a crime.
  2) How do we know it's only two "militant" deaths? These guys are dressed like civilians. Again, against the Geneva Conventions.
  So how's about an investigation into the war crimes being committed by the Palestinians?
30. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers?
  Are you kidding?
  if the swat team shoots the prisoners then hell yes they are to blame and will be charged with manslaughter.
  
  Every peace of collateral damage is a result of Hamas's wanton war crimes.
  Also, she made me rape her by acting all slutty.
  Attitudes like yours are WHY this crap goes on.
  No, it is idiots like you who think that THEIR killing is 'just' and the other guy is evil that are responsible for this crap.
31. Re:-1, flamebait by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  I agree wholeheartedly - Israel and the U.S. should be doing their best to help these people. Start building hospitals, start providing Palestinians with clean water, start giving stimulus to families, and most important, let them live in the same areas as Israelis, and watch how fast support shifts, both among Palestinians and in the world community as a whole.
  Nonetheless, when hostilities occur, something has to be done militarily. You can't just sit back and let militants attack your people. The trick is to straddle that fine line between being too harsh and too giving. At the moment, the world community seems to agree that Israel is on the harsh side.
32. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  Hamas is doing everything in its power to make sure that Israel never becomes an irrelevant fringe organization. Every mother, brother, uncle, girlfriend, etc they kill today recruits more for Israel. Israel recruits with now nothing to lose. Hamas is creating their own problems and are clearly wrong.
  I'd go further by saying that every rocket fired indiscriminately into Israel makes Israelis that much more aggressive in killing the thugs who launch them.
33. Re:-1, flamebait by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Instead of helping the Palestinians rebuild a infrastructure capable of bringing order and controlling the place bombs rain down and destroy it.
  Unfortunately when Israel allowed humanitarian shipments and business shipments into Gaza, Hamas used those shipments to smuggle weapons into Gaza. Israel instituted the blockade precisely to starve out Hamas and avoid a war like the one they now fight. Unfortunately that failed as well.
  There's really only one thing you can do to a person or group who believes that suffering is reason to fight and that truce is a victory, and therefore reason to fight even harder. This is psychosis, and anything Israel does that can actually end it will be condemned.
34. Re:-1, flamebait by MikShapi · 2009-01-06 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Are you implying that when fighting monsters who shoot artillery out of schools (check that little "two well-known members of a Hamas rocket-launching cell had been among those killed at the school, naming them as Imad and Hassan Abu Askar" bit),
  any non-perfect real-world way of stopping a barrage of 2500 (!!!) explosive projectiles shot deliberately this year into ***civilian urban neighbourhoods*** with no strategic intention other than to kill and maim civillians, women, children, babies, a hard fact Israel held off on seriously addressing for nearly two years now is a no-go for ethical/moral reasons because the civilians on the other side /might/ get hurt (while your own civillians *are* getting hurt), then mate, merecons you can bend over and I can show you exactly where one can stick those ethics and morals.
  If YOUR town, family, loved ones had explosive ordance fall in your back yards and schools, lobbed over a border by your friendly next-door-neighbour country, 2500 times in one year alone, for your sake I hope your country would go and jam its military boot up the royal hiney of whoever did that. Jammed it so hard in there that your neighbour would think twice. I'm an Aussie and I very much hope my country would do same.
  Israel is doing what any sane government paying due diligence to its responsibility towards its people would and SHOULD do.
  The Palestinian people DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED a leadership that will (and has) terrorize their neighbours, then DELIBERATELY put their OWN babies in the line of the return fire. They democratically elected to have their leadership get their own babies slaughtered in the name of a specific ideology.
  With any luck, they'll have a long hard think about it next time they vote.
  Israel is doing us all a favor by setting the right kind of precedent.
  
  --
  -
35. Re:-1, flamebait by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  I see you've not met many Jews. The ones I know are very religious.
  Then you don't know Jews very well. Most of us really don't give a shit about religion, especially that sick everyone-should-be-a-rabbi-or-rabbi's-wife bullshit the blackhats practice.
  
  Gates, Jobs, Torvalds, all Jews? Where do you come up with all this rank bullshit?
  Actually, he's got you there. Name any major innovation in science and technology of the past 100 years, and I can probably find you a Jew somewhere behind it. For such a tiny population we do do a lot of science. For example, read "How Israel Saved Intel".
  Not that the GP is right in anything he says about Muslims. Islam is... well it's pretty much the same as the Jewish religion, but a bit stricter and with proselytizing. The difference in public images largely comes because most Jews haven't practiced Orthodox observance for about 200 years now, whereas most Muslims still practice observant Islam. Oh, and because Islam marks land as "Muslim" if Muslims ever conquer it at any point, while Jews and Judaism make our sole political claim to the land of Israel, which is what this whole goddamned war is about anyway.
  As we always ask, "ad matai?" (translation: "until when [the fighting]?")
36. Re:-1, flamebait by nicolas.kassis · 2009-01-06 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, no media is allowed to go verify any of the assertion Israel is making about the location they are bombing. I only saw that two Hamas fighters were around the school and no where does it say they where equip with mortars. From what I saw small arms fire was detected.
37. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers?
  
  The bank robbers are after money. If the SWAT is willing to kill innocent people in order to protect that money, then yes, there is a problem ...
38. Re:-1, flamebait by theLOUDroom · 2009-01-06 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  What do you suggest the Israeli military do in a situation where they have a danger coming from a structure that may or not house civilians?
  
  Treat those civilians with the same respect for life that they would Israeli civilians.
  
  That's really not a hard question to answer.
  
  Those Palestinian civilians present in the school should have removed themselves
  
  WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO GO THAT IS SAFER THAN A UN REFUGEE CAMP?
  
  These people are trapped in a big cage, with bombs being dropped on then at any place and at any time and without warning. Isreal has provided exactly ZERO places where an unarmed civilian may go and wait this out.
  
  There is no excuse for this type of conduct on ANY side. You have no right to label someone a terrorist when you bomb a fucking school. And the nonsense about the rocket fire is pretty stupid. If Isreal wants people to actually believe what they are saying, then they should allow the press to freely document the situation.
  
  If all these bombings are justified, what do they have to hide?
  If they actually know the names and locations of these people, then arrest them. Arresting people you don't like and putting them on trial is what makes you different from a terroist.
  
  --
  Life is too short to proofread.
39. Re:-1, flamebait by TummyX · 2009-01-06 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Well actually it is possible. Nazism was killed as a mainstream idea in Germany through total warefare to the point where the people just weren't willing to support it anymore. Just as Hamas's extremism can be replaced with a more moderate and willing to negotiate Fatah.
  Believe me, with all the revolutions around the world, screwed ideas can be put to rest if they are suppressed and broken for long enough for the people to realise that their livesand childrens' lives become so much better under another idea.
40. Re:-1, flamebait by TummyX · 2009-01-06 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Such hatred! Gees, no wonder people are dying right and left
  Jews: Isreal has the most gender-neutral society in the entire world.
  Rank bullshit. perhaps the most gender-neutral in the middle east, I don't think anyone would argue with that, but I think you'll find most European nations (and nations who were settled by Europeans) to be far more gender neutral. In the US, the third in the Presidential sucession is a woman, speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
  Not sure if you're ignorant or just joking but for those reading: Israel was the second country in the entire world to have a female prime minister (Golda Meir).
41. Re:-1, flamebait by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  What do you suggest the Israeli military do in a situation where they have a danger coming from a structure that may or not house civilians? Treat those civilians with the same respect for life that they would Israeli civilians. That's really not a hard question to answer. Those Palestinian civilians present in the school should have removed themselves WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO GO THAT IS SAFER THAN A UN REFUGEE CAMP? These people are trapped in a big cage, with bombs being dropped on then at any place and at any time and without warning. Isreal has provided exactly ZERO places where an unarmed civilian may go and wait this out. There is no excuse for this type of conduct on ANY side. You have no right to label someone a terrorist when you bomb a fucking school. And the nonsense about the rocket fire is pretty stupid. If Isreal wants people to actually believe what they are saying, then they should allow the press to freely document the situation. If all these bombings are justified, what do they have to hide? If they actually know the names and locations of these people, then arrest them. Arresting people you don't like and putting them on trial is what makes you different from a terroist.
  a) Why is this UN organization allowing militants to fire mortars from schools it sets up in the first place? Don't they have any sort of UN security to stop this sort of activity going on in their own buildings?
  b) Like I said before - the Israeli military's first objective is and should be to protect their own people. If people are firing mortars (or missiles, or whatever) into Israeli territory, then it is the IDF's job to stop those people. In the the manner which protects, in this order: the most ISRAELI LIVES, the most ISRAELI PROPERTY, and, if at all possible, the lives and property of other nationals.
  Imagine, for a moment, that you live on the Mexico-U.S. Border, near, say, Tijuana. All the sudden, mortars start coming over the border from TJ and exploding around you. Now we have two options:
  1)The military tells you that they're coming from a school, so instead of simply bombing the shit out of it, they decide to launch an assault to arrest those responsible. In the extra time it takes to organize and assault, 50 more American lives are lost, including your wife and mother. But hey! Those responsible are caught and captured, put on trial, sent to jail for life.
  2) The military bombs the everloving crap out the school these mortars are coming from immediately, killing all inside. The number of dead in the school may be more or less than the number of American lives saved. It's irrelevant, really.
  And here's why: The U.S. military, just like the IDF, is not a fucking international peacekeeping organization. They exist to protect Israel's citizens, by whatever means necessary. If that means accidental death of civilians on the other side, then so be it. They have fulfilled their duty.
  Of course, by no means am I suggesting purposeful targeting of civilians. So far, however, every report on Israeli bombings I've seen has shown that they made at least an attempt to target enemy militants.
  c) Which brings me to my final point: You work or live or go to school somewhere where, when men start firing mortars from buildings, those buildings get destroyed. Some men show up in your building and start firing mortars. Do you stay or leave? HMMM. Tough one, I know.
  As for arresting those responsible: sounds great, so long as the IDF can do that without endangering the lives of any Israeli citizens. This incident, as I showed above, does not seem to be a case where that was possible.
42. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, both sides have done wrong, but the tactics they employ are not morally equivalent. It is clear that Hamas intentionally targets civilians (whether by suicide bombers or rockets), whereas Israel targets militants, but ends up killing civilians in the process. Even if you say the Israelis are guilty of gross negligence, this is NOT THE SAME as doing it intentionally.
  Many people accuse the Israelis of a disproportionate response (400+ deaths vs. 2). But that begs the question: what would a proportionate response by Israel be? Should they randomly launch rockets into Gaza every day?
43. Re:-1, flamebait by DaveV1.0 · 2009-01-06 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  How come you don't mention the rockets Hamas has been firing at residential areas and schools for the last 5 years?
  Or is it that you agree with Hamas and feel you must act as an apologist for them?
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
44. Re:-1, flamebait by alexandre_ganso · 2009-01-06 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Why is that troll? This guy has a point.
45. Re:-1, flamebait by vojin · 2009-01-06 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  If the swat team accidentally shoots innocent people, then the swat team is at fault. In fact, courts have backed this up - if you're in a bank, doing legal business, and a cop shoots you while trying to stop a robbery, you're getting your medical bills paid by the city, and if you die your family will win a wrongful death suit.
  While this is true, you ignore the fact that a wrongful death suit only attributes a civil liability and not criminal. In fact, only the robbers could be charged with homicide even if the victims were only shot by police because it would be a foreseeable result of the commission of a felony.
  I don't intend to tread into the minefield (no pun intended) of the moral complexities of collateral damage, but just wanted to point out that the US justice system does recognize a difference in responsibilities.
46. Re:-1, flamebait by agrounds · 2009-01-06 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Nazism was killed as a mainstream idea, but fanatics are rarely mainstream and the ideas they have persevere. Even so, an Idea can never be completely killed.
  Either side in any armed conflict are ultimately fighting for an idea. That idea could be patriotism, religion, perceived justice, revenge, or any other of a myriad of goals. Some seem more noble or understandable to Westerners like myself, but that does not detract from the subjective value they hold to the combatant. Even if you kill off all the adherents of a specific idea, time has a way of bringing them back.
47. Re:-1, flamebait by alexandre_ganso · 2009-01-06 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  This list is weird. AFAIK, there were two woman head of the state in the republic of Ireland.
48. Re:-1, flamebait by NeutronCowboy · 2009-01-06 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  The military has a responsibility, first, to its people, second, to its land, and third, to preventing casualties to other county's civilians.
  No. The military has a responsibility to defend its people. How do you defend your people when your actions create far more terrorists than it kills?
  It might be bullshit to you, but that's only because you didn't have your house and family obliterated because a SWAT team thought there was a drug lord holed up in your house. You can yell bullshit all you want. It's not going to change human nature, nor is it going to change how people react to seeing their friends, children and parents die in their schools, apartments and mosques, just so that a few people with guns are taken out. Have fun prolonging the bloodshed.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
49. Re:-1, flamebait by NeutronCowboy · 2009-01-06 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers? Any harm that comes to someone as a result of your criminal actions is your fault.
  Let me rephrase that for you: If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team launches rockets at the bank, and your family dies inside, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers?
  There is such a thing as excessive force. I can guarantee you you'd be singing a different song if it was your family sitting in Gaza, getting blown up by Israeli shells.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
50. Re:-1, flamebait by grumbel · 2009-01-06 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Two wrongs don't make a right, especially not when the death counts of each side are different by orders of magnitude.
51. Re:-1, flamebait by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  No. For one, the drug "problem" is altogether another question. It's not analogous. Even if it weren't drug-related, it would still be a false analogy - in your scenario, the police made a mistake and chose the wrong house. In the case of the mortar-school, they knew very well that militants were present and immediately dangerous. The IDF acted correctly.
  As for the question of whether or not the military's action creates more terrorists then it kills: you may very well be right. One might argue, however, that whether or not a given officer decides to bomb this present danger (and I will confess that I have no idea how their chain of command works in a situation like that) isn't really up to him: there is a danger, its up to him to get rid of it before anymore Israelis die. I'm all for different tactics, but not at the expense of allowing those who kill Israeli civilians to live.
  Because really, this is Hamas' fault in the first place. If they would keep their attacks focused on military targets, I would have no problem whatsoever with them. At least the IDF attempts to target only militants, whereas Hamas unabashedly tries to kill every Israeli in sight - women, children, no problem.
52. Re:-1, flamebait by russotto · 2009-01-06 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  Thus, the sinking of the Lusitania was justified. The United States and Britain were terrorists
  Yes, and no respectively. The Lusitania was a merchant ship of a belligerent power; that in itself made it fair game. That it was carrying military ordinance was only icing on the cake, and did not make the British into "terrorists".
53. Re:-1, flamebait by NeutronCowboy · 2009-01-06 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  You're right - the analogy is not 100% right. No analogy ever is. Feel free though to repeat the exercise and replace the mistake with an actual drug lord taking refuge in your house.
  As for attempts versus actual targets - does it really matter what people try to do when the end result is so much the same? Yes, Israel tries to do the right thing - and fails miserably. As I had up on the wall at a previous company, "No Results+Explanation is not equal to Results". Finally, I think you touched on the fundamental problem when you said that the given officer acts correctly: it's a political problem being solved with deadly force. The problem lies at the top, not at the bottom. At that point, there are exactly three outcomes: 1 party is wiped out, 1 party changes its mind or the small set advocating war in one party get wiped out, and no one takes their spot. Right now, we're on the path to one party having to be wiped out. Are you really ok with that?
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
54. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 14:47 · Score: 0
  
  The key term there is "legal business". You forget to mention the part where you also get thrown in jail for accessory for supporting and encouraging the bank robbers. I find it very hard to sympathize with people who vote in a group who makes a habit out of using their countrymen as human shields.
  
  If you're going to shoot, it is your responsibility to hit the target and ONLY the target.
  That's so naive it's heartbreaking. Maybe if Hamas and their ilk (again, the chosen representatives of the Palestinians) were even making a pass at playing by the rules and, you know, not using these civilians as literal meatshields. Israel has to bend a rule every now and again considering they face an enemy who scornfully disregards every rule in the book.
55. Re:-1, flamebait by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  Heh. I'd find a way to get out, or at least get out of harm's way should a drug lord actually take refuge in my place of residence. I'd also alert the police in first place if I had the opportunity and if I thought it was warranted - frankly, I don't think most drugs should be illegal. But anyway, off-topic.
  It's all in how you look at it. On the small-scale, the IDF did what it was supposed to do: it protected those Israeli citizens who would have been killed should the mortars have been allowed to continue firing.
  
  I think you touched on the fundamental problem when you said that the given officer acts correctly: it's a political problem being solved with deadly force. The problem lies at the top, not at the bottom. At that point, there are exactly three outcomes: 1 party is wiped out, 1 party changes its mind or the small set advocating war in one party get wiped out, and no one takes their spot. Right now, we're on the path to one party having to be wiped out. Are you really ok with that?
  You phrased that political problem vs. deadly force thing better than I could have, but we are on the same page. I would differ slightly, however, by suggesting that it is a problem on both ends, the top and the bottom - the top being the politicos, and the bottom being the will of the people. Right now and as I understand it, Palestinians as a whole support Hamas overwhelmingly. They support a political and military organization which has stated repeatedly and has in its constitution the ideal of killing all Jews and driving them from the middle east, and which does not even recognize Israel as a country. This obviously makes political negotiation difficult.
  Imagine, for instance, that you live next door to someone who has a dispute with you over the property line. You are willing to negotiate - you offer them (as the Israelis have done in the past) a share of the land which is fair. They, however, decline to recognize that you may have a claim or, even, that you are an entity which can be negotiated with. Instead, they set your house on fire. In this analogy (which isn't perfect :)), the police (UN) are spineless - unwilling or unable to protect or help either of you. You have to fend for yourself. Your neighbor begins threatening greater hostilities. You can see, in fact, that he means to kill you and drive you from your land, but you only want to live alone and in peace. You have already offered a fair deal, which he has refused. How do you respond? The only reasonable thing to do (besides move - again, this is not a perfect analogy) seems to be to fight back, and, if at all possible, to kill your neighbor.
  So no, I'm not ok with one party being wiped out. Until Palestinian public opinion changes and they remove the bloodthirsty monsters they have in charge, however, I don't see an alternative. I would even suggest the Israel offer to build hospitals and infrastructure in Palestinian land, but without any trust that Israeli humanitarian workers wouldn't be attacked, that's a really hard offer to expect them to make.
56. Re:-1, flamebait by theLOUDroom · 2009-01-06 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  so long as the IDF can do that without endangering the lives of any Israeli citizens
  
  This is the crux of your argument and it is why the world is outraged with Israel.
  
  Innocent Palestineans have just as much of a right to life as innocent Israelis.
  Your logic places a value of ZERO on their lives, which is why we have this genocidal madness is going on now.
  
  Doing the right thing means taking the hard road, not killing a bunch of innocents because they happen to be in the same place at the same time and believe in the wrong god. Doing that, is exactly what the people you call terrorists do.
  
  --
  Life is too short to proofread.
57. Re:-1, flamebait by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  No. I place as much value on a Palestinian life as an Israeli one. My values are not what is under question, though. What I'm saying is that the IDF values, and should value, the lives of the citizens that it is their duty to protect over the lives of Palestinian civilians (which they are under no obligation to keep out of harm's way).
  So yes, innocent Palestinians do have as much right to like as innocent Israelis. However, the hostile militants that they put in power do not.
  Your last comment is simply ignorance. Suicide bombs that purposefully target city buses? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E5D7123FF935A35750C0A9659C8B63 How about hotel lobbies - on passover? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/suicide-bomber-kills-19-in-passover-feast-massacre-750377.html More recently, how about a shopping center? http://middleeast.about.com/b/2008/02/04/first-suicide-bombing-in-israel-in-over-a-year.htm Try searching "Hamas target civilians" compared with HAmas target military" on google. The results are pretty self-evident.
  Suggesting that Hamas militants habitually target anything other than innocent civilians is astonishingly naive. But that's not the point. If I had my way, everyone would simply forget past deaths, get over it, and live together. However, that's not going to happen anytime soon. Until it does, until the Palestinian populace says "hey, maybe we shouldn't vote in bloodthirsty psychos to lead us," there will be no peace. The IDF has always attacked military targets in immediate retaliation or, very rarely, pre-emptive strike. But always military targets - buildings or personnel. Therefore, the burden is on Hamas to stop attacking or on the Palestinian people to get them out of power.
58. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 15:17 · Score: 0
  
  > What do you suggest the Israeli military do in a situation where they have a danger coming from a structure that may or not house civilians?
  
  Same justification can be extended for suicide bombers too right?
59. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 15:37 · Score: 0
  
  the cell phone that the bombers use to remote detonate were invented by Israeli's.
  I am an agnostic jew and I completely support the state of Israel. I do not agree with everything they do though. I do have to say though that it has been over 50 years and the Palestinians can move to other Muslim countries. Jews have nowhere to go. The rest of the world said that the Jews can live there when the UN gave it to them. If you dont like Israel then ok, but you cant say that they dont have the rights to the land.
60. Re:-1, flamebait by sumdumass · 2009-01-06 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  Look at this. Then paw over this.
61. Re:-1, flamebait by RightSaidFred99 · 2009-01-06 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  Some of the liberals around here whom are condemning Israel would likely be upset if the SWAT team dared to use deadly force. The robbers should have been captured alive no matter how many innocent people they kill or how many shots they take at law enforcement.....M
  Yeah, it's like those terrorists gave the Israelis a license to murder a bunch of folks. Whoohoo - License!
  Your SWAT comparison is idiotic. A better one would be if a murderer was picking off people from inside a minimum security prison. Shit, I guess that gives us license to bomb the prison and kill everyone in it, right? Take this, bad check writer fuckers!!! BOOM!
  I've historically supported Israel because they have to deal every day with the same fucking savages we dealt with on 9/11 and on other isolated days. I've been there a few times as well and the Israelis are great people. But why are we paying those fuckheads in their government billions of dollars a year when their per-capita income puts them ahead of most of the world? Why are we financing their idiotic terrorist breeding ground where they just continue to breed the next decade's terrorists by killing civilians as part of their ridiculous "hard line" approach?
  Israel is basically a welfare state. They can afford a 42" plasma TV and monthly cable, but we still give them free money. Fuck that.
62. Re:-1, flamebait by RightSaidFred99 · 2009-01-06 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  They're the ones that are 100% at fault for this.
  Untrue, but also unimportant. Israel is just doing a fine job of breeding remorseless terrorists. It doesn't really matter who's wrong or right, both sides are going to pay a massive price. Israel thinks it can win a war like this but they can't. At some point it's smarter to accept some losses, make reasonable responses, and work for long term peace. Israel instead is just creating a petri dish for the people who will come and murder their civilians in the future.
63. Re:-1, flamebait by theLOUDroom · 2009-01-06 18:44 · Score: 1
  No. I place as much value on a Palestinian life as an Israeli one. My values are not what is under question, though.
  
  Yes they are. I'm questioning them. Right here, right now. You are posting in a public forum, arguing in favor of a set of actions and I am questioning your ethics for doing so.
  
  IDF values, and should value, the lives of the citizens that it is their duty to protect over the lives of Palestinian civilians (which they are under no obligation to keep out of harm's way).
  
  This is a direct contradiction to your claim that you value Palestinian life equally. First you claim their lives are of equal value, then you claim that it's ok for someone to treat them as if they weren't.
  
  Your last comment is simply ignorance. Suicide bombs that purposefully target city buses?
  
  How is this morally different than bombing family homes?
  Does Israel kill an entire family when a murder takes place between two Israelis? Or do they only apply "collective responsiblity" to outsiders?
  
  Suggesting that Hamas militants habitually target anything other than innocent civilians
  
  I never suggested otherwise. What I DID suggest is that Israel seems to have no problems doing the same things it claims are "really bad things" when Hamas does them.
  
  Hamas kills 10 civilians in a suicide bombing, and it's a tradgedy.
  Israel kills 10 civilians with high-tech weaponry and it's okay?
  
  2000: Israel/Palestine: Armed Attacks on Civilians Condemned
  2001: Israeli Missiles Kill Two Kids
  2002: Panel to look into civilian deaths in 2002 IAF attack on Shehadeh
  2003: Secrecy over shoot-to-kill fear in Gaza, Two journalists have been gunned down by Israeli troops
  2004: TOTALS FOR 2004: Israelis: 8 Palestinians: 188
  2005: Israeli troops say they were given shoot-to-kill order
  2006: Teenager killed as missile explodes near school bus
  2007: Israeli army says three children killed in Gaza were playing
  2008: Palestinian group says Israelis killed 68 children in Gaza in year
  2009: Israel Hits Second U.N. School, Blasts Way Into Southern Gaza
  That's bullshit. Stating that "It's just the soldier's job" is the same nonsense that it was at the Nuremberg trials. Soldiers are people and they are expected to refuse both immoral and illegal orders.
  
  maybe we shouldn't vote in bloodthirsty psychos
  
  As opposed to the Israeli leadership?
  Belgium bars Sharon war crimes trial
  The man who would testify against Sharon is blown up. Was this another targeted killing?
  
  I make no claims that the Hamas leadership is a bunch of nice guys, but you may want to do some more reseach on Israel. I'm sure you can find at least as many bad things to say about Hamas, but as the saying goes:
  "Two wrongs don't make a right."
  
  The IDF has always attacked military targets
  --
  Life is too short to proofread.
64. Re:-1, flamebait by RightSaidFred99 · 2009-01-06 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with your "theory" is Israel is placing the onus on the backs of children and civilians who may have no choice in the matter. By your "logic", 9/11 was completely justified - we DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED a leadership that has done all kinds of evil all over the world for a long time.
  I have no problem sending in the military. The problem is indiscriminate bombing. The price of occupying someone's land is your soldiers die. If Israel wants to protect itself its soldiers will need to go in and fight close quarters. Better 30 Israeli soldiers die defending their country than 30 children in a school.
  Shit, with your "logic" why shouldn't Israel just nuke the whole area?
65. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 19:19 · Score: 0
  
  There's a big difference: in a bank robbery, the dilemma is whether to shoot people to save someone's property, and the answer is obviously that it's not worth it.
  In this war, it's life of innocent civilians on both sides - the Palestinians being used as human shields and the Israelis plainly being targeted for no reason.
  It is little wonder then that when life is concerned, Israel chooses its own civilians' lives.
66. Re:-1, flamebait by lewko · 2009-01-06 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  I think you'll find most European nations (and nations who were settled by Europeans) to be far more gender neutral
  Islamic immigration is changing all of that.
  Jews: Have the right to a homeland
  So do the Palestinians.
  How about Jordan?
  Failing that, Israel has proposed two states. The Palestinians can't bear the thought of legitimising a Jewish state. Therein lies the problem.
  Jews: Leading contributors to cutting-edge science and technology.
  Gates, Jobs, Torvalds, all Jews? Where do you come up with all this rank bullshit?
  Where did you learn how to debate?
  
  --
  Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
67. Re:-1, flamebait by lewko · 2009-01-06 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Hamas are monsters. So are the people they're fighting.
  Jews?
  Come on, say it. Hamas does, why can't you?
  
  --
  Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
68. Re:-1, flamebait by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  Liberals? You mean like most American Jews?
69. Re:-1, flamebait by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  Your example has been torn to shreds, and what is left is a person trying to justify the killing of dozens of children for the benefit of killing 2 militants. You say they should leave? They are children in a UN building, where are they to supposed to go? If you think the world is condemning Israel you are in need of eye opening. The 1st world has been supporting the Israelis for 40 years.
70. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 21:25 · Score: 0
  
  Who are the monsters?
  Hamas TV childrens show, ahh they have so much potential to help mankind. Yeah right who are you kidding, at least I can thank the Israelis for the cellphone I talk on and other contributions to help out mankind.
  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=245_1231192390
  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb7_1231153405
71. Re:-1, flamebait by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  No. I place as much value on a Palestinian life as an Israeli one. My values are not what is under question, though.
  Yes they are. I'm questioning them. Right here, right now. You are posting in a public forum, arguing in favor of a set of actions and I am questioning your ethics for doing so.
  IDF values, and should value, the lives of the citizens that it is their duty to protect over the lives of Palestinian civilians (which they are under no obligation to keep out of harm's way).
  This is a direct contradiction to your claim that you value Palestinian life equally. First you claim their lives are of equal value, then you claim that it's ok for someone to treat them as if they weren't.
  You misunderstand me and my point. My values are whatever they are. The point is I am not a member of the IDF. I am not sworn to protect a group of people above all others. Let me rephrase: Even if I were a soldier in the IDF, my values would still be irrelevant. My job would be to protect my people first, their people second. To punctuate this point, I will refer to the analogy I made to another poster.
  Imagine you live in Southern California, near the border to Tijuana. All of the sudden, mortar shells start flying overhead and exploding around you and your family. The military base nearby, which is aware that these mortar strikes are coming from a school, has two choices: They can 1) bomb the school immediately, killing 30-50 Mexican civilians but ending immediately the mortar fire and resulting in no American lives lost, or 2) they can send in a strike team, causing 10 Americans (or whatever. pick a number - its irrelevant anyway.) to die but only 2 Mexicans - the two militants. Which do you suppose they choose? Which would you? Suppose that one of those 10 Americans killed was your wife? Your child? Now tell me what the military's job is, what their moral responsibility is.
  
  How is this morally different than bombing family homes? Does Israel kill an entire family when a murder takes place between two Israelis? Or do they only apply "collective responsiblity" to outsiders?
  This is not a matter of anyone applying collective responsibility. This is a matter of there existing a clear and present danger - be it a mortar attack, or missiles launching, etc. - that needs to be stopped. If Palestinians want to allow Hamas militants to set up these mortars and missile launchers in populated areas, then they need to also be willing to accept the consequences, i.e. collateral damage.
  You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to compare this to Nuremberg. (Godwin's Law, perhaps?) These soldiers are protecting people, not dragging innocent civilians off to death camps. Again, the IDF has the moral high ground (what you were trying to erode with the Nuremberg reference) precisely because its targets are valid military ones, unlike Hamas. The fact that there is collateral damage is regrettable, but in the present situation, unavoidable. Let me repeat: Palestinians voted in their monsters. Until they change, they cannot expect anything but violence in return. It may not be right, but its the only possibility.
  These links are...well, they have a variety of problems. For one, don't ever link anyone to The Guardian to prove a point. Its drivel, and vehemently anti-Israeli. The article shows massive bias, as most of their crap does. Interestingly, I notice that in all or most of the other cases, the IDF hit what it was supposed to hit. Sure, there was collateral damage - that's what happens when you let your government place missile and mortar launchers in populated areas. Nonetheless, the IDF protected its citizens.
  The two final links are horrifyingly faulty. So what if Belgium barred a lawsuit that had nothing to do with them from occurring in their country? SO what if Ariel Sharon's lawyers did their best to get him off (guilty or not - I'm not making judgments
72. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 22:37 · Score: 0
  
  BTW, regarding the school bombing, there is concrete evidence that mortars were fired from that school by Hamas militants, and that Israeli responsive fire ignited explosives that were hidden under the school, which caused its collapse.
  This evidence (radar readings of the mortars, and videos of the responsive fire) is not published by mainstream media because of the problems it would cause the UN if it was found out that:
  1. It housed militants in that school, and allowed them to shoot from it
  2. It urged innocent people to escape and hide in there while knowing about the large amount of explosives hidden in the basement.
  (It can be safely assumed that the UN workers, if any, did not do this out of free will but were forced to by the Hamas)
73. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 22:39 · Score: 0
  
  The ONLY reason that isreal hasnt just simply walked into and wiped gaza off the map to build their own stuff is simply the fact that hamas is there.
  If everyone in hamas wore a uniform, then its a damned bit easier to destroy them, it would be like the US army invading to conquore an African country.
  I don't agree with hamas hiding amoung civillians, but somthing things are neccisary, otherwhys gaza would have no chance.
  Also remeber that the poeple elected hamas in fair elections, with serious prior knowledge of their tactics.
74. Re:-1, flamebait by rastilin · 2009-01-06 22:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Hamas are monsters. So are the people they're fighting.
  
  So if a cop accidentally shoots you while stopping a robbery, he's a monster?
  
  --
  How do you kill that which has no life?
75. Re:-1, flamebait by rastilin · 2009-01-06 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with your "theory" is Israel is placing the onus on the backs of children and civilians who may have no choice in the matter. By your "logic", 9/11 was completely justified - we DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED a leadership that has done all kinds of evil all over the world for a long time.
  
  The civilians elected them in, they do hold a share of the responsibility. The children don't, that's why war is terrible.
  
  Shit, with your "logic" why shouldn't Israel just nuke the whole area?
  That's actually a brilliant argument, it's a testament to the LOVE that Israel holds for ALL people that they haven't done this.
  
  --
  How do you kill that which has no life?
76. Re:-1, flamebait by rastilin · 2009-01-06 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  Israel is doing us all a favor by setting the right kind of precedent.
  
  One of the things that really irritated me about Japan's foreign policy is that North Korea kidnaps 15 of their civilians and then admits to it. What do the Japanese do? Nothing. Nothing whatsoever, a few angry remarks during negotiations with NK which they've been roundly criticized for.
  
  Free elections and wealth are important aspects of a country, but what's critical is also the length to which a country will go to protect those who are targeted by a foreign power. If they do nothing because "It's only one person", they've missed the point of what a country is.
  
  --
  How do you kill that which has no life?
77. Re:-1, flamebait by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers?
  If the swat team accidentally shoots innocent people, then the swat team is at fault. In fact, courts have backed this up - if you're in a bank, doing legal business, and a cop shoots you while trying to stop a robbery, you're getting your medical bills paid by the city, and if you die your family will win a wrongful death suit.
  If a police car smashes into your auto while chasing someone else, the city pays. You can't shoot me in a bank and say it's the bank robbers' fault. It just doesn't work that way.
  US soldiers have been court martialed for collateral damage, there were some airmen from here in Springfield who were in pretty deep shit because they accidentally bombed some Canadians in Afghanistan. Nobody blamed the Taliban for the Canadian deaths.
  If you're going to shoot, it is your responsibility to hit the target and ONLY the target.
  Yes, Hamas are monsters. So are the people they're fighting.
  Lets take a look at your analogies vs. actuality (i.e. Hamas militants firing rockets from a school):
  SWAT Team shoots a man, who then files suit: INVALID. This man was not in a warzone. He has no idea robbers are about to attack the bank, and no opportunity to remove himself. In this situation, it is reasonable to expect the SWAT team members to hit only their targets, unlike the IDF in actuality.
  US Soldiers court-marshalled for hitting Canadians: INVALID. The American airmen were not firing at a valid military target. They made a mistake. They deserve reprisal.
  In actuality, the IDF targeted militants firing mortars from a school - this provided a clear and present danger to the Israeli civilians the IDF is sworn to protect. They needed to act quickly and decisively, and they determined bombing was the best method. Whether or not that was wise is beyond me, but I can understand how the time saved by bombing rather than mounting an assault could easily have saved dozens of Israeli lives. The fact that there were civilians present in the school is testament not to a mistake on the part of the IDF, but to deliberate war crimes on the part of Hamas. Those militants should not have been around civilians.
78. Re:-1, flamebait by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  Sinking wasn't justified, no. They could have captured it. There was no clear and present danger, as the Lusitania had no deck guns or torpedoes.
79. Re:-1, flamebait by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  True, but how you behave in war often determines how you are treated afterwards; see Nuremberg.
80. Re:-1, flamebait by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 00:01 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, I LOVE this stuff. The Geneva convention, aka the rule book we, the nations born out of peace of Westphalia and the nationalism of the 19th century, wrote so we could wreak havoc on everyone else without really having to make too much of an effort. A uniform is pretty much an effective way of signing your death sentence. There isn't an ARMY IN THE WORLD that doesn't have various special ops groups that does NOT wear uniforms.
  Listen to me now and listen good: PERFIDY is bullshit. It's one of those "rules" that have been passed down for a couple of centuries (it was in the Hague '07 as well and predates that by quite a bit) from people who liked to sit far removed from the action saying things like "What-ho old chap, sporting achievement but alas I slaughtered your peasants, ha-ha". You are trying to frame this conflict as something that goes on between two nation states whereas in fact it is not. Palestine is not a country, moreover, the Gaza strip is not a country. The people with guns aren't necessarily even Hamas members (just because you want them to be doesn't make them so). Ah. Never mind.
81. Re:-1, flamebait by swarsron · 2009-01-07 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers? Any harm that comes to someone as a result of your criminal actions is your fault.
  well, if the SWAT team goes in there and risks their live to rescue everyone else i wouldn't blame them if someone dies.
  But this is more akin to the SWAT team deciding that they really don't want to risk it, just throwing several grenades in the building and then telling everyone that they really didn't wanted to kill the innocent bystanders, they should have just not surrounded themselves with criminals
  Doesn't put the blame on the SWAT team for the initial incident but on their response to it
82. Re:-1, flamebait by ultranova · 2009-01-07 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers? Any harm that comes to someone as a result of your criminal actions is your fault.
  
  If three men rob a bank, and the SWAT team blows it up with rockets, killing 30 hostages in the process, then yes, I'd blame the SWAT team. In fact I'm pretty sure they'd face a lengthy term in prison, or possibly execution. Any other stupid questions ?
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
83. Re:-1, flamebait by BForrester · 2009-01-07 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Isreal has the most gender-neutral society in the entire world.
  The gender gap is fairly small in Israel, but you're right: it's nowhere near world-leading. Top honours go to Sweden (1), Norway (2), Finland (3) and Iceland (4). (Israel is #42.) The "full" list of 128 reporting countries is here
  http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Gender%20Gap/index.htm/
84. Re:-1, flamebait by alexhmit01 · 2009-01-07 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  The ONLY reason that isreal hasnt just simply walked into and wiped gaza off the map to build their own stuff is simply the fact that hamas is there.
  Really? Hamas dates back to 1982, Israel has held the greater Gaza City area since 1967... in those 15 years, were the Palestinians wiped off the map?
  Settlement in Gaza wasn't really popular, because it's in the middle of nowhere. The "strategic" settlements have always been a small minority of the settlements, people really committed to greater Israel, and mostly a religious zionist population looking for cheap land for large families and the ability to work the land.
  Most of the Israeli population centers in the disputed territories are in a small ring around Jerusalem... because people commute from there to the nation's capital.
  If the Palestinians wanted a state, and came out and set, "We offer peaceful living, we want Gaza, and the land on the West Bank of the Jordan except major population centers around Jerusalem, to replace Jordan's control of Muslim religious sites in Jerusalem, and will agree to small Jewish section of Hebron in return for a small Palestinian controlled section of Jerusalem, and the right of return is the right to return to Palestinian areas," you'd have peace tomorrow. That's not so far off from what is possible, and Israel could agree to it in a heart beat.
  Instead, it's all about "resistance." They don't even know what they are resisting anymore, but they've raised generations of their people on hate and death worship, and they don't even have reasonable goals. Israel has spent 17 years getting the people ready for a two state solution, the Palestinian leadership still claims all of Mandate Palestine west of the Jordan river.
85. Re:-1, flamebait by mcgrew · 2009-01-07 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  You have 30 hostages in the bank and 3 bank robbers. So you toss a grenade in there and say "the bank robbers killed the hostages"?
  That's what Israel did to that school, which by all accounts had NO militants, was a shelter for refugees, was clearly marked by the UN, who is now calling for action against Israel.
  Israeli leaders are fucking morons. They're doing Hamas' recruitment for them.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
86. Re:-1, flamebait by mcgrew · 2009-01-07 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  I say a pox on both their houses. Both sides are murderous monsters who sin against the God they both worship. Jehovah and Allah are one and the same; both Jews and Arabs share the "Old Testament" with Christians.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
87. Re:-1, flamebait by mcgrew · 2009-01-07 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  He doesn't name a single one, cite a source, or do anything except make an unwarranted statement.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
88. Re:-1, flamebait by mcgrew · 2009-01-07 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Women appreciate the male form as well. You've never heard the term "beefcake"? It's sexist to have women calendars but not men calendars because you deprive the women their chance to ogle the male body.
  And, a woman's body isn't art. Art is manmade, a woman's body is as natural as a sunrise or a baby's smile. A painting of a woman can be art, but not the woman herself.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
89. Re:-1, flamebait by DaveV1.0 · 2009-01-07 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'll second that.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
90. Re:-1, flamebait by mcgrew · 2009-01-07 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not Jewish but I do support Jewish people having Israel. However, Israel's causing grief among the Palestineans in Gaza is both immoral and stupid; Israel's government is Hamas' best recruters.
  You say that Palestineans can go to other Arab countries, but that's like saying that if Spain ceased to exist they could go to other European countries. Egypt is not Iran. The Palestineans should have Gaza as their own.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
91. Re:-1, flamebait by mcgrew · 2009-01-07 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  The key term there is "legal business"
  I assume that you don't have an impairment that limits your reading ability, but look at what I said again: "If the swat team accidentally shoots innocent people".
  You are bein disingenuous, and it's shameful of you.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
92. Re:-1, flamebait by techprophet · 2009-01-07 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  I never said that he was right.
93. Re:-1, flamebait by sac13 · 2009-01-07 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  And Bhuddists sish to indoctrinate the world to Bhuddism...
  Being Buddhist, I have to say that's false. There might be some, but that's not the general stance of Buddhism. The Dalai Lama himself has said that he believes that all major religions have the ability to create people with good hearts, which is the whole point. He actually encourages people to find the meaning in their tradition because he believes that it is easier for people to find there way in something that is familiar. All of that was stated at the beginning of his seminar on the Four Noble Truths.
94. Re:-1, flamebait by sac13 · 2009-01-07 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers?
  If the swat team accidentally shoots innocent people, then the swat team is at fault. In fact, courts have backed this up - if you're in a bank, doing legal business, and a cop shoots you while trying to stop a robbery, you're getting your medical bills paid by the city, and if you die your family will win a wrongful death suit.
  If a police car smashes into your auto while chasing someone else, the city pays. You can't shoot me in a bank and say it's the bank robbers' fault. It just doesn't work that way.
  US soldiers have been court martialed for collateral damage, there were some airmen from here in Springfield who were in pretty deep shit because they accidentally bombed some Canadians in Afghanistan. Nobody blamed the Taliban for the Canadian deaths.
  If you're going to shoot, it is your responsibility to hit the target and ONLY the target.
  Yes, Hamas are monsters. So are the people they're fighting.
  Not to jump in on either side of the general discussion here, but what you describe as being "at fault" is only with respect to civil penalties. The police officers involved in those situations would likely not suffer any criminal consequences. And, the civil liabilities would be covered by the governmental organizations to which they belong.
  And, in the car chase scenario, I've heard of people being killed by police cars in accidents in those situations and the chasee being criminal prosecuted for the deaths. I don't know if any of them were ever convicted, but there have definitely been prosecutions.
95. Re:-1, flamebait by riondluz · 2009-01-07 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  shit, just standing in front of a bulldozer in protest can get you killed by an israeli
  
  --
  resist propaganda
96. Re:-1, flamebait by Cederic · 2009-01-07 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  If 2500 rockets fell from the sky and killed 3 people in my country I'd be fucking annoyed if my own government went and killed 300 civilians in response.
  If 30 children have to die to kill two people that may or may not have been using small arms to defend themselves in their own fucking country from invaders, then someone somewhere is doing something pretty fucking wrong. And it isn't the Palestinian people.
  Israel is doing us all a very big favour indeed, they're hastening the day when nukes get brought out to play. I'm looking forward to it.
97. Re:-1, flamebait by MikShapi · 2009-01-07 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Indiscriminate bombing? Whatever gave you the idea that Israel is doing indiscriminate bombing? Had it ever wanted to do anything like that, Gaza would have long been a wasteland.
  Unlike the people who intentionally drag kids into a battlefield so as said kids can get hurt (and the dragger to profit from this), Israel is actually does effort to minimize collateral damage. The US did like back in Baghdad, even if they messed up once in a while and nailed a bunker being used as a civilian shelter.
  Sadly, when fighting people who deliberately turn UN installations, civilian shelters and schools into military targets, when applied to a large-scale operation with many (military) targets, statistics kick in and the humans involved make mistakes. There wasn't ever a war fought where this was not the case. This is tragic, and it is also implicit in the term 'war'. It's why war sucks balls and why we all (minus Hammas, apparently) would rather see conflicts resolved elsewise.
  This does NOT imply you (read: US, Israel, whoever) stop being human, not try to avoid mistakes, not take what measures your resources allow to avoid collateral and help/spare innocent civilians and kids. The people who would have you believe Israel isn't doing this today are the people who wave babies in the paths of bullets.
  If you're not convinced that the Israeli military is made up of people who'd rather not be (and are ordered not to) killing civilians, working on the assumption that people at the head of the Israeli political and military leadership are not total idiots, I'd venture and say they fully realize that killing six kids in a ten-kid family is a proven recipe for four martyrs and 40 civilian casualties in ten years time.
  Nevertheless, when being methodically pressed to a wall by a violence-hungry nutjobs, the solution isn't always to get all warm and fuzzy with them. Sometimes it involves kicking their head in, even at the expense of some human error and some erroneously killed bystanders. That is not, and has never been what most of us refer to as genocide, which your nuking idea seems to imply (keep in mind Israel *can* carpet-bomb gaza, which would be similar to nuking it, minus the radiation - it could have done same in Lebanon two years ago... It preferred jacking thousands of smart/targeted munitions into known strategic targets, and considering these urban areas are the only place where its strategic targets can be found nowadays, I can see how what Israel is doing totally makes sense).
  
  --
  -
98. Re:-1, flamebait by MikShapi · 2009-01-07 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to miss the point.
  2500 rockets fall. MUCH MORE than 3 people die.
  You commit billions to building SHELTERS in EVERY SINGLE HOUSE, SCHOOL, MALL.
  You commit 20% of your entire population's kid's schooldays to not going to school because they're cowering in a bunker.
  You commit your entire population's kids to FEAR.
  *BUT* you manage to reduce the number of killed to just three.
  Kindly remove head from orifice and have a look at the conditions these people and their children live in.
  If my government were to let it deteriorate to such a pathetic level, if the only education that my kids were getting was that of cowering in a bunker from bombs falling out of the sky, I'd be VERY ANGRY at my government for addressing the symptoms rather than the cause. AKA, for not going to where these 2500 annual explosives are launched from and seriously messing up whoever is sitting there lobbing them, whoever sent him and whoever footed the bill.
  This applies to both sides.
  If I were in Israel, I'd feel like my elected government is paying its electorate due diligence, like it's addressing the problem.
  If I were in Gaza, I'd be leading a mob of angry people and lynching hamas activists for what they'd done to my palestinian children.
  
  --
  -
99. Re:-1, flamebait by Cederic · 2009-01-07 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe, just maybe, the Palestinian people are glad that Hamas aren't just lying down and letting the Israelis mistreat them.
  If the only education your kids were getting was cowering in a bunker, they'd be doing rather better than Palestinian children, who are cowering in a bunker, hungry, with no medical supplies, watching their parents getting killed by people that shouldn't be in the fucking country in the first place.
  Or did you think the Palestinians were doing this because they like a good scrap over Christmas?
  I've had people try and kill me and my family. I've had people around me killed. I've lived in war zones. I don't get scared by this shit. I get angry.
  Just because you lack the fucking guts to deal with it don't go killing 300 civilians to make yourself feel better. Cunt.
100. Re:-1, flamebait by lwsimon · 2009-01-08 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Art is created, and not necessarily by man. I revealed my own bias there, nothing more.
  And last I checked, there are indeed calendars of men. If there is a market for it, it will be created - "beefcake" calendars included.
  
  --
  Learn about Photography Basics.
101. Re:-1, flamebait by mcgrew · 2009-01-08 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  I majored in art, your personal bias is meaningless. All art is human-created. When the monkey paints, it is not art. And there are calendars of men, but the dialog was calendars of naked Israeli soldiers. The fact that there are beefcake calendars backs up my argument that having only women soldiers on calendars is sexist.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
102. Re:-1, flamebait by MikShapi · 2009-01-09 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, you're right.
  Israel builds bunkers for its kids.
  Hammas builds kassam rockets and surrounds its kids with combatants who fire this artillery from within the midst of kids into israeli cities.
  That may explain the skewed kill ratio, that may explain where all the Hamas funding goes and why they don't have an economy or bunkers, and it totally explains why the palestinians are neck-deep in shite.
  Hurting Israel seems like a bigger priority to them then helping themselves.
  They're getting *exactly* what they voted for (hence, yes, ***they actually do*** like a good scrap over christmas), and exactly what they want. Good'on'em. May all their wishes come true.
  Mate, you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped, who can only channel his energy into self-pity and violence towards others. You can't tell him who to democratically elect.
  But if he hurts you over and over, you can totally lock him out of your house (the "act of war" if you fall for Hamas propaganda that justifies lobbing thousands of explosives at Israeli civilian targets).
  If they want to learn this the hard way - let'em.
  
  --
  -
103. Re:-1, flamebait by theLOUDroom · 2009-01-11 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Even if I were a soldier in the IDF, my values would still be irrelevant.
  
  Would you allow Nazis at death camps to use the same excuse?
  They took oathes too.
  
  It doesn't matter what oathes you take, what contacts you sign, your values are ALWAYS RELEVANT. YOU ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE. You may face imprisonment, or even death, but you can always refuse to do what someone else tells you to.
  
  You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to compare this to Nuremberg.
  
  Why? It's a direct comparision. That is where international law has found that "following orders" is not an excuse for immoral actions. If one wants to make this point, one HAS to bring up Nuremberg.
  
  It may not be right, but its the only possibility.
  
  No, it's not. Just because you may not LIKE the other options. does not mean they don't exist.
  
  Again, the IDF has the moral high ground (what you were trying to erode with the Nuremberg reference) precisely because its targets are valid military ones,
  
  Indiscriminate killing of civilians to hit any of these supposed "military" targets destroys any moral high ground they had.
  
  SO what if Ariel Sharon's lawyers did their best to get him off (guilty or not - I'm not making judgments either way)?
  
  That's funny, you seem to have no problem making value judgements regarding Palestinean leadership. This is a pretty obvious double standard.
  
  For one, don't ever link anyone to The Guardian to prove a point. Its drivel, and vehemently anti-Israeli. The article shows massive bias, as most of their crap does.
  
  Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them anti-Israeli. If you have proof that the facts of the article are wrong, give it. I suspect you don't.
  
  Imagine you live in Southern California, near the border to Tijuana. All of the sudden, mortar shells start flying overhead and exploding around you and your family. The military base nearby, which is aware that these mortar strikes are coming from a school, has two choices: They can 1) bomb the school immediately, killing 30-50 Mexican civilians but ending immediately the mortar fire and resulting in no American lives lost, or 2) they can send in a strike team, causing 10 Americans (or whatever. pick a number - its irrelevant anyway.) to die but only 2 Mexicans - the two militants. Which do you suppose they choose? Which would you? Suppose that one of those 10 Americans killed was your wife? Your child? Now tell me what the military's job is, what their moral responsibility is.
  
  I know Mexicans. I have Mexican friends. I recognize that they have just as much of a right to exist as Americans, therefore I would hope that we try to minimize the loss of civian life period, regardless of what color skin they might have.
  
  If anyone should be ashamed, it is you for suggesting that ethnic differences should be used to place a lower value on the lives of certain memebers of society.
  
  --
  Life is too short to proofread.
104. Re:-1, flamebait by Antlerbot · 2009-01-11 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Both sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict have done deplorable things. Where they really differ in my mind is in tactics and intent. Israel intends to hit military targets in order to protect its civilians. Unfortunately, they often miss. This is not surprising, since Hamas launches military action from highly populated areas. One might argue that both sides break the laws of war in this: Israel, in causing unnecessary destruction, and Hamas, in using nonuniform militants, hiding amongst their own civilians, and targeting Israeli civilians.
  In order to assign the greater blame, a series of questions must then be asked: which of these violations is worse? Which would be easier avoided? It seems very obvious to me that Hamas's actions, being intentional and without any legitimate target, not to mention geared towards ethnic cleansing (and I'll get to your misreading of my analogy in a minute), are a far more blatant violation then the IDF's.
  Now. Back to my analogy. I live in Southern California. I have many, many Mexican friends. In no way was I "suggesting that ethnic differences should be used to place a lower value on the lives of certain memebers of society." What I was suggesting is that a member of the armed forces of one country should place the protection of civilians from his country above the protection of civilians from another - so much so, that he should be willing to see many more of the other country's civilians die than those of his own.
  Interesting minor point, actually: I've noticed that use of the word "Mexicans" has taken on almost a discriminatory tone in general. I suppose that's why Hispanic is used as a more "politically-correct" alternative. Imagine I had set my little tale on the Canadian border, and its still the same story: American lives are worth more to the American military then Canadian (or other) lives. Period. Likewise, if the situation were reversed, I would suggest that Canada take the same action. This has nothing to do with any perceived racism you may think I am applying to the situation.
  Similarly, I do not blame Ariel Sharon's lawyers for trying to get him off, just as I would not blame the public defender assigned to an obviously guilty child molesting murderer for trying to get him off. In fact, if that public defender refused, I would condemn him. People have their duties: they are often unpleasant, but they signed up to do them. If they are not prepared to do these duties, they should not sign up; the IDF differs from the situation of the public defender in that it is compulsory. Because of this, Israeli civilians have only a few options: either refuse to serve and face the consequences (see Shministim, among others.), try to change the law, or leave. Or a combination of those. Simple as that. Any one of them a noble choice.
  Can we assume for the sake of argument that each (or at least the vast majority) of the members of the IDF has made the choice to serve? Doing anything else derails this conversation into a discussion of individual ethics rather than the wider issues of IDF and Hamas policy.
  The Guardian. The guardian is a very, very liberal paper - in fact, search for "the guardian" on google. It says it right there: "the world's leading liberal voice." They make no bones about being bias. It's part of their shtick. I happen to like my news objective, however.
  Believe it or not, I consider myself a liberal. Very, very liberal in most things, in fact. You might even call me a socialist.I differ from the liberal mainstream in a few crucial areas, though: I think gun control has gone too far (I own no guns, by the way), and I support Israel. The Guardian is the liberal mainstream. The problem, to my mind, lies in when they present themselves as a legitimate and objective news source in one part of their paper and as a biased "liberal voice" in another. I think when trying to present facts, sources gen
105. Re:-1, flamebait by theLOUDroom · 2009-01-11 14:49 · Score: 1
  What you're missing is that the crime is all of Israel's, not just the IDF.
  
  When you ask questions like "What should the IDF do?" You really should be asking, "What should Israel do?"
  
  Once you start asking the right question, a number of things should become obvious, like giving Palestineans basic human rights.
  
  The arguments you apply are always trying to have it both ways, Palestine is supposed to be its own country and police itself. But how's that going to happen when Israel is bombing police stations?
  If Israel is going to systematically dismante the Palestinean gov't, they should be allowing the Palestinieans into their society as equals.
  
  Since they aren't doing this, nor even treating their lives as if they have value a Palestinean is left with two choices:
  
  Sit home and hope that international pressure will stop the slaughter before they're all dead
  
  Take up arms
  
  It's really sad. Israel didn't even have the deceny to let the people who wanted out, get out before the started blowing up schools.
  
  Nazis did all of this on purpose, whereas the civilian deaths the IDF causes are a result of collateral damage from legitimate military targets operating from highly populated areas. This is a crucial difference.
  
  Israel is not accidentally dropping large bombs in the middle of populated areas. The claim that all their targets are "military" is pretty weak. If that was really the case, don't you think they would allow members of the press to be present and document this? What definition of "miliary target" includes schools, police stations, universities, mosques, houses, apartment buildings and medical facilities? Does one person with an small weapon make an entire school a "military target"? Try to consider that such a defintion would make essentially all of Israel a "military target."
  
  Do you have evidence that another possible tactic could yield better results?
  
  Sure. If your goal is simply to mimimize Israeli civilian, Israeli military and Palestinean civilian casualties, in that order, the simplest option is to simply yield the field.
  
  Now if your goal is to keep your borders intact and do the above, a simple option is to create a civilian-free zone in between the two countries. Shoulder-fired rockets have a pretty limited range and even mortars can't make it 10 miles. So if you clear out a 10 mile wide swath of land, your enemy will need large, non-man portable, easy to spot weapons. They also cost more, and are harder to get.
  
  But here's the big problem, if your goal is to gradually kill off the population of and annex the land of Palestine, then you would employ exactly the strategy Isreal is using. I'm not saying that is their adgenda, but their actions are indistinuishable from the case where it is.
  Every N years, you find an excuse to invade and do one of the following:
  
  Kill some people
  
  Destroy some property
  
  Annex some land
  
  After enough years Palestine is gone. If you did it all at once then you might piss off another country enough to send troops, but if you eliminate 10% of the country every year, in 30 years 4.2% is all thats left.
  
  If Israel would start treating all Palestineans with respect and dignity, they would make recruiting much harder for Hamas. You know, basic deceny like not blocking medical supppies to a country you are dropping bombs into.
  --
  Life is too short to proofread.
106. Re:-1, flamebait by Antlerbot · 2009-01-11 21:20 · Score: 1
  What you're missing is that the crime is all of Israel's, not just the IDF.
  When you ask questions like "What should the IDF do?" You really should be asking, "What should Israel do?"
  Once you start asking the right question, a number of things should become obvious, like giving Palestineans basic human rights.
  I have no opposition to going this route with this conversation, but let's be very clear first: this is not the same discussion we were having. The topic was the ethics of Israel's bombing and invasion tactics in the current situation. This is background for all of that. Either way, it provides me with entertainment, and a stimulating partner. Thank you for that, by the way. You've been interesting and thought-provoking and I apologize if I get overly zealous sometimes. Condition of anonymity, you know.
  Back on topic. I have had this talk with more than a few people. The reasonable thing to do at this juncture seems to me to be, first, to attain a ceasefire - something enforceable, perhaps with U.N. peacekeepers stationed on both sides. At the very least, something needs to be done to ensure weapons are not being carted into Gaza. Hamas then needs to acknowledge Israel's existence (and here we hit our first impossibility). Only then can Israel do what I believe would have incredible significance: help the average Palestinian. Build schools, build hospitals, send aid. Get some positive feelings going 'round Gaza (and elsewhere).
  This will take a long, long time. Hamas will not be pleased. They are not interested in peace. They will break the ceasefire. They will kill Israeli civilians. They will kill Palestinians civilians and blame the IDF. It will be a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Israel must power through (and here we reach the second impossibility - what countries' populace has enough foresight to see something through which is so obviously harmful in the short-term? The essential weakness of democracy is its attention-deficit disorder with regard to long-term goals of any sort, not to mention ones with obvious immediate downsides.) Once Hamas' influence has been weakened enough, they can be removed or neutralized. This is essential - unless they undergo some drastic and essential change, Hamas is a fundamental problem in the region.
  Now, a reformed Israel and Palestine can work together to form some sort of equal union or, at least, permanent ceasefire. I wish they could agree on a single-state solution and somehow find a way to mingle the two populations, but I find it hard to believe that ethnic tension would (or will) ever leave the area, especially with the malign influence of countries like Iran. A two-state solution, then, is probably best.
  
  The arguments you apply are always trying to have it both ways, Palestine is supposed to be its own country and police itself. But how's that going to happen when Israel is bombing police stations?
  If Israel is going to systematically dismantle the Palestinean gov't, they should be allowing the Palestinieans into their society as equals.
  I'm all for allowing Palestinians in as equals, but their government needs to be dismantled. Hamas is a cancer. I don't care if it was voted in, it stands for and actively encourages the murder of a group of people wholesale. In some ways, Hamas is as bad as the Nazis. Luckily, they are not nearly as powerful.
  
  Since they aren't doing this, nor even treating their lives as if they have value a Palestinean is left with two choices:
  
  Sit home and hope that international pressure will stop the slaughter before they're all dead
  Take up arms
  I am tempted, first of all, to link you to a biography of Gandhi. Grabbing your guns isn't always the only solution. ;)
  In lieu of the non-violent approach, however, I am all for the Palestinians taking up arms - against military targets. There are rules of war for a reason: they keep c
Mod parent up for the TOS Reference by Shakrai · 2009-01-06 08:15 · Score: 1

Nice reference if that's what you were intending to do!

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I saw that movie, too! by khasim · 2009-01-06 08:16 · Score: 1

It was something like "Live Free or Die Hard". And it was hosted by that "I'm a Mac" guy. So you know it is factual.
This is so completely NOT like bunches of kids with spray paint messing up building walls.
Quality of sites in Israel. by muxecoid · 2009-01-06 08:17 · Score: 1

I live in Israel I know how websites are created here. Once I inherited code for eShop that was destined to be given to the customer soon. Server part had glaring SQL injection vulnerabilities, the HTML/CSS part did not look the same or even correct in not a single browser. But the worst part was the boss who thinks it is OK to ship this to the customer without fixing and charge money for it. I hope our webmasters will learn from what happens now.
1. Re:Quality of sites in Israel. by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  How do you spell "pwned" in Hebrew?
Re:future of volunteering your computer into a bot by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:21 · Score: 0

your future is already here - http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
it's almost exactly what you describe
So far 7,786... idiots? by Gorgonzolanoid · 2009-01-06 08:22 · Score: 1

Net-criminals have been known to try and make money out of natural disasters etc. before. War can be seen as a disaster too.
What guarantee did the 7786 in this case get that the botnet they've wilfully joined will be used for what they're being told, and not for more common purposes such as sending spam, hosting dirty pictures of big and/or little children, and selling fake medicine with the same advertized effect of making a certain male body part grow?
Palestinian botnet? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:23 · Score: 0

What if I want to support the Palestinians? Where's the botnet for us?
1. Re:Palestinian botnet? by slugtastic · 2009-01-06 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Just visit one of their sites.
  
  ...but many of the images contain malware links and 'redirects or Flash links to Jihadist forums or blogs.
I'm disgusted. by gd23ka · 2009-01-06 08:25 · Score: -1, Troll

I'm disgusted. Thousands of innocent civilians are getting maimed and murdered as I'm typing this and you have the audacity to ask
people to join a zionazi bot-net. I'm no Palestinian or Arab myself, but get this: FUCK ISRAEL.
1. Re:I'm disgusted. by anagama · 2009-01-06 08:33 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Fuck random missile shooters.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
2. Re:I'm disgusted. by slugtastic · 2009-01-06 08:35 · Score: 2
  
  It's not like the terrorists themselves dont care about civilians and hide in the most populated areas while launching their rockets at Israel... Oh wait.
3. Re:I'm disgusted. by TheRaven64 · 2009-01-06 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that's what the grandparent said.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
4. Re:I'm disgusted. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck them all, let's make the middle east a parking lot.
5. Re:I'm disgusted. by PalmKiller · 2009-01-06 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  And its not like the civilians help hide the terrorists and thus support their cause...oh wait
6. Re:I'm disgusted. by gd23ka · 2009-01-12 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Wow you have been watching your FOX and your CNN all right
  and you're doing an awesome job repeating. I'll buy you guys
  flu shots.
Idiots by Britz · 2009-01-06 08:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is no winning this war. As much as I support Israel and their right to exist without rockets being fired on them left and right they are the bad guys in this case. They usually are these days if you look at the body count. The Hamas was provoked into breaking the ceasefire. The IDF sent a special forces unit into Gaza to break up a tunnel for smuggeling. They could have done that on the Isrealy side.
But elections are coming up and Baraks popularity (Ehud Barak is a former PM, currently heads the defense department and masterminded the war) has surged. The whole thing could easily backfire as we have seen with the war in Lebanon and the political end of Peres.
The blockade of Gaza for such a long time should be considered an act of war. The whole Gaza strip is practically a prison. And Egypt is not helping either.
Back to the web: The occupation of former Jordanian areas (where the Palestinians now live) is being used by all the nationalistic arab governments of the region to divert public interest away from their corrupt regimes. So there is always a lot of propaganda going on. And that propaganda has moved to the web. There are a lot of very ugly anti Israel webpages out there. With tons of very ugly lies.
1. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  There is no winning this war. As much as I support Israel and their right to exist without rockets being fired on them left and right they are the bad guys in this case. They usually are these days if you look at the body count.
  
  Yes, if you look purely at body count, as opposed to the whole situation. Its like cherry picking your arguments.
  
  The Hamas was provoked into breaking the ceasefire. The IDF sent a special forces unit into Gaza to break up a tunnel for smuggeling. They could have done that on the Isrealy side.
  Wait, let me get this straight. Hamas was provoked because the IDF sent troops in to stop an underground tunnel into Israel from being completed, and your argument is that Israel should have waited for the tunnel to be finished before it did anything.
  There are so many things wrong with your logic, I'm not even sure where to begin.
2. Re:Idiots by anagama · 2009-01-06 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Egypt isn't helping Hamas because they don't like the Muslim Brotherhood either.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
3. Re:Idiots by antibryce · 2009-01-06 08:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  *before* the ceasefire ending Hamas fired almost 3000 rockets into Israel. I'd say they broke the ceasefire well before the IDF "provoked" them.
  I agree they should open up the borders, the problem is the people in gaza voted for a terrorist group to run things. Now they have to live with the fact that Hamas uses any opening in the border to bring in weapons.
  Body count is no way to judge these things, as Hamas deliberately hides their weapons and members amount civilians to inflate it. In an ideal world the should be blamed by all for those civilian deaths as well. Even this girl gets it.
4. Re:Idiots by Samschnooks · 2009-01-06 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Egypt is ruled by a US supported dictator who calls himself a "President". The Muslim brotherhood threatens his office. They're a radical Islamic group that exists, basically, because of us, the US. If we kept our noses out of their business, Egypt would have a democracy.
5. Re:Idiots by ragnathor · 2009-01-06 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Where are you getting this 3000 number from? Please explain your statements instead of just linking to a timeline. Hamas stopped firing rockets in the summer when the ceasefire started, and began again when Israel killed six members of Hamas (ie, Israel broke the ceasefire). This shows some graphs presented by the Israeli government and since taken down: http://veganfishtacos.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/israel_cannot/
6. Re:Idiots by mabu · 2009-01-06 08:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  *before* the ceasefire ending Hamas fired almost 3000 rockets into Israel. I'd say they broke the ceasefire well before the IDF "provoked" them.
  Many others report Israel broke the cease fire - the bottom line is that both sides have continued to fight. It's a red herring to suggest one side acted in an unprovoked manner - that's simply bogus.
  Who shot first is irrelevant.
  What is relevant is that Israel has been condemned by the United Nations more than 50 times for refusing to follow various agreed-upon conventions. Israel has been systematically driving the Palestinians off their own land and taking it over. That's a fact. That's not something you can accuse the arabs of doing. If you bulldoze someone's house. If you make them have to pass through armed checkpoints and hostile guards to get to work. If you break their cities into little pieces by building an illegal wall around their settlements, you shouldn't be surprise if some of these people react. The irony is that Israel is slowly committing genocide on the Palestinians and nobody's doing anything about it. The United States is funding the genocide to the tune of $6,000,000,000.00 a year now in an elaborate kickback scheme involving military defense contractors and the US's most powerful lobbying group: AIPAC. There's no motivation for Israel to make peace with its neighbors when war is profitable for them and for the American corporations that aid money gets funneled back to.
7. Re:Idiots by Britz · 2009-01-06 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Cherry picking by looking at the body count? Since there is no military end to this war (e.g. it can't really be lost or won) and there is no real beginning, because they have been fighting more or less since the foundation of Israel there are not a lot of options to compare stuff. Counting the number of innocent civillians killed is an easy way to check who might be the bigger asshole.
  There is no logic in this war. On either side.
8. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  please look at that timeline posted. hundreds of rockets were fired after the ceasefire was signed, so clearly Hamas didn't stop firing.
9. Re:Idiots by stdarg · 2009-01-06 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  How can you possibly know that? Seems more likely to me that Egypt would end up similar to Afghanistan under the Taliban.
10. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  The UN has long since become a grossly biased boarding house for Jihadist sympathizers and extreme lefties with their heads in the sand (I say this as a disgusted leftie). Their condemnations are irrelevant.
11. Re:Idiots by brkello · 2009-01-06 12:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You have a pretty loose definition of what a genocide is. In any case, the only reason Hamas isn't driving Israel off of its land is that it is too weak. They talk big...always that they are going to kill every Jew and be victorious, "God willing". But they are too weak. They yearn for power but are far too immature to weld it. What power they do have they shoot off randomly in to Israel. How does this help the situation at all. I'm sorry, Israel has done many wrong and awful things, but you can't ignore the fact that Hamas is specifically targeting civilians. They don't even care about their own civilians and use them as tools to hide behind. And if the hiding fails and they get hit and their are civilian casualties, they cry to the world the injustice. Well, put on a uniform and fight then. Don't try to kill any Jew you can and then complain that your civilians got hurt. The whole thing just disgusts me. Both sides are committing wrongs and the sad thing is I don't see any sort of peace in that region in my lifetime.
  
  --
  Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
12. Re:Idiots by DaveV1.0 · 2009-01-06 13:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Who shot first is irrelevant.
  It is only irrelevant because people ignore when Hamas attacks Israel and provokes an attack. Instead, people focus on how Israel is hurting the poor, terrorist loving Palestinians who elected a terrorist group to power and allow them to fire rockets into their bigger, better armed neighbor.
  You people even excuse brainwashing young men and women into blowing themselves up.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
13. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 13:05 · Score: 0
  
  Who shot first is irrelevant.
  Han shot first damnit!
14. Re:Idiots by Paradigm_Complex · 2009-01-06 13:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If the Israeli government seriously wanted to commit genocide it would have gotten it over with by now. It's much harder to selectively take out pseudo-military infrastructure while retaining civilian lives and wellbeing (as best as they can) rather than just collectively wiping everyone out.
  
  --
  "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
15. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  "Israel has been condemned by the United Nations more than 50 times for refusing to follow various agreed-upon conventions" - Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbolla are under continual condemnation by the UN, and they follow NO conventions other than killing/capturing any Israeli they can get to. Hamas just instituted CRUCIFIXION for enemies of Islam in Gaza.
  "Israel has been systematically driving the Palestinians off their own land and taking it over" Destroying a suicide bombers home is not 'diving Palestinians off their land'.
  "That's not something you can accuse the arabs of doing" Arabs drive ALL NON ARABS from 'Arab' lands, which are any lands Arabs want, including Africa, Middle East, Iraq, Turkey, etc. Arabs are from Saudi Arabia. They should stay there.
  "make them have to pass through armed checkpoints and hostile guards to get to work" They work in Israel. Israel has the right, nay, responsibility to stop potential terrorits and suicide bombers and search them.
  Know this - Palestine covers an the area today known as Jordan and Israel. Israel composes roughly 10% of that area. Israel is surrounded by countries that have all tried to destroy Israel repeatedly. The surrounding countries have done nothing to help the Palestinians. A separate state for the Palestinians is only a recent demand. The Palestinians are being ground against Isreal by Syria, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon as a weapon. You shouldn't be surprised if Israel reacts.
  "There is no such thing as a Palestinian." PLO leader - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen
16. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 15:08 · Score: 0
  
  define: Genocide
  
  systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
  
  Words have power, so use them correctly. This is in no way systematic or racially motivated. There are many arabs living in Israel. Israel and Palestine have had numerous peace attempts. The current debacle is a matter of a democratically elected terrorist government repeatedly pissing off (read: attacking) an irate, and justifiably protective people (Jews have been attacked for the entirety of their existence). If this were a genocide the situation might look a little more like Darfur.
17. Re:Idiots by mabu · 2009-01-06 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Know this - Palestine covers an the area today known as Jordan and Israel. Israel composes roughly 10% of that area. Israel is surrounded by countries that have all tried to destroy Israel repeatedly.
  AIPAC talking point #11
  Irrelevent.
  If you bulldoze your neighbor's homes and take over their land, as I said before, it's not unusual for these displaced, oppressed people to want to destroy you. That's human nature to fight an evil, oppressive force.
18. Re:Idiots by mabu · 2009-01-06 16:34 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  If the Israeli government seriously wanted to commit genocide it would have gotten it over with by now.
  Oh puh-leeze. It's no conspiracy theory. The bottom line is what they are doing is systemmatically driving the Arabs off their own land and killing those that resist or won't move. That is basically genocide. This is exactly what was done to the American indians but of course, it's not called "genocide" by the invading army and their media. But it's the same thing. The winners of the conflict get to frame it however they want, but dead people are still dead.
19. Re:Idiots by mabu · 2009-01-06 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  t is only irrelevant because people ignore when Hamas attacks Israel and provokes an attack. Instead, people focus on how Israel is hurting the poor, terrorist loving Palestinians who elected a terrorist group to power and allow them to fire rockets into their bigger, better armed neighbor.
  AIPAC talking point #8.
  Irrelevent.
  The whole chicken-or-the-egg argument is meaningless. It doesn't matter who shot first, Israel has progressively escalated the level of violence. And all of this is brought on by their refusal to follow the original treaties they agreed regarding the sovereignty of Palestinian territory.
  Ultimately we should blame the British for starting this mess. They broke their promise with the Arabs and started the conflict, but then Israel invaded the area before an agreement was reached, so basically, Israel was the original aggressor.
  It may be politically-correct to support Israel, but Israel is in the wrong here by International law and objective standards of morality. The only people pro-Israel are those that don't know the history and details of the conflict, or have personal interests they're protecting. People such as myself, who have no interest whatsoever in either side, can look at the issue objectively and realize there is a right side and a wrong side.
20. Re:Idiots by mabu · 2009-01-06 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  "lefties" don't employ strawmen arguments like the UN being a collection of Jihadist sympathizers and use terms like "extreme lefties" and hide behind the cowardice of anonymity. You're not fooling anyone.
21. Re:Idiots by Britz · 2009-01-06 18:02 · Score: 1
  
  Very clever Mr, 3000 rockets were fired into Gaza before the ceasefire ended. Most of them even before the ceasefire started. You either didn't even read or understand your source (just read the first paragraph again) or willingly mislead to make your argument.
  I am sich and tired of this kind of shit. As I mentioned in my post there is a lot of ugly propaganda out there. And your f*ing post is one of them. And the answer to your post calling the war genocide is too. Genocide is something entirely different. But I guess on the web the strongest arguments count. Doesnt matter if they are true or just made up.
  The link to this girl on Youtube: Kids don't have opinions on their own yet. Many believe that people develope their true free will when they become adults. Since you are from a country that puts kids on trial as adults I guess you are not one of them. I think she just says what people tell her. In this case probabely Fatah.
22. Re:Idiots by RightSaidFred99 · 2009-01-06 18:13 · Score: 1
  
  You know, that's what's odd. I think the Israelis are a great people and good allies to the US. The problem is they seem to be going a little...mad. You talk about strength, but I'm curious how strong Israel would be without US aid? Without US military technology? I think Israel is pretty much a 1st world country now, and it's about time they start taking care of themselves.
  By all means, they should be under our nuclear umbrella (though they have their own) if e.g. Iran gets nuclear weapons. But I think enough is enough and we need to cut off the ridiculously corrupt kickback to US military corporations via US->Israeli "loans".
23. Re:Idiots by anagama · 2009-01-06 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  If "The Power of Nightmares" is to be believed, and it does seem like an excellent BBC documentary, the neo-cons and conservative muslim movements have similar roots in a reaction against decadence within the homelands. Both have profited from each other. I don't think it's as simple as a "West==Evil" argument.
  You can watch/DL from the internet archive:
  http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
24. Re:Idiots by SomebodyOutThere · 2009-01-06 18:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Wow, the Israelis must be profoundly incompetent genociders. There are about twenty times as many "Palestinians" now as in 1948.
  You don't have to be sensible, but you should at least get your facts straight.
  
  --
  Everyone but you is telepathic.
25. Re:Idiots by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  The militants are committing terrorism, but Israel is party to genocide. Granted Hamas is evil, but from what I can tell most of the suicide bombers at the very least are non-affiliated people who wrongfully kill civilians because they have lost their homes, land and families. Unjustified? Yes. Unexpected? No.
26. Re:Idiots by indiechild · 2009-01-06 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  Well said.
27. Re:Idiots by gedeco · 2009-01-06 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Perspective: During most prison riots, the prisonners start throwing al sort of rubish to their guards.
  In Gaza, you have fences, airport and harbour are closed since years by the Israelis.
  The prisonners in Gaza are capable of firing rockets.
  Traffic accidents have cost more lives in Israel then those rockets. I never saw the IDF bomb GM or Toyota. It would definitly save more Israelis.
  Perspective
28. Re:Idiots by radja · 2009-01-06 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  over here, each and every hamas missile reaches the news. there is very little in the common press on israeli misbehaviour, that usually has to come through all kinds of websites. yes, media coverage is strongly biased... in favour of the israeli occupying forces.
  
  --
  
  No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
  --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
29. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 23:54 · Score: 0
  
  Who shot first is irrelevant.
  Yeah, everyone knows Han did.
30. Re:Idiots by DaveV1.0 · 2009-01-06 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to play that game.... That area of the world is the Jews homeland as was long before there were Arabs or Muslims. The Muslims should leave. It is only fair.
  Or, maybe we should talk about how Hamas targets schools, hospitals, and residential areas and has been doing so for years. Would you like to talk about that?
  Israel is not in the wrong. Palestine is in the wrong and the Palestinian people have brought this on themselves by electing Hamas into the government and allowing Hamas to repeatedly and continuously attach Israel.
  If the Palestinians and the world want this to stop, then they need to stop Hamas. It is as simple as that.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
31. Re:Idiots by DaveV1.0 · 2009-01-07 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  First off, where is "here".
  So, in your mind, it is OK to bomb schools and families because "there is very little in the common press on israeli misbehaviour"? But, if Israel acts to stop those same attacks, having women and children hurt is wrong?
  Is that what you are telling me? Hmmm, maybe they should follow your and Hamas' behavior and bomb Palestinian schools and homes. Then, their "misbehaviour" would be on the news and that would make everything all right.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
32. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 00:39 · Score: 0
  
  You just made me snort milk out my nose!
33. Re:Idiots by astrohopper · 2009-01-07 00:52 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  The claim of GENOCIDE is just silly ; wikipedia (the source of all wisdom and truth, I know) states an annual 2.225% growth rate for the population. This has to be the slowest, counterproductive, genocide the world has ever seen.
34. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry but you are the idiot. The said tunnel was heading into Israel. The tunnels used for smuggling (tons of weapons of course). Are towards Egypt. The tunnels towards Israel are only used for one thing. Terrorist attacks. Should Israel sit idle by and wait for the attack ? can't it defend it self against an obvious attack ?
35. Re:Idiots by shaiay · 2009-01-07 06:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The irony is that Israel is slowly committing genocide on the Palestinians and nobody's doing anything about it.
  Well it's not a very successful genocide -- the number of Palestinians keeps getting larger
36. Re:Idiots by Quikah · 2009-01-07 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  The irony is that Israel is slowly committing genocide on the Palestinians and nobody's doing anything about it. The United States is funding the genocide to the tune of $6,000,000,000.00 a year now in an elaborate kickback scheme involving military defense contractors and the US's most powerful lobbying group: AIPAC.
  Oh please, genocide? Really?! They are doing a pretty poor job of it. Rawanda and Darfur are genocide, not this pidly shit, Israel are just being dicks.
  
  --
  Q.
37. Re:Idiots by nidarus · 2009-01-07 22:45 · Score: 1
  
  but from what I can tell most of the suicide bombers at the very least are non-affiliated people who wrongfully kill civilians because they have lost their homes, land and families
  Wrong.
  First of all, I don't know where you got that "non-affiliated" part from. They're always armed, trained, and sent by organizations such as the HAMAS.
  Second, while "losing their families and homes and land" is a nice, romantic theory, it has no basis in reality. There's no evidence that the people who chose to become suicide bombers do so because they were personally wronged by Israelis. Those who failed in their mission, and were captured by the Israelis certainly claim that it isn't true. Mostly, they want to be heroes, and they hate Israel for political reasons (which goes against another myth - that they're Islamic fanatics. Usually, they're not even particularly religious).
DDOS'ed ?? by ianare · 2009-01-06 08:27 · Score: 1

Considering the site wasn't linked in the summary or the article, it would make the slashdot effect null, no ? So it looks like the criminal botnets have gone from DNS redirect to DDOS ...
Help Israel Win
1. Re:DDOS'ed ?? by Gorgonzolanoid · 2009-01-06 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  No DNS entry for that domain here, and neither for help-israel-win.com
  Both domains pop up at google though, as #1 and #2 for "help israel win", so they must have existed.
  Google's cached version of the page reports 7040 registered botnet members.
2. Re:DDOS'ed ?? by ianare · 2009-01-06 08:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  $ traceroute help-israel-win.org
  help-israel-win.org: Name or service not known
  but ..
  
  $ whois help-israel-win.org
  Domain ID:D154969835-LROR
  Domain Name:HELP-ISRAEL-WIN.ORG
  Created On:25-Dec-2008 15:18:36 UTC
  Last Updated On:06-Jan-2009 18:14:34 UTC
  Expiration Date:25-Dec-2009 15:18:36 UTC
  Sponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR)
  .. SNIP ..
  Name Server:DNS211.A.REGISTER.COM
  Name Server:DNS124.B.REGISTER.COM
  Name Server:DNS044.C.REGISTER.COM
  Name Server:DNS010.D.REGISTER.COM
  
  and :
  
  $ traceroute DNS211.A.REGISTER.COM
  traceroute to DNS211.A.REGISTER.COM (216.21.231.211), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
  .. SNIP ..
  11 border1.pc1-bbnet1.nyj001.pnap.net (216.52.95.9) 120.914 ms 122.024 ms 124.956 ms
  Maybe someone more knowledgeable in this sort of thing can clear this up ?
Waging Web War?!?!?!11one by snarfies · 2009-01-06 08:30 · Score: 1

Oh noes, will this be the beginning of WWIV?
I predicted this last year!!! by flipmack · 2009-01-06 08:31 · Score: 1, Funny

I blogged about this last year when China wanted to be the first country in electromagnetic dominance. From my blog:
China: HEY USA, ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
USA: What you say?
Taiwan: Somebody set us up the bomb
USA: Why China yelling?
China: CAPS LOCK KEY NOT WORKING. BEIJING NOT YELLING
USA: China yelling at Washington DC. Scramble jets. drop bomb.

--
semper ubi sub ubi
Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 08:32 · Score: -1, Troll

I hate Jews and so does everyone else.

If you ever brink your hook nosed kike ass around here I'll shove a Katusha so far up your kosher ass that it will lift up your yamakah.
1. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by techprophet · 2009-01-06 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  Racist.
2. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by erroneus · 2009-01-06 09:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I wished this sort of crap would stop.
  I'll be the first to say that I dislike the entire notion of the US supporting Israel. Israel never needed to be created and certainly doesn't need the U.S.'s help to exist -- if it should exist, it would exist under its own power. But with all that said, it doesn't mean "I hate Jews."
  I know a lot of Jewish people and every single one of them have one thing in common -- they are not all the same!! Some think supporting Israel is important, some do not. Some will have a ham sandwich for lunch with you and some will not. Your own cultural and/or ethnic identity, whatever is may be, is not of "one mind" so why does anyone else expect this to be true of Jews? The same goes for anyone who thinks the people of the U.S. are just like Bush?
  I say down with Judaism. I also say down with Christianity, Islam and every religion -- especially those that believe in invisible beings that created us and tell us how to live our lives. The evidence for Zeus is every bit as valid as the evidence for "God." Why do people have to believe in stupid stuff like that anyway?
  There will always be reasons and excuses for one person to want to kill another. We don't need religion for that. But when religion becomes involved as a motivating factor, suddenly the problem becomes a LOT bigger, bloodier and more dangerous. So down with all of it I say... or... let them all kill themselves and leave us out of it.
3. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by alexandre_ganso · 2009-01-06 09:23 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  The same goes for anyone who thinks the people of the U.S. are just like Bush?
  Yes you are.
4. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Attila+Dimedici · 2009-01-06 09:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  We don't need religion for that. But when religion becomes involved as a motivating factor, suddenly the problem becomes a LOT bigger, bloodier and more dangerous. So down with all of it I say... or... let them all kill themselves and leave us out of it.
  Right because Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot didn't really kill all that many people compared to say the Spanish Inquisition.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
5. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by erroneus · 2009-01-06 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  It is just another face of the same sort of problem -- leaders recruiting believers and turning them into armies to do their will. There are lots of ways to exploit the emotions of people in order to get them to do the will of others. Religion is the worst of them and it is essentially as much of an outright lie as the tooth fairy.
6. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-06 10:16 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Even though islam comes close with 1,2 billion dead, not a single religion has ever killed anywhere near the amount of death dealt out by the leaders of atheism. By the leaders of socialism. By "the will of the people". By "social justice".
  Some billion people total were killed by atheists in the last 100 years. Several hundred million merely for their faith (confucianists in China for example) by these atheists. From Berlin to Hong Kong to East Timor millions have been killed by people looking to "eradicate" religion.
  And islam comes close to atheist ideologies in deaths caused by religious persecution. But it took muslims a millenium to kill almost the amount of people the "socialist" atheists killed in less than 100 years.
  Some ideologies are genuinly peaceful. And some are not. Amongst the peaceful ideologies you will find multiple religions and some atheists and amongst the massacres you will find religionists and the large mass of atheists.
  So unfortunately this whole "it's god" is bullshit. Yes some gods like allah demand rivers of blood, but so does the "will of the people, free from god" as illustrated undeniably by recent history.
  The problem is, quite simply, that some people feel themselves better than the rest. Feel themselves superior to others. And frankly, even though I consider myself atheist, there are plenty of atheists that I don't consider good company. Atheists are certainly not tolerant of christians in America and neither are the atheists of china tolerant of the remaining religious peoples there. Standing in the camp of atheists feels almost as dirty as defending hamas.
7. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:18 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I wished this sort of crap would stop.
  wow, pot, kettle, black. Your very post is the kind if unintelligible drivel that's blatantly hypocritical that I wish people would shut up and read a book or something because they need some education.
  First you point out someone for being an intolerant fool (intolerant of Judaism, which was more likely a Troll to incite some response) while you turn around and claim "down with religion" and an equally intolerant fool who probably believes in their own Agnostic/Atheist faith, but refuses to accept others of different faith.
  If you want to ask a question, why don't you ask why people can't fucking let people live the way they want to live without the persecution of others for their life style, assuming they're not harming others in the process. You know these kind of people, because you sir, are one of them. Someone who refuses to accept the idea that someone might have some sort of spiritual belief, a belief you do not accept, but instead of understanding and tolerance these people, you'd rather try to control and eliminate them so they think... just... like... you.
  Well, I can tell you. You're questions will never get answered until you can open your own eyes and start accepting people for who they are instead of denouncing them, should they have a different belief than you.
  Arrogant fool.
8. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by erroneus · 2009-01-06 10:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Atheism is not an idealism. It is the absense of religious ideology and more specifically, the absense of belief in things like gods and fairies.
9. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by my_left_nut · 2009-01-06 10:32 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Interestingly enough, I (a "lapsed" Catholic) had a friendly discussion with one of my Jewish friends back in early September, and he mentioned that you don't need to actually believe in God to be a Jew. He said he didn't, but still considered himself Jewish. Surprised the crap out of me. I always thought that Judaism was a "religion", but apparently it is more of a shared culture than anything else. He was saying that many of his friends, and even his friends' parents do all of the rituals, keep kosher, etc. but are either agnostics or atheists. There's apparently provision in the Torah for people who are "doubters" (I forget the exact terminology he used). This is different from Catholicism, being Muslim, or Protestantism, where the "believing" part is a prerequisite.
10. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by erroneus · 2009-01-06 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Please. Learn of what you speak. It is possible to not believe in something for lack of evidence. Atheism is the refusal to believe in things of this sort of unprovable nature. You probably don't believe in the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster and for a very good reason I am sure. If that reason is because the very idea is far-fetched and without sufficient supporting evidence, then it is time you turn that same filter on your own religion so you can see it the way atheists see it. It is all well and good for you to reject nonsensical beliefs of others, but if at the same time, you cling to your own similar beliefs, then you are the black pot.
  Atheists, on the other hand, see religions as equally stupid. There is no "faith" or worship or rules or dogma. Atheism is the absense of those things. It must hurt your mind to consider what nothing is like.
11. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by lokiomega · 2009-01-06 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up...even as an atheist myself, this puts on a whole new perspective.
12. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by camperdave · 2009-01-06 10:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Atheism is not an absense of belief in things like gods and faries. It is a belief in the absense of things like gods and faries.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
13. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  What a crock of crap, seriously. Religion is a mask for this offensive, as it has been for offensives of the past. Theism bring a depth of culture to a people, as does atheism - history notes this MANY times over, go google a few!
  The issue here is that people are people, good and bad. That's it. I, myself, am a pacifist atheist, and I consider myself to be 'good' in the Christian sense (as that's my own cultural upbringing). Do us the favour of NOT castigating atheists as harbingers of evil. The evil acts of the few (who happen to be in power) belittle those who follow them blindly and frequently in an innocent capacity.
  You sir, are not a true atheist, but clearly an angry one, if you're one at all.
14. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by JesseMcDonald · 2009-01-06 11:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you're going to lump all the non-religious movements together, then you should do the same with the groups acting in support of some religious cause. Looking at it from that perspective, atheism per se has led to far less violence than religion.
  Otherwise, if you want to classify the groups based on their actual motivation, then you should only count those who were killed in the name of atheism, or because of their non-atheistic beliefs. Political and social movements that just happen to have atheistic leaders should be grouped separately based on their goals. Again, the movements supporting specific religious beliefs and personality cults tend to dominate when it comes to violence, compared those populated by freethinkers.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
15. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by aussie_a · 2009-01-06 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Honest question: are jews hated because they're a "race" or because of their religion?
16. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  Like the crusades never happened? Niemals vergessen!
  Evil people do evil things, irregardless of religion.
  From an Atheist to your front door,
  Anonymous Coward.
17. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Veggiesama · 2009-01-06 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Lumping each of these atheists into a single category is a lousy basis of forming a relationship. Atheism has no central dogma. It is like drawing nasty generalizations about dog-lovers, hockey players, or computer programmers: it is a logical fallacy based on limited experience.
  Even if they didn't believe in gods, these "atheistic" murderers still followed a different form of religion that allowed them to carry out their malign schemes: nationalism, fascism, and other forms of state-worship.
  To paraphrase Sam Harris, none of these regimes suffered from the problem of having "too much" skeptical inquiry and rational discussion. Those ideas are the hallmarks of modern, responsible atheism, though detractors (like the parent) have led some modern atheists to differentiate themselves by using the labels "bright" or "free-thinker."
  So yeah, "it's god" still works pretty well for differing values of "god."
18. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by aaronfaby · 2009-01-06 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  I think adentists are responsible for more death and destruction than everything else combined. People who are not dentists have murdered billions of people throughout history.
19. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by aaronfaby · 2009-01-06 11:37 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Wrong. That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.
20. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by story645 · 2009-01-06 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  This is different from Catholicism, being Muslim, or Protestantism, where the "believing" part is a prerequisite.
  That's cause Judaism is also considered an ethnicity, so it's as much about blood as about beliefs. Even the strictest denominations of Judaism will accept a hardcore athiest as a Jew if his mother is Jewish. It's just his level of Judaism that will be questioned. In the same vein even a heretic or someone who converts out is always considered a Jew. Believing is only a prerequisite for being an observant Jew, and even then there are about a zillion definitions of belief.
  
  --
  open source modern art: laser taggi
21. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by tendrousbeastie · 2009-01-06 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Out of interest them, would you draw a distinction between an absence of theistic belief and a belief in non-theistic ontologies.
  How would you define each?
  (For my opinion, I would be happy taking atheism as being the absence of any belief in supernatural ideas, to do otherwise would presuppose that we have a theistic starting point to diverge from)
22. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by theStorminMormon · 2009-01-06 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  First you have to realize that there legitimately are three positions to take with respect to God:
  1. Affirm existence
  2. Deny existence
  3. Fail to affirm/deny existence
  Atheism is often used to refer to both 2 and 3, but properly speaking it should be #2. Furthermore, type #3 atheism never got anyone killed. Type #2 atheism contains the pop culture, Richard Dawkins, goose-stepping, fundamentalist variety that does nobody any good. It also includes some decent folk, but it's where you find the crazies.
  It's also worth pointing out that atheism of the #2 variety is essentially a religion. It has a central doctrine about God and espouses it without proof. That works for me.
  
  --
  The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
23. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by aaronfaby · 2009-01-06 11:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  It has a central doctrine about God and espouses it without proof. That works for me.
  We don't call it a religious belief if you deny the existence of fairies or unicorns, so why is it any different with god?
  The burden of proof is on the believer. An atheist doesn't have to prove there is no God, the believer has to prove that there is. I've met no atheists that have said with 100% certainty that there is no god, simply because it cannot be disproved. Atheists just think there is not enough evidence to support the proposition, and the probability of there being such a being is very low.
  I'm sure there are atheists who are 100% sure that god does not exist. But I've never met one. In fact, I bet if you took a poll among atheists, you would find that very few state that there is no god as a matter of fact.
24. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by fooslacker · 2009-01-06 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  I wished this sort of crap would stop.
  I'll be the first to say that I dislike the entire notion of the US supporting Israel. Israel never needed to be created and certainly doesn't need the U.S.'s help to exist -- if it should exist, it would exist under its own power. But with all that said, it doesn't mean "I hate Jews."
  I know a lot of Jewish people and every single one of them have one thing in common -- they are not all the same!! Some think supporting Israel is important, some do not. Some will have a ham sandwich for lunch with you and some will not. Your own cultural and/or ethnic identity, whatever is may be, is not of "one mind" so why does anyone else expect this to be true of Jews? The same goes for anyone who thinks the people of the U.S. are just like Bush?
  I say down with Judaism. I also say down with Christianity, Islam and every religion -- especially those that believe in invisible beings that created us and tell us how to live our lives. The evidence for Zeus is every bit as valid as the evidence for "God." Why do people have to believe in stupid stuff like that anyway?
  There will always be reasons and excuses for one person to want to kill another. We don't need religion for that. But when religion becomes involved as a motivating factor, suddenly the problem becomes a LOT bigger, bloodier and more dangerous. So down with all of it I say... or... let them all kill themselves and leave us out of it.
  So it's okay because you hate the religious because they're all alike? I'm confused.
25. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by skuzzlebutt · 2009-01-06 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Flying Spaghetti Monster wags his noodle in your general direction.
  
  --
  My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
26. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by caitsith01 · 2009-01-06 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Precisely. GP post is an absolute load of nonsense, and of course fails to cite any sources for his/her diatribe.
  The majority of "atheist"-caused deaths which are presumably being referred to were motivated by a desire to obtain and maintain political and social control, not to 'eradicate religion' because of its ideological conflict with atheism. The fact that the perpetrators were from ideologies which were also atheistic does not mean that any of those deaths are attributable to atheism. For example, the Soviet Union was not in any sense motivated by a desire to champion atheism as an ideology: it was motivated by a desire to maintain state control, and the church in Russia was regarded as a potential threat to state control.
  In contrast, a great many people have been killed by religious groups specifically in the name of religion, i.e. as a deliberate attempt to impose and enforce a particular religious belief for its own sake.
  
  --
  Read Pynchon.
27. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by TerranFury · 2009-01-06 12:12 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Wrong. That's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.
  Damn it; damn it; damn it: We have words; can't we please use them correctly?
  Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That's what the goddamn word means. Agnosticism is the belief that one has no knowledge of God or his/her/its existence. Look at the damn word roots.
  By definition, atheists are not agnostic, because they do claim knowledge: They assert that God does not exist. So the set of atheists and the set of agnostics are disjoint. They are also of course both disjoint from the set of theists.
  OK? That's how it works. Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true; theists believe that the statement "God exists" is true. The end.
  (Don't be offended: Calling atheism a belief in no way belittles it, and as a statement by itself is not equivalent to calling atheism "another religion." Beliefs in nonexistence can be quite justified. In math, we have theorems dedicated to showing nonexistence. And in real life, the belief that, say, purple unicorns do not exist is probably correct! But it's still a belief. That's what the words mean.)
28. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by rantingkitten · 2009-01-06 12:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If "theism" is a belief in a god or gods, then what is "atheism"? When something is asymmetrical, it is without symmetry. If something is amoral, it is without morals -- which is, please note, different than being immoral. The prefix "a-" simply means "without, or lacking". Ergo, in its simplest form, atheism is "without a belief in a god or gods".
  
  It's certainly true that some atheists take a more positive view and assert that a god or gods cannot or do not exist. But at its root, atheism does not require this assertion -- simply not having a belief is sufficient to be classified as atheist.
  
  This gets twisted around a lot in theological arguments; the atheist will sit back and sneer that the theist is the one making the assertion ("A god exists.") and is therefore carrying the burden of proof. The theist will counter that the atheist is also making an assertion ("A god does not exist.") and is thus just as burdened to prove his claim as the theist.
  
  The reason theists like this argument so much is because they realise that they carry some burden of proof, because they acknowledge they are making an assertion about the nature of reality. Yet they also find it difficult to present any objective evidence to back their claim. This puts the atheist at an advantage, until the theist uses the above argument. Suddenly the atheist is faced with an impossible situation -- how do you prove something doesn't exist, especially when the something in question is a god?
  
  No matter what the atheist says, the theist can claim that the god somehow manipulated the observation or outcome. And thus, the theist has now placed himself on superior ground in the debate, for while the theist may be able to dredge up a few interesting things the atheist can't explain, there is nothing the atheist can say which cannot immediately be explained away by the theist as some whim of the deity.
  
  It is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst to consider both of these stances equal in terms of burden of proof. There are people who genuinely believe that Reptilians from other planets walk among us and have infiltrated the highest levels of our governments. Should you encounter such a person, I suggest you don't engage them in dialogue, but if you did, you might ask what their proof is. Would you feel it fair if the Reptile Believer countered that you should have to prove there aren't Reptilians? Do you consider yourself some sort of active disbeliever in Reptilians, or just someone without even a passing interest on the topic?
  
  I'm not trying to say which side is correct here, as both can make compelling arguments, but clouding the issue with incorrect definitions does nothing to advance the debate.
  
  --
  mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
29. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by theStorminMormon · 2009-01-06 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  The burden of proof is on the believer.
  Burden of proof swing both ways. The burden of proof "I believe fairies exist!" is the same as the burden of proof "I believe fairies don't exist!" The default position should be: "I have no belief about faeiries one way or the other."
  That is scientific skepticism.
  Atheists just think there is not enough evidence to support the proposition, and the probability of there being such a being is very low.
  Some atheists have that mentality, but the loud ones are actually quite evangelical in their proactive claims of God's non-existence.
  I'm not attacking atheism or atheists, mind you. I've got no beef with either one in general. I'm just annoyed with the trendy neo-orthodoxy of atheism that treats acceptance of the proposition "It is a fact that God does not exist" as though it were the starting point.
  It's not.
  
  --
  The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
30. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by aaronfaby · 2009-01-06 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  To not believe in something is not, in itself, a belief. A belief is a positive term, not a negative one. You can't say that not being a dentist is a profession, or not collecting stamps is a hobby. Therefore, you cannot say that not accepting a belief is in itself a belief.
31. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by camperdave · 2009-01-06 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  How would you define each?
  
  Not being terribly familiar with the word "Ontology" I wouldn't. :-)
  
  I was merely trying to state that belief(!X) != !belief(X). If I am unsure whether X or !X, then I am !belief(X). However, that does not mean that I am belief(!X). Athiesm is belief(!god). Agnosticism is !belief(god). The words are well defined a-theos: without god. a-gnosis: without knowledge.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
32. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Qrlx · 2009-01-06 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Despite the fact that your post is complete and utter bullshit, shouldn't you adjust those numbers on a per capita basis?
  I suspect if you look at victims of murder throughout human history, the person responsible was usually not an atheist.
  And should we count murders committed by God in the death toll for the believers? That flood killed (n-2)/n of the human population, a far higher proportion than even the most committed atheist has ever come close to achieving.
  Cain murdered 25% of the human population after God rejected his offering... Pol Pot dreamed of blockbuster numbers like that!
33. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by aaronfaby · 2009-01-06 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  Burden of proof swing both ways. The burden of proof "I believe fairies exist!" is the same as the burden of proof "I believe fairies don't exist!" The default position should be: "I have no belief about faeiries one way or the other."
  The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. You can't shift the burden of proof to the negative argument, because the negative cannot be proven. It's impossible to disprove the existence of fairies. It is possible to prove they exist, assuming you can find a live or dead fairy carcass.
  In the case of god, what we have is a claim being made by believers that their god exists. They have to prove their case. Atheist or agnostics don't have to disprove it.
  You are correct that the agnostic position should be the default one. But after you examine the evidence for a claim, you can judge the probability of that proposition being true. If the probability seems low enough, you can safely say that the claim is most likely not true given the current evidence.
34. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by FleaPlus · 2009-01-06 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Atheism is not an idealism. It is the absense of religious ideology and more specifically, the absense of belief in things like gods and fairies.
  It can also refer to the active suppression of religious ideology, as had been done in the countries mentioned by the GP:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
35. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 13:12 · Score: 0
  
  Religions don't demand rivers of blood. And have you not read any history? Confused Christians have plenty of blood on their hands:
  - the Crusades
  - the Inquisition
  - the Holocaust
  - centuries of colonialism and slavery
  That doesn't mean Christianity is awful or Christians are horrible people. The same applies to Judaism, Islam and atheism. Religions should be examined based on their scripture, not the actions of supposed followers.
36. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by TerranFury · 2009-01-06 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Therefore, you cannot say that not accepting a belief is in itself a belief.
  What is a positive term, and what is a negative one? In my mind belief has to do with the perceived truth or falsehood of a statement, and "God exists." and "God does not exist" are both simply statements which may or may not be true.
  Perhaps it does make sense to differentiate between "positive statements" and "negative statements." But this introduces a dualism, and I'm not sure how all statements should be classified under this scheme; that inclines me to dislike the idea: it seems to introduce an unnecessary distinction.
  Also, one final point: In the sentence I quoted, you equate "not accepting a belief [in God]" with atheism. But the set of people who do not believe the statement "God exists" (i.e., the complement of the set of theists) contains both the set of atheists and that of agnostics.
37. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 13:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Disbelief in God is easily supported. The atheist should simply reply with "I have no sensory, analytical, logical, epistemic, or other evidence that God does exist. In addition, all arguments for His (Her/It/Whatever) existence have been proven false time and time again, while arguments against His existence have, many times, proven quite strong. Until you provide an argument for His existence that has merit, the disexistence of God remains the most likely choice to me."
38. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by IonOtter · 2009-01-06 13:45 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Jews are hated because they can have money.
  Pretty much every single religion has prohibitions against making large amounts of money, and very strong inducements towards charity. Christianity espouses poverty, while charity is one of the Pillars of Islam.
  It all started very early in the whole hatred of Jews story? Basically, whenever someone needed money, they would go to a Jewish person with money and take out a loan, usually for a business. When that business started making a profit, the Jew would ask for payment.
  That's usually when the borrower "finds religion", accuses the Jew of something horrible and gets all their newfound friends to run the Jew out of town on a rail. After all, "everyone knows" that the Jews killed Jesus, right?
  So, just as with every other religious pissing contest in the history of the human race, it all comes down to money.
  Jew can have it; Christians can't, Moslems have to give it away and they both hate the Jews because of it.
  Oh yeah...and unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism doesn't have any foolishness about "Turning the other cheek", so when you piss them off, they beat the living !@^# out of you. That tends to piss off Christians and Moslems too.
  
  --
  [End Of Line]
39. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 13:55 · Score: 0
  
  Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson,
40. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Jessified · 2009-01-06 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  You are wrong. Theism is the belief in at least one god. The prefix a- is a lack of the root. Atheism is the lack of a belief in God (one way or the other.) Polytheism is the belief in more than one god, monotheism is the belief in one god. And -ism is a belief or doctrine. Atheism, as a word, is not the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of a belief. Of course, culturally, atheism has been equated with a belief that there is no god, but your mistake is that you think an absence of belief is the same as the belief in the absence of a god. It's simple logic: "If I believe in a God, then I think that the existence of a God is possible," does not infer "If I do not believe in a God, then I think that the existence of a God is impossible." If you are going to split hairs, you might as well do it correctly.
41. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by erroneus · 2009-01-06 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  That is just wrong. In cultures where the notion of a supreme being has never been considered or is otherwise not a notion that enters their culture in the slightest, where then do these people fall? This 1,2,3 category system presupposes a certain exposure to the notion. I simply do not accept the notion or the premise.
  It is only to the "believer" that it would appear to be an issue of being in favor of or against, affirm or deny. Even option 3 insists on a presupposition on the notion.
  In any case, the rejection of an idea is not a religion any more than not liking football is a sport.
42. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by theStorminMormon · 2009-01-06 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.
  With you so far.
  You can't shift the burden of proof to the negative argument, because the negative cannot be proven.
  That's a total non sequitor. Just because you can't prove the non-existence of faeries doesn't mean you get to assume they don't exist until someone does. There's no logic there at all.
  Go back to your first statement and stick to it. The one making the claim has the burden of the proof. Any claim.
  If your claim is "God exists" or "Faeries exist" you have a burden of proof. If your claim is "God doesn't exist" or "Faeries don't exist" you're still making a claim and you still have the burden of proof.
  The fact that it's harder to proof a negative (hard, not impossible) doesn't result in some kind of Celestial Logic Fairy compensating by easing the burden of proof.
  In the case of god, what we have is a claim being made by believers that their god exists. They have to prove their case. Atheist or agnostics don't have to disprove it.
  Agnostics don't. Some atheists do. If you take the weak atheist position ("I don't believe in God") you have nothing to prove because you're not making a claim. If you take the strong atheist position ("I believe God does not exist") than you've made a claim and (see your original point) you get the burden of proof that comes with that claim.
  If the probability seems low enough, you can safely say that the claim is most likely not true given the current evidence.
  I agree with you here too, but you're contradicting your earlier statements. If an event has an extremely low probability that *is* reason to believe it is false from basic probability theory.
  Define event G to be "God exists". If you ascertain that P(G) = .01 (just for kicks and giggles) than it's a matter of simple algebra to find P(~G) = .99 and simple logic to deduce that ~G corresponds to "God doesn't exist".
  So yeah, if you find that the chance of God existing is very low you've got ample reason to assert the positive claim that He doesn't exist, but you're doing so by addressing your burden of proof, not by default.
  
  --
  The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
43. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by ChuckSchwab · 2009-01-06 14:57 · Score: -1
  
  Wow. Just wow. You quite clearly have no clue what the fuck you're talking about, do you?
  People who bash religion (like you're doing) have, without exception, never studied any serious theology or scrutinized the arguments of top theologians.
  If you had, you would actually understand the "burden of proof" argument. You would understand why theology deserves a place in respectable secular universities right alongside physics. You would understand the real tests you can do to see if God is real. You would understand why, for example, Scientology is not a serious religion. Nor, of course, your hypothetical Reptile religion.
  Tell me, how much of this are you actually familiar with? Do you know the difference between ecclesiology, soteriology, and hamartiology? Are you familiar with the doctrinal dispute in the Reformation? The English Reformation? Anabaptism?
  (I know, I know, "you shouldn't have to get a doctor of divinity degree to debate god". Well, apparently, you need a degree in physics -- i.e. approval of people who disagree with you -- in order to debate fundamental theories of physics. Why is theology held to a higher standard?)
44. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 15:22 · Score: 0
  
  Did you hear the story about the jewish kid that asked his father for 5 dollars.,
  Father: " 5 DOLLARS!!! I can't believe you want 4 dollars. What do you want 3 dollars for?
45. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by BountyX · 2009-01-06 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  RantingKitten did not use the word incorrectly. He just used it in the traditional sense, not how it is understood by most people today. A better choice would have been agnosticism; however, this does not make his choice of language incorrect. Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism. The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists. The word atheist eventually became ambigous due to its popular use in the active rejection of god. For this reason, the word agnosticism was used instead to describe atheism as it was understood in the "traditional" sense. For example, if you are agnostic you are also atheist, in the traditional understanding of the word because you do not affirm or deny the existience of god(s). Not affirming it is enough to be understood as atheist (traditionally). However, if you claimed you were atheist (when infact you are agnostic) to Joe Plumber today, he would understand it as the active rejection of god. So agnostic = atheism, but only in an academic way.
  
  --
  Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
46. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by TerranFury · 2009-01-06 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  You are wrong. [...] The prefix a- is a lack of the root.
  It's always possible. But I think I'm right. Anyway, I'd always parsed it, (a-the)-ism as opposed to a-(the-ism). What's the "order of operations" for combining prefixes and suffixes into words? I'd learned the former in this case.
  
  but your mistake is that you think an absence of belief is the same as the belief in the absence of a god.
  I do grasp that; actually I thought that distinction had been half the point of my earlier post (and even more the point of my second post on this subject, in reply to aaronfaby). Our disagreement isn't over logic, just over what the words mean -- the subject of the previous paragraph of mine in this post. Using my original definition, atheism and agnosticism are disjoint (as I argued in my earlier post; that logic is sound, if we accept that definition). But if we instead use your definition, then agnosticism is a form of atheism. (If you claim no knowledge of God or whether it exists, then you do not have the belief that God exists). Maybe that's correct -- that agnosticism is a form of atheism -- but again, I'd learned otherwise.
  Fair 'nuff?
  Y'know what, before I finish, I might as well consult the OED. (I hesitated here, because I don't want to turn this from a discussion into an argument to be "won," and appeal to authority has always irked me. But here goes...) And it seems that the OED's definition is more like the one I'd used:
  
  atheism (n): Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.
  That sounds like a "positive term," to use aaronfaby's words.
47. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by TerranFury · 2009-01-06 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  Mods: Parent is the best post on this subject. Better than mine to which it responds, in fact.
  Even my posts, I now realize, are a little off. I'd been using "atheist" to mean "strong atheist." This is in fact disjoint with agnosticism, but it's not necessarily true that agnosticism implies "weak atheism" as I'd deduced. That last part is logic I'll need to think about.
  Anyway, there's lots of crap out there on the web put there by dogmatic theists and atheists of various sorts, but this page is a reasonably good explanation.
48. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Jessified · 2009-01-06 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough. My understanding of agnosticism is that it is the lack of belief specifically because of a lack of evidence (as opposed to a general lack of belief)
  Wikipedia has some interesting definitions under atheism:
  Practical atheism
  In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.
  Theoretical atheism
  Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods.
  These seem to describe the two different but similar views we share. Ultimately, I think either definition is acceptable culturally, and the more that I think about it, if we were to split hairs your view probably would technically be better. If my view were correct, that atheism means the lack of belief (therefore the a- is modifying the belief and not the presence of god), then polytheism should be more than one belief in god, and not the belief in more than one god. Of course, polytheism is the single belief that there is more than one god, thus, to be consistent, your definition of atheism would be more appropriate. Interesting, thanks for the insight.
49. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  I can't believe this silly rant!!
  Everyone knows unicorns are PINK
50. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by SomebodyOutThere · 2009-01-06 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it depends on how you word it, really. If you compare officially theist regimes to officially atheist regimes, the latter are way ahead in murders over the last couple of centuries.
  
  --
  Everyone but you is telepathic.
51. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 18:08 · Score: 0
  
  Grow up. You need Americans need Israel. You know why? Because, without Israel you would not have an ally there. You need Israel because you need someone for the Arabs to hate aside from you.
52. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by aaronfaby · 2009-01-06 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  A positive term asserts a positive, or a truth. For instance, calling someone a physicist asserts that they study physics for a living. A negative term asserts an absence of. My point is this. If you don't believe in bigfoot, we don't call you an a bigfootist. If you don't believe in UFOs, we don't call you an aUFOlogist. Why does belief in a god get special treatment?
53. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by aaronfaby · 2009-01-06 19:08 · Score: 1
  
  That's a total non sequitor. Just because you can't prove the non-existence of faeries doesn't mean you get to assume they don't exist until someone does. There's no logic there at all.
  You're going about this all wrong. The negative claim (fairies don't exist) cannot exist without the positive claim (fairies do exist) being made first. You can't say that you don't believe in god unless someone first makes the claim that god does exist. The claim and burden of proof both fall on the "god exists" camp.
  Go back to your first statement and stick to it. The one making the claim has the burden of the proof. Any claim.
  The claim is that god exists, not that he doesn't exist. Person A says to Person B, I believe god exists. Here's why. Person B says, your evidence is not sufficient enough to support your claim. Person B is not making a claim. He is rejecting the claim made by Person A based on lack of evidence.
54. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by rantingkitten · 2009-01-06 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  Hey. My personal beliefs aren't something I am trying to push, and I think I was clear to say that both theists and atheists can make compelling arguments for their respective sides. But to define "atheist" in a way that automatically makes the theist superior is an intellectually dishonest tactic -- that was my only point.
  
  I think theology as a field of study is perfectly respectable and it doesn't matter which side of the fence you happen to believe -- there are many theologians who are devout, and many who are just as expert in the field but are atheist. A comprehensive understanding of the material doesn't imply a belief one way or the other, just as there are many who are fascinated by cryptozoology who don't necessarily believe in cryptids but find the lore of importance to our culture. Theology itself is a legitimate field of study regardless of whether or not theism is correct.
  
  Citing my credentials in this area is pointless, because I'm not here to argue for one side or the other. I am quite capable of defending theism or atheism, as I'm capable of defending any side of a debate whether or not I, personally, agree with that side. My only point was that atheism has a clear definition, as has been argued by dozens upon dozens of theologians and philosophers, and defining it dishonestly gets us nowhere. Atheists are not immune to this criticism either, but that wasn't the topic of discussion at this time.
  
  So, would you kindly just chill.
  
  --
  mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
55. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by ravenshrike · 2009-01-06 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  Fine, replace god with intelligent being/energy state/thought form that created the universe/keeps it running/ etc. etc.
56. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 19:41 · Score: 0
  
  SO basically, what you are saying, is you like Jews, but you'd be just as happy if the only country on Earth which gives them safe haven, was left to its enemies?
57. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by rantingkitten · 2009-01-06 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I agree, but allow me to play, ahem, devil's advocate. The theist's reply to this is usually something along the lines of "So you think God doesn't exist?"
  
  The atheist then says "No, I just don't see any reason to think he exists."
  
  "So you're saying he doesn't exist."
  
  "I'm saying I just don't believe he does."
  
  "Which means you think he doesn't."
  
  "Well, come on, there's a difference between 'I'm convinced God doesn't exist' and 'I'm not convinced God does exist', right?"
  
  "Either you believe God exists, or you don't."
  
  "Yeah, but.. well, no.. I mean I'm not convinced. I see no evidence for God."
  
  "Oh ho ho! So you're not really atheist. You're more like agnostic."
  
  "No, agnostic would mean I believe the decision cannot be made. I'm saying it can be made, but there is no evidence for it so I'm defaulting."
  
  "Defaulting to disbelief."
  
  "More like nonbelief."
  
  "So you're saying you think there is no God."
  
  This goes on for a while, in my experience. The atheist tries to explain that he's more or less an innocent bystander willing to be convinced but hasn't yet, while the theist tries to say that the atheist, in his lack of belief, is making an assertion. Neither side gets anywhere.
  
  You and I are, really, on the same page. But it is very easy for the theist to misunderstand, and it's very easy to see the theist's point of view on this topic.
  
  Y'see, there is really no other serious subject of which I'm aware where neither side can "prove" themselves. Before, I made the analogy of Reptilians because it's absurd, and it was meant to demonstrate a point, but we can all have a good laugh because the concept of Reptilians is so far-fetched as to be ridiculous. But the notion of a supernatural entity is deeply rooted in our culture and society, and cannot be dismissed as easily as Reptilians. To a theist, "God exists" is virtually axiomatic and has been for thousands of years; to him, it's so self-evident that he does believe that the onus of proof is on the atheist for saying otherwise.
  
  I'm not saying the theist is correct in this. But when you're dealing with such a deep-seated belief that transcends hundreds of societies and civilisations, all of which have had some notion of supernatural beings, simply saying "I see no evidence and I've yet to be convinced" sounds hollow... to a theist.
  
  --
  mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
58. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by howlingmadhowie · 2009-01-06 19:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  no, you can't argue like that. knowing what the words in ancient greek mean does not allow you to dogmatically impose this meaning on modern english.
59. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by ultranova · 2009-01-06 20:52 · Score: 1
  
  Atheism is not an idealism. It is the absense of religious ideology and more specifically, the absense of belief in things like gods and fairies.
  
  And yet there seems to be quite a few fundamentalist atheists, who are just as annoying as every other type of fundamentalist.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
60. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by master_p · 2009-01-06 21:55 · Score: 1
  
  Why is there a debate? there is no proof of God or any deity whatsoever. In this case, absence of proof is so prolonged that we might as well accept it that there is no God.
  If God existed, there would have been some evidence by now.
61. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-06 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with scientific skepticism has long been discovered, and is trivially simple :
  most things in the world are not explained by the current state of science. Worse, as Godel discovered : even maths does not explain all properties of numbers.
  Worse : it will never explain all properties of numbers.
  Worse : it is not possible to "unite" science. There is no way to derive physics from maths, there is no way to derive chemistry from physics there is no way to derive biology from chemistry and physics and there is no way to derive psychology from biology.
  Oops.
  The huge problem with the current state of science is that it's fundamentally incomplete, and cannot be completed, not in a finite amount of time, nor even in an infinite amount of time. Even though, yes, we're making quite a few advances in a few areas, fundamental science is stuck, and has been stuck for close to 50 years now.
  Therefore anyone who "only believes what is proven" believes ...
  nothing at all.
62. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  OK? That's how it works. Atheists believe that the statement "God does not exist" is true; theists believe that the statement "God exists" is true. The end.
  An atheist believes that No god exists, whereas a theist believes in their god(s) but believe that other religions' gods do not exist. Agnostics believe that maybe some god exists but you can't know so you might as well just bury your head in the sand and not ask the question.
63. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-06 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  You're going about this all wrong. The negative claim (fairies don't exist) cannot exist without the positive claim (fairies do exist) being made first. You can't say that you don't believe in god unless someone first makes the claim that god does exist. The claim and burden of proof both fall on the "god exists" camp.
  Oh so the second claim is right ? Who decides the sequence of claims ?
  It has long been established that, for a baby, belief in a God, the "first claim" that does not need proof, is simply the one (s)he learns from his/her parents.
  You even run into this problem yourself.
  The problem with christianity and science is simple : they grew together. Science, as it exists today, will never disprove the notion of a Christian God that works through miracles.
  It will disprove many other religions, due to the fact that they can easily be shown to make claims that can easily be disproven. You could take allah for example. The quran's inheritance laws are mathematically inconsistent :
  
  [4:11] GOD decrees a will for the benefit of your children; the male gets twice the share of the female. If the inheritors are only women, more than two, they get two-thirds of what is bequeathed. If only one daughter is left, she gets one-half. The parents of the deceased get one-sixth of the inheritance each, if the deceased has left any children. If he left no children, and his parents are the only inheritors, the mother gets one-third. If he has siblings, then the mother gets one-sixth. All this, after fulfilling any will the deceased has left, and after paying off all debts. When it comes to your parents and your children, you do not know which of them is really the best to you and the most beneficial. This is GOD's law. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.
  [4:12] You get half of what your wives leave behind, if they had no children. If they had children, you get one-fourth of what they leave. All this, after fulfilling any will they had left, and after paying off all debts. They get one-fourth of what you leave behind, if you had no children. If you had children, they get one-eighth of what you bequeath. All this, after fulfilling any will you had left, and after paying off all debts. If the deceased man or woman was a loner, and leaves two siblings, male or female, each of them gets one-sixth of the inheritance. If there are more siblings, then they equally share one-third of the inheritance. All this, after fulfilling any will, and after paying off all debts, so that no one is hurt. This is a will decreed by GOD. GOD is Omniscient, Clement.
  This is a dead mistake. How do you divide the inheritance of a man with 3 daughters, a wife and 2 surviving parents ? (most combinations are inconsistent, this is just one example)
  3 daughters : 2/3rd of inheritance
  Mother : 1/6th
  Father : 1/6th
  Wife : 1/4th
  Sum : 5/4th.
  Now this sum is a major oops, isn't it ?
  The fact is the bible is very consistent with science. One example is the differing values of pi that are mentioned in the bible, they are acknowledged to be approximations :
  according to Solomon the value of pi is "about 3". According to the scriptures following the pentateuch, it is "divided closely to how 22 is divided to 7", which is accurate enough to erect complex buildings.
  As such the bible acknowledges for example, both the value of measuring, the possibility of improving upon previous data, and acknowledges that not all that is in the bible are exact figures. They also explicitly leave room, and encourage christians, to improve upon the values and details specified. (but within the rules that human life is sacred, leading to the stemcell debacle, the abortion issues, euthanasia, ...)
  There is an entire theory about agriculture in the bible, that one, too specifies rather explicitly that more research is needed to cultivate "other lands". At another point the desert is mentioned to b
64. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by the_womble · 2009-01-06 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  The evidence for Zeus is every bit as valid as the evidence for "God."
  
  Really? I can find lots of evidence for God, including personal experiences of myself and others. Where is the evidence for Zeus?
  
  But when religion becomes involved as a motivating factor, suddenly the problem becomes a LOT bigger, bloodier and more dangerous. So down with all of it I say... or... let them all kill themselves and leave us out of it.
  Then why are so many of the nastiest examples either unconnected with religion (fascism, ethnic nationalism, etc.) or overtly atheist (stalinism, Khmer Rouge, the nastier Maoist groups etc.)?
  Religion is far more of a motivating factor for good than for evil. Even rational (i.e. not theophobes like Dawkins) atheists will admit as much.
65. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 00:17 · Score: 0
  
  If "theism" is a belief in a god or gods, then what is "atheism"?
  It's still an -ism, a belief that the world is a-theic, or non-deical. The stance without proof for either side is called agnostic, or not-knowing (not-believing would be a better description).
  
  If something is amoral, it is without morals, which is, please note, different than being immoral. The prefix "a-" simply means "without, or lacking"
  The prefixes "a-" and "-n" have the exact same meaning in Indo-European languages. That's why every European language uses a different proposition for the negative: a- on- un- in-, to name a few.
  Linguistically, there is no difference between amoral and (i)nmoral, and the morphing of -nm- to -mm- is called consonant assimilation, I believe.
  
  Ergo, in its simplest form, atheism is "without a belief in a god or gods".
  Not necessarily. By that logic, pantheism would encompass all religions, because it merges pan- (= all) with -theism (= believe in God). Instead, it is an -ism (= belief) about pan-theos (god(s) in everything). So, in the very same vein, atheism is a belief in a-theos (there is no god).
  
  But at its root, atheism does not require this assertion
  See above. This is false. Not asserting anything is called agnostic.
  
  This gets twisted around a lot in theological arguments; the atheist will sit back and sneer that the theist is the one making the assertion ("A god exists.") and is therefore carrying the burden of proof. The theist will counter that the atheist is also making an assertion ("A god does not exist.") and is thus just as burdened to prove his claim as the theist.
  And both are correct.
  
  It is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst to consider both of these stances equal in terms of burden of proof.
  Why? They both assert something that is inherently unprovable.
  
  There are people who genuinely believe that Reptilians from other planets walk among us and have infiltrated the highest levels of our governments. Should you encounter such a person, I suggest you don't engage them in dialogue, but if you did, you might ask what their proof is. Would you feel it fair if the Reptile Believer countered that you should have to prove there aren't Reptilians?
  Yes, if you wish to disprove his argument you must. Until you have proven him wrong, the only thing you can assert is that you do not believe his statement and go your merry way. But be aware that by dismissing his statement, you have not proven him wrong.
66. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by WaZiX · 2009-01-07 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Agnosticism is the belief that one has no knowledge of God or his/her/its existence. Look at the damn word roots.
  Atheism is saying: "Since there is no evidence whatsoever of the presence of a god, there is no reason to hypothesize on there being one."
  Agnosticism is hypothesizing that there might be one.
  What you are talking about is merely the reaction of atheism towards theism, without theism, everyone would be atheist, yet no one would even think about the statement "God does not exist". In other words, this question arises only because some people believe that God does exist.
67. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  No, that's totally wrong.
  I *am* an atheist, and I do believe that no gods or "higher beings" or whatever exists, but I do NOT claim KNOWLEDGE.
  I merely apply Occam's razor and arrive at a conclusion that I consider the best working hypothesis I've got.
  (That being said, you're also oversimplifying the linguistic background. I suppose it's comparable to the word "hacker"; it's got a definition (as in e.g. "Alan Cox is a well-known Linux kernel hacker"), but most people use it in a different way. "Atheism", too, has a certain definition, namely a lack of belief in gods; most people, however, use it in a more restricted sense, meaning a belief in the lack of gods (notice the symmetry, BTW?). Since language is defined by how it's used - linguistic prescriptivism is dead, Netcraft confirms it -, people aren't technically WRONG, neither about "hacker" nor about "atheism", but that doesn't invalidate the original definitions of the words, either, especially if others keep using them that way.)
68. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by brunoacf · 2009-01-07 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  "Why do people have to believe in stupid stuff like that anyway?"
  
  People don't HAVE TO believe. But they HAVE THE RIGHT TO believe.
  
  To believe in a God is not stupid. It is just human.
69. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by TerranFury · 2009-01-07 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Why does belief in a god get special treatment?
  I get your point, and I sympathize with it, but that's not my argument!!
  First, notice this logical distinction:
  The belief that there is no god is not the same as the absence of a belief in god. The former is indeed a belief. And, importantly, using my original definitions, atheism is the former, not the latter. This distinction is the core of the argument of the last paragraph of my post to which you are replying.
  However, I realize now that there are some flaws in the definitions I'd used originally. To begin with, I'd conflated belief with knowledge (Belief without knowledge had just seemed nonsensical to me, and knowledge without belief even more so. But you can make the distinction). And secondly, I'd used atheism to mean strong atheism. This together with my conflation of belief with knowledge meant that this also implied gnostic atheism. Whereas you seem more concerned with weak atheism. See this page for a decent explanation. For more, see my conversation with BountyX; he brings up some very good points.
70. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by TerranFury · 2009-01-07 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Even my posts, I now realize, are a little off. I'd been using "atheist" to mean "strong atheist." This is in fact disjoint with agnosticism
  
  Correction: It's only disjoint if you conflate belief with knowledge. If not, then you can have agnostic strong atheism ("I believe that there is no god but I do not know this.")
71. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by TerranFury · 2009-01-07 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  no, you can't argue like that. knowing what the words in ancient greek mean does not allow you to dogmatically impose this meaning on modern english.
  Fair enough. I shouldn't have argued in that manner. But my definitions are correct in the modern colloquial sense (see the OED). However, they're not the academic definitions; see my corrections.
72. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by theStorminMormon · 2009-01-07 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Therefore anyone who "only believes what is proven" believes ...
  nothing at all.
  I think that's a good point, but you're only rejecting epistemological certainty. As long as you're willing to live without certainty, you don't necessarily have to accept God or anything else without proof. This makes room for atheism as a rational belief system, but also reduces all of science to faith (where "faith" is defined as "believe in something based on good reason, but without certainty")
  
  --
  The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
73. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by theStorminMormon · 2009-01-07 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're going about this all wrong. The negative claim (fairies don't exist) cannot exist without the positive claim (fairies do exist) being made first. You can't say that you don't believe in god unless someone first makes the claim that god does exist. The claim and burden of proof both fall on the "god exists" camp.
  Your claim that you need to argue that something exists before you can argue that it doesn't exist is manufactured hogswash to try and shift the burden of proof onto the theist camp. If you have to try and set up conditions at the start of a debate where your opponent has to do more work than you do that's a pretty good indicator that your argument itself is pretty weak.
  In actual logic there's no reason at all that you have to argue for something to exist before you can argue against it.
  Person A: Here's a definitino for God. [Provides a definition.]
  Person B: So do you believe God exists?
  Person A: Nope. I just think it's an interesting concept.
  Person B: Well, I think God doesn't exist. [Provides reasoning.]
  You see how it was totally unnecessary to say God exists before arguing that He doesn't? All that is necessary is a definition so you have a concept to argue about.
  The claim is that god exists, not that he doesn't exist. Person A says to Person B, I believe god exists. Here's why. Person B says, your evidence is not sufficient enough to support your claim. Person B is not making a claim. He is rejecting the claim made by Person A based on lack of evidence.
  You are either deliberately employing sleight of hand to try and build your case, or you simply haven't grasped the distinction between strong (positive) and weak (negative) atheism. Here are the definitions again:
  Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism. Historically, the terms positive and negative atheism have been used for this distinction, where "positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
  So, if Person B understood logic and was honest, this is how the conversation would play out.
  Person A: I believe in God. [Presents reasoning.]
  Person B: I find your reasoning unconvincing, so I fail to accept your conclusion. I do not believe in God. (WEAK ATHEISM)
  Person A: So you believe God doesn't exist? (STRONG ATHEISM)
  Person B: Not necessarily. If I wanted to make a positive claim that God doesn't exist (STRONG ATHEISM) I'd have to build an argument to do so. I don't feel like doing that. So I'm just going to observe that your reasoning is weak, fail to accept your conclusion, and be content with disbelief regarding God (WEAK ATHEISM) rather than belief that He does not exist (STRONG ATHEISM).
  You might also notice that I'm saying "fail to accept" rather than "reject". This is also basic logic. If an argument is invalid (e.g. the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises) or unsound (e.g. some of the premises are not true) than you can reject the argument. You can not, however, reject the conclusion. You can simply say that the argument didn't prove the conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be true by some other reasoning.
  For example:
  1. The American flag is red, white and blue.
  2. All flags with the color red in them are constitutional republics.
  C. America is a constitutional republic.
  Premise 2 is obviously false so the argument is unsound. But if you were to conclude that because the argument is unsound the conclusion must be false you'd be making your own logical error. So if someone presents an argument from God and you observe that the argument doesn't work you can't automatically assume the conclusion is false (STRONG ATHE
  
  --
  The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
74. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-07 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  It means atheism is only rational under a feelings-based version of "certainty".
  Pure "Mathematical logic" does not allow for atheism, as pointed out before. But then, "mathematical logic" doesn't allow for any conclusions about the real world whatsoever.
  All the other positive sciences, those that at least attempt to be correct falls under "description of what you can repeatably cause", and that's the source of the "truth" statements from physics and/or any other positive science. Even most of astrophysics can be observed in controlled experiments here on earth (e.g. an event horizon can be generate for extremely short periods of time and studied)
  And yes, you can be quite sure that you cannot cause God to react to you in a repeatable manner (though any serious scientist would have to admit there are many historical and contemporary claims of God performing miracles). But that's the heaviest claim the positive sciences let one make. They can certainly not support a "God does not exist" nor a "God exists" claim.
  Of course, treating science like this would put religion and climate science on the same truth level. We have certainly not adequately verified we can repeatably change the climate, so the only sources for climate science data is the past. And with religion ... the situation is ... exactly the same.
  (I'd love that climate scientists would use the information theory to improve their treatment of data, force algorithms to be developed against partial datasets, and then test them by having them complete the data sets. Nobody seems to be doing that, even though computer intelligence clearly shows that using all available data leads to nonsensical conclusions)
75. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  Stop whitewashing the Reptilian problem!
76. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by blueskies · 2009-01-07 03:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Except it is much more complicated than you portray. Look both words up in wikipedia.
  You are portraying "strong atheism" and "weak agnosticism". Sorry, but the words have come a long way from their greek and french roots.
77. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by theStorminMormon · 2009-01-07 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  That is just wrong. In cultures where the notion of a supreme being has never been considered or is otherwise not a notion that enters their culture in the slightest, where then do these people fall?
  Obviously if you've got no notion of theism you fall outside the spectrum of beliefs about God entirely. I coudl see why you'd want to call such folks "atheist", but unfortunately the term is already in use. You'd have to call them "nontheists" or something to avoid confusion. That would add a fourth option. There's no problem with that. The three options I provided are the three positions you can take on theism. For, against, neutral. Being unaware of theism obviously means you can't take a position on it, so it'd be off the chart.
  Where's the problem here?
  In any case, the rejection of an idea is not a religion any more than not liking football is a sport.
  You can prove anything by analogy. Let's get back to some actual definitions.
  Theism: Positive belief that there is a God.
  Weak Atheism: Rejection of theism - makes no positive statement about God.
  Strong Atheism: Not only a rejection of theism, but in addition makes the positive statement that God does not exist.
  Now let's define religion: A system of belief that makes claims about the supernatural which can not be substantiated by science.
  So according to that definition weak atheism is not a religion, but strong atheism is.
  
  --
  The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
78. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by riondluz · 2009-01-07 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  First, as others may have cited: Jews seem to be the only ones actually standing up for Palestinian rights.
  Only Jewish scholars, includiing Israeli Jews, are the ones who have done an incredible job exposing Zionazi atrocities against Palestinians. Edward Said, Chomsky, Zinn, Avi Shlaim, Illan Pape', Shlomo Sand, Uri Avnery, Neve Gordon, Amira Hass, the late Israel Shahak, Finklestein, and many other Jewish scholars and journalists are ones that have done the bulk of the work on behalf of Palestinians.
  Also, I hold many American Jews in high regard for their standing up for the disenfranchised here in the USA;
  their work in civil right, unions and labor, etc... go far beyond what many other ethnic groups have dones.
  But Jews are NOT really represented by the Israeli government.
  Though talking-points posters have some insightful and salient points with regard to the history of the Jews and the making of their nation, I think he misses the mark when he tries to delineate the problem by rooting it to their "relationship to the non-jewish world".
  The history (and mythology) of their persecution as a culture (racially they are semitic, as are arabs) is little different than other cultures throughout time.
  To imply that any other separatist group would resort to the same mentality as the Jews in building their homeland is specious. It is when your history or mythology is propagandized by your government to justify actions that take from others because you are told you are "chosen" that you begin to court evil by giving power to a few zealots who feel entitled.
  I have never been to Israel, but I know that there are many there who disagree with their leadership. Like other nations, the Israeli government does not seem to reflect the will of the people. That is because the government is a sock-puppet for the USA; even knowing that the USA cares naught for Israel apart from its strategic value in the mid-east.
  The talking-points posters speak of their (jewish) feelings prior to and after 1948, but fails to note the land grab that ensued and the bad will it created. Fact is, nobody in the West gave a shit about arabs; they were nazi sympathizers and had no power of their own. Building up a beholden proxy was the order of the day.
  I will refrain from delving into the history of the Israeli State and their past actions, but given a bottomless pocket (our tax dollars) and a vision of a nation-state whose future growth demands the taking of land and resources from their neighbors; the reasons they use to justify it are completely moot, but are designed to play into fear and pride.
  I am not an historian and can stand corrected, but I feel two decades of this propaganda and the gift of western arms is what led to their neighbors sentiments (and justifiable fears) and the 6 day war.
  And its been a clusterfuck ever since. What is telling is how the Israelites, as a persecuted people, are quite capable of persecuting others. How they can rationalize their situation into a myopia that prevents them from seeing the incredible imbalance of percieved threats. A nuclear power, with the best equipped army (our $ has bought them) in the region vs stone throwers. A death toll of 4 being comparable to 400. An 18 month siege that has resulted in the creation of a ghetto (Gaza) equal to, or worse than, any from which they might have fled. (Remember Shabra and Shatilla? - spelling notwithstanding)
  It can only lead one to conclude that every Israeli government, since it's inception, has never wanted peace on any terms but their own; the proof of this has been their continued disregard for the treaties they have signed onto in pursuit of their vision for a Greater Israel.
  "If you cannot change their minds, you can change their behavior". Well, of course. But being the main antagonizer, the thief of lands, the leveler of towns, the hoarder of water, the builder of walls, etc... is a sure-fire way to change behavior only for the worse.
  Since this is apparent for even the most simple-minded to see (including myself) then one can only conclude that, like the destruction of Iraq, it is by design and intention; propaganda notwithstanding.
  
  --
  resist propaganda
79. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by BoothbyTCD · 2009-01-07 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  I shouldn't post in this thread, but... You make it sound like charity isn't a mitzvah in Judaism. Now, all mitzvot are supposedly equal, but I would say that charity is more important than remembering to wash your hands and say a blessing before you eat. Liturgy would bear this out. There is a pray that is said between Rosh Hashana, the beginning of the liturgical year, and Yom Kippur, the day of judgement ten days later, that talks about how God uses this time to decide what will happen to people during the new year, and that onlly Penitance, Prayer and Charity can change the judgement. I will also note that 'tzedakah' (charity) and 'tzadik' (righteous) are similar for a reason in Hebrew. I wonder how anyone can think Jews don't give charitably after going to just about any hospital or place of learning in the country and looking at the names of the buildings. I will further note that in order for charity to be truly righteous for Jews, it is supposed to be given in secret, so that you aren't just doing it for the praise of others. Finally, I've never understood what any of this has to do with Israelis (who may or may not be particularly observant) in general or the Zionists (who were socialists and avowed atheists) in particular. It's not like all Jews around the world are Israeli, or even support the Israeli government in it's race to the moral bottom with whatever nutroll comes along to pick a fight. Though this lack of support is lamentably hard to see sometimes, what with all the Likud cock-sucking our (Christian!) Congresspeople do here in the US at the drop of a hat. I once had to explain to my 6th grade class that no, not all jews hate arabs, and not even all israelis hate arabs, despite the shorthand the US media uses to describe all Middle East conflict as a 'religious war'. I guess 'there isn't enough water to go around and everyone's grandpa shot at everyone else's grandpa and it's really in the Arab governments' best interests to never solve this conflict because it distracts from their horrible treatment of their own citizens and the way they keep the palestinian refugees in their own territories in camps 60 years later and oh yeah it was also a useful proxy battlefield int he Cold War and now it's gone on so long everyone is likely to remain pissed' is to difficult to explain to the US public. Of course I also had to explain, to my Humanities class in high school no less, that no, Jews did not worship Jesus. No not even a little bit. Yay US public school education in the south.
  
  --
  snig
80. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  The inquisition killed 2000 persons. It was more a thought control system through the use of fear than the slaughter people think it was. Inquisition worked much the way the KGB did.
  Now witch hunts killed between 40000 and 60000 people but they were in 90% of the case performed by secular (civil) courts. Inquisition tried very few witches and most of the time didn't kill the witches it tried.
81. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  That isn't a comprehensive summary either. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of a deity is inherently impossible to know or prove.
  That's why some people consider themselves "agnostic theists"
  An atheist OTOH can use the scientific method and reductionism to support his lack of belief.
  From a mathematical perspective both are irrelevant, as you have to at least start with Axioms.
82. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  Spot-on!
83. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by IonOtter · 2009-01-07 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the fact that the Jewish faith does NOT consider money or the possession of money to be inherently evil rankles everyone else. Every other faith on the planet encourages you to get rid of as much as possible, as fast as possible.
  Preferably to the church of the faith in question.
  And because the Jewish faith has not only managed to keep money, but also successfully integrate it into their secular and religious existence without any overt conflict, it drives other faiths quite barmy. Often homicidally so.
  
  --
  [End Of Line]
84. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Apple+Acolyte · 2009-01-07 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  You tarnish an otherwise reasonable post by saying down with Judaism and every other religion, since you betray your ignorance of religion. You don't have any appreciation for religion. You don't know why Jews believe what they believe, or why any other religious group holds to its beliefs, yet you condemn them all in a blanket fashion. Such blatant provincial ignorance from a haughty atheist. As a religious Jew, I have strong religious differences with religious Christians, but I also have respect for many Christian beliefs and the right Christians have to their beliefs. I also have huge problems with Arabs and Muslims due to the immense amount of Jew-hatred produced by the Arab/Muslim world (that often turns violent), and additionally I have strong religious differences with Islam, but even then I also have respect for many Islamic beliefs as well as the right of Muslims to practice their religion - as long as they do not unjustly threaten others in the process. I feel sorry for you due to your excessive narrow-mindedness and inability to appreciate beliefs divergent from your own.
  
  --
  Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
85. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by erroneus · 2009-01-07 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Belief in a god creates a kind of mental and emotional vulnerability in the minds of all believers. To enable someone to believe in something that is unprovable, irrational and without proper evidence also enables people to believe in other things that are unprovable, irrational and without proper evidence. It generally impairs rational thought even if belief in a god is the "only exception" to good sound critical and logical thought.
86. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-09 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Except part of your statement is flat-out wrong :
  
  while arguments against His existence have, many times, proven quite strong
  This is false. Any rigorous argument against the existence of God would run stuck. Additionally you could reject all contemporary claims and only accept that a lot of books, and of course a very old, very well preserved book, describes God, lots of old structures were made for God. And of course there is ample evidence that God-assisted events like the Exodus did indeed happen.
  If you further continue your rejection, one could say "but old, well-preserved books are the only reason we have to postulate that the Roman Empire ever existed". I fail to see what answer an honest man would have to this argument.
  So in positive science you're stuck. In historical argument you're stuck. In mathematical logic, you're especially stuck. Exactly what sort of reasoning are you going to use to justify your "God does not exist" claim ? "Lately (and we mean in the last 100 or-so years) there's been a lot of philosophical and political figures claiming this is true" ?
87. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-09 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Theology is held to a higher standard because Christian theology shames people in order to make them comply with a higher standard of behavior than atheism.
  People want to sin, as the bible states, and they don't want to receive blame when the inevitable happens and the consequences become clear.
  They want a world without consequences. And they blame "God" (and I really mean the one, Jesus Christ) for not providing them with such a world.
  They don't want to go to church on sunday and reflect on their actions, so as to improve them before they become disasters. They don't want to confess to a priest, and they certainly don't want anybody's advice about how to fix things they've broken. They want someone else to fix those for them - a job the state has gladly taken, of course in return the state expects exactly what the devil expects for the same job : their soul. Their fundamental ability to distinguish between good and evil. By fixing all immoral deeds, the state makes people amoral. In practice amoral people cannot seriously be distinguished in their actions from immoral people.
  Fixing other people's problems without them asking for help first, forcing other people to behave morally by overwhelming force ("taxing/stealing 'for the poor'") is a fundamentally flawed course of action that's being pushed on every last human being for 150 years now. It does not bring good, it brings evil. This very same force is responsible for communism, including the atrocities committed in it's name.
88. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-09 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  There is this little detail called "history" which provides ample evidence of the existence of God. Or, to put it another way, it provides the same evidence as exists for, just to take a random example, the fact that some french folk stormed some ugly building in paris 120 years ago.
89. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-09 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  You're incorrect. Agnosticism has no central dogma. Atheism does.
  There is more to a "positive" statement than simply the lack of the word "no", you know. Non-existence of something is obviously a positive statement, one that requires proof.
90. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by flibuste · 2009-01-10 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Amen to that...
91. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-10 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  Who cares if God exists? Even if He does it's obvious he's a slacking layabout. Best to move on as if He wasn't there.
  As for killing people in His name, everybody should know by now religion has no more useful purpose than as a political tool.
92. Re:Jews Are Evil, Land & Water Theives by Antlerbot · 2009-01-10 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Any rigorous argument against the existence of God would run stuck.
  Really now. I suggest you take a modern philosophy of religion class. Natural and moral evil, the multiplicity of gods of different religions, Occam's Razor, and a variety of others point towards the nonexistence of God.
  Note that I personally am a semi-ambivalent Jew. The Kierkegaard argument, that belief in God is justified because it allows a leap of faith and, therefore, a strengthening of spirit, holds quite a lot of water to me - nonetheless, it still doesn't provide any proof of the existence of God, merely that such a belief is a useful thing to have.
  
  Additionally you could reject all contemporary claims and only accept that a lot of books, and of course a very old, very well preserved book, describes God, lots of old structures were made for God. And of course there is ample evidence that God-assisted events like the Exodus did indeed happen.
  If you further continue your rejection, one could say "but old, well-preserved books are the only reason we have to postulate that the Roman Empire ever existed". I fail to see what answer an honest man would have to this argument.
  So in positive science you're stuck. In historical argument you're stuck. In mathematical logic, you're especially stuck. Exactly what sort of reasoning are you going to use to justify your "God does not exist" claim ? "Lately (and we mean in the last 100 or-so years) there's been a lot of philosophical and political figures claiming this is true" ?
  Even if these structures and books provided enough evidence for the existence of God at some point (and there are a number of problems with such a claim, not the least of which that there are few if any corroborating accounts of many of the same events, and that these "old books" from different religions either differ or flat-out contradict each other in several respects) They still do not provide evidence for His continued existence.
  Consider, my friend, the words of Nietzsche's madman:
  
  God is dead.
This just in by philspear · 2009-01-06 08:38 · Score: 5, Funny

A fatwa has been issued, calling for the immediate murder of "Anonymous coward."
1. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:09 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I'm Anonymous Coward, you case-insensitive clod
2. Re:This just in by RiotingPacifist · 2009-01-06 10:26 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I rUn Windows you insensitive clod
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
3. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  They'll never take me alive! HEIL ISRAEL!!
4. Re:This just in by Tubal-Cain · 2009-01-06 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous Coward is the screen name of Khaled Mashaal.
5. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 00:02 · Score: 0
  
  The Mossad already knows us.
6. Re:This just in by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  They must have heard I was producing a musical version of Satanic Verses.
Buddhism indoctrinating people?!? by Samschnooks · 2009-01-06 08:39 · Score: 1

And Bhuddists sish to indoctrinate the world to Bhuddism ...
Of all the religions in the World, Buddhism and Taoism, for that matter, are the only ones I know of that do not have policy of converting people. They're the type of religion you stumble across in a personal spiritual quest and they're more than happy to tell you about it and if you want to partake, it's cool with them and if you don't that's cool too - no pressure either way. And the other thing is that Buddhism is the only religion that does not have a problem with practicing it along with another. Sometimes, I think calling Buddhism a religion is an insult.
I'd be a Buddhist myself but unfortunately, I have no discipline and I like guns.
1. Re:Buddhism indoctrinating people?!? by my+$anity++0 · 2009-01-06 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  AFAIK, Judaism doesn't anymore. Jews actually actively try and dissuade people from converting. This was most likely due to people threatening them with death if they proselytized. There is, however, usually some/a lot of pressure if a non-Jew is interested in marrying a Jew for the non-Jew to convert.
2. Re:Buddhism indoctrinating people?!? by mcgrew · 2009-01-06 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  I lived in Thailand while in the USAF for a year, it is a devoutly Bhuddist country. True, they won't try and convert you to their relogion, but they will try to convert you to their ideals. The Bhuddists worship life and will be angry with you if you swat a fly.
  So yeah, they really wouldn't like your guns. It was odd, though, that there was violence there (the Vietnam war was going on a couple hundred miles away). I saw a man's head blown off, and had guns pointed at my face at point blank range on two different occasions (granted, one of those two gunmen was a drug dealer and the other was drinking whiskey and defending his honor)
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
3. Re:Buddhism indoctrinating people?!? by Dogtanian · 2009-01-06 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Of all the religions in the World, Buddhism and Taoism, for that matter, are the only ones I know of that do not have policy of converting people.
  I was under the impression that Judaism did not seek to convert.
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
4. Re:Buddhism indoctrinating people?!? by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  We don't seek to convert. The GP was probably just not familiar with Judaism; there aren't as many of us as there once were...
Makes perfect sense by mrboyd · 2009-01-06 08:41 · Score: 1

A lot of people a ready to contribute to a cause they care for.

There was a link on reddit the other day that led to giyus.org which distribute a "community organizing" tool called "Megaphone" which apparently is used to point the community towards pro or anti jewish/israeli articles so that this community can react. I assume by spamming blog or creating a sort of slashdot effect.

This blogger (http://futurenewstoday.blogspot.com/2009/01/israeligirl-violates-digg-tos.html) says that they are using it to artificially increase rankings or submission pro-israeli on sites like digg and reddit.

I don't think it can be considered a botnet in the sense that the software doesn't seem to act on its own. Although I don't know for sure because I didn't want to take the risk to install it. If they really have the nearly 40K users they pretend they surely have the capacity to some damages :)

All consideration of whether you agree more with Israeli or Palestinian aside, it is not my point.

I just think it's a very astute concept. Apparently the pro-Israeli camps took a page from the russian mob and got a headstart but I would bet that the first one to start an open-source "botnet" project that people can use to rally their own community whether they are mujaheddin or PETA fan will become quite famous. If only I had more time on my hand...

Distribute your open botnet with some basic plugins such as diggburry.py and wordpress-comment.py and it will be a lot of fun. ;)
Re:future of volunteering your computer into a bot by zappepcs · 2009-01-06 08:41 · Score: 1

Not such a good thing if you are British. When bobby snoops your pc and finds out you are supporting the Hammas botnet, they will finger your collar and ask you to help them with some inquiries down at the station.
Careful that no one puts the Hammas botnet software on your pc for you!
This sort of thing could get ridiculously out of hand very quickly.

--
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Re:future of volunteering your computer into a bot by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 08:43 · Score: 1

Take this to its extreme - I imagine election night-like coverage following the "votes" people make with their cycles. Or even better, a game show:
"...and the votes are in for this years' Guam-south African conflict. It looks like...YES, GUAM TAKES IT! CONGRATULATIONS, GUAM! Tell him what he could win, Johnny!"
"Well, Bob, behind one of these doors is a U.N. cease-fire resolution! Behind another, 15.67% of South Africa's land and lasting resentment! Behind the third, a lifetime supply of CHOCOLATE! Choose wisely, Guam!"
SETI by jasonmanley · 2009-01-06 08:44 · Score: 1

Hey that is a good point - I have never thought of that myself. How can you tell what your bot community is doing? Is there a way to tell? What about SETI? Is that a botnet? How do we know what it is doing with all out free CPU cycles - maybe it is a government conspiracy to ... wait wait only kidding.

--
http://projectleader.wordpress.com
1. Re:SETI by Gorgonzolanoid · 2009-01-06 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  maybe it is a government conspiracy to ... wait wait only kidding.
  Not hearing any sirens yet? Exactly what I thought - the NSA don't use sirens :)
Re:Why is this News? .... 3 by davidsyes · 2009-01-06 08:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

3. e-vandalism maybe morph into e-vangelism...

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Watch Democracy Now! available via bittorrent by Nicolas+MONNET · 2009-01-06 08:48 · Score: 1

Awesome show, 1 hour daily, you can catch it in the US on many PBS affiliates I believe, and they've been delivering it through BitTorrent for years now, before anybody was doing that.
They interview people that you never see on the corporate media. Today there was this man, Fares Akram, Gaza correspondent for the Independent newspaper, whose father was just killed by the Israeli attacks. And no, he wasn't a terrorist or any other kind of boogeyman, he was a judge working for the PA.
This is the complete opposite of the propaganda you get otherwise.
1. Re:Watch Democracy Now! available via bittorrent by DaveV1.0 · 2009-01-06 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Did Akram blame Hamas for starting this? Or, does he think that Israel should sit by and let Hamas fire rockets targeted at schools and residential areas for another five years?
  How about you? Do you think Israel should allow Hamas to attack them repeated and not defend themselves?
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Jewish botnet by mabu · 2009-01-06 08:49 · Score: 1

If you're stupid enough to give control of your computer to anyone, let alone the Israelis, you deserve whatever comes your way.
The fact of the matter is the United States should not be funding this middle eastern civil war. And the Israelis have been oppressing the Palestinians for decades and occupying their land. So there are lots of people on both sides who are being harassed and killed, but only one side has a lot of power and modern weapons, as well as sympathy and support from the mainstream media.
As an American, I think our country should not be giving $3-$6 Billion dollars of taxpayer money per year to Israel to fund their wars. Regardless of which side is right, we shouldn't be funding the conflict. America doesn't owe Israel anything. We fought to save them. It's about time they started trying to get along with their neighbors.
1. Re:Jewish botnet by techprophet · 2009-01-06 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  We also shouldn't give $50B/year to people who don't work
2. Re:Jewish botnet by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, especially when our budget looks like shit. Our kids cant go to decent schools, our roads are to hell, and our markets are screwed.
Voluntary botnet? by PPH · 2009-01-06 08:52 · Score: 1

so your PC can become part of a worldwide pro-Israeli botnet.
And if this botnet is used in violation of the law (interfering with or damaging other systems), won't the act of donating your system voluntarily make you a co-conspirator?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Voluntary botnet? by SecondaryOak · 2009-01-06 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Actually as far as I understand DDOSing is illegal in Israel, regardless of the DDOS target.
2. Re:Voluntary botnet? by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  The irony is that if an American were to run a pro-Israel botnet, they would never be prosecuted, if they ran a pro-Palestine botnet they would be called a jihadist.
Free Money by lightversusdark · 2009-01-06 08:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

1) Start monetized blogs.
2) Copypasta some anti-Israel content.
3) Refer your blogs to giyus.org for listing on Megaphone.
4) Enjoy 15,000+ page impressions per day.

--
"There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
"Help Israel Win" site down, and probably phony. by Animats · 2009-01-06 08:56 · Score: 2, Informative

The Help Israel Win site is down. But Google's cache of the site is available, so that seems to be the site mentioned.
From the cached page, this sounds like just another attempt to install malware. "How can you help? You download and install the file from our site. The file is harmless to your computer and could be immediately removed. There is no need for identification of any kind - anonymity guaranteed!" There's no indication of who's behind this, and the only contact point is a GMail address.
The domain is registered anonymously through some Register.com front organization in Portugal. It's currently not resolving at all. DNS is on a Register.com server.
Probably had nothing to do with Israel at all.
Israel is in trouble. by Fantastic+Lad · 2009-01-06 08:57 · Score: 1

Ah! Back home again.
And look at everything which has happened while I was away! Miss a few news cycles and Gaza winds up in flames. I wonder if the timing of this even was deliberate. No. Actually, I don't wonder that at all.
The whole situation in Israel and Gaza looks to me like the result of a long and slow mind-programming effort, largely through the use of religion, to annihilate everybody of Semitic blood lines. Jew and Muslim alike.
One possible scenario I see unfolding. . .
The propaganda war being waged by Israel while it bombs Gaza is seen for what it is; (nobody seems to be buying it except those who already owned it), and the world stands well back while Israel is attacked with far more than just home made rockets. The Zionist-owned puppet leaders in the West respond by going to war against the Muslim world, (more so than already), and the destruction of humanity is jump-started.
Destruction of 94% of the world's population. That appears to be the goal, starting with the Semites.
Isn't it weird how the Zionist movement in it's early days used coercion and underhanded tactics to move Jewish communities to one convenient location? All eggs in one basket. Isn't it also weird how some of the more powerful Zionists weren't even Jewish?
I've been telling my Jewish friends for years to stay the heck away from the 'promised land'. I can't see how this can possibly end well.
To get a snippet of some of the thinking circulating in the darker corners, read Dave McGowan's essay with attention to one Dr. Colin Campbell and his advice on the matter of Peak Oil. (Take a look at the list of institutions he's been invited to lecture at.)
-FL
1. Re:Israel is in trouble. by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  And I suppose you figure the Zionists are using the Piece of Eden to control people's minds too, eh?
2. Re:Israel is in trouble. by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you should ask some of the many Orthodox Jews who have come out against the "state" of Israel. Their interpretation of the Torah seems pretty valid to me.
I would laugh so hard..... by hesaigo999ca · 2009-01-06 08:59 · Score: 1

I would laugh so hard if this was actually an American led movement to unearth all those extremists that use this sort of thing to help propagate more hate...and then shut them down.
The side you are on, matters not by chord.wav · 2009-01-06 09:00 · Score: 1

As soon as you make your PC a botnet zombie, it will (at least) start sending V1agr4 spam all over the net. Most probably, it will be used to attack whoever the botnet overlord wants.
Botnet overlords just don't care sh1t about the war.
Why? by LWATCDR · 2009-01-06 09:02 · Score: 1

The other side was firing rockets and mortars into Israel for a while now.
At best I say a pox on both their houses.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
1. Re:Why? by aliquis · 2009-01-06 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe just nuke Jerusalem with enough nukes that no-one can live there for any reasonable time forward and stop the thousand of years of war in the area? No need to fight for jerusalem if it's unusable.
2. Re:Why? by LWATCDR · 2009-01-06 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  yea that would help.....
  Good grief
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
3. Re:Why? by RiotingPacifist · 2009-01-06 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah but Israel started it. And im going by the playground rule that the guy that starts the fight is the biggest douche and so deserves to loose.
  
  --
  IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Mercury by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:02 · Score: 0

Let's not forget that Mercury is a company that was headquartered in Israel before it was taken over by HP. It still has a very large Israeli presence.

Mercury is the owner of Loadrunner. A tool which, by its very design is military in application, and I've heard rumors (I've not confirmed) that Loadrunner was developed as a military weapon at its inception.

If Israel wanted to wage real "electronic warfare" on the Palestinians, I'd think there wouldn't be much left for Palestine to access. More likely is that Palestine isn't as dependent on computing, so unleashing a massive DDoS attack would have very little real impact.
you forgot... by zarthrag · 2009-01-06 09:05 · Score: 5, Funny

6. End up on the no-fly list

--
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
1. Re:you forgot... by lightversusdark · 2009-01-06 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't live in a country that had such a thing..
  
  --
  "There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
2. Re:you forgot... by Abreu · 2009-01-06 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is, you sometimes want to fly to such a country, for whatever reasons...
  
  --
  No sig for the moment.
3. Re:you forgot... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  7. Prophet?
Cyber Suicide Bomb by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:06 · Score: 2, Informative

# rm -rf /
Not reachable by indeciso · 2009-01-06 09:07 · Score: 1

I cannot get into the Help Israel Win website (server not found). The DNS Team acting again?
1. Re:Not reachable by Culture20 · 2009-01-06 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  I think this guy answered your question: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1082225&cid=26348585
Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by EgoWumpus · 2009-01-06 09:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unfortunately, you can't just say 'Down with religion!' because religion has taken up residence in a very vital human activity; culture and community. People will fight to the death to keep their tribes.
In my own experience, this has been demonstrated to me time and again (though I don't know that I understand the reasons - just that they must exist); that nearly every Jew I've met is strongly in favor of the Jewish state. Maybe there is something to that.
All that said, Israel should stop killing recklessly. 550 Palestinian deaths to 5 Israeli deaths is so lopsided that it has to be stopped. The solution to the situation is actually pretty simple; it's money. Once the non-country of Palestine isn't made up of mostly the desperate poor, with a few warlords manipulating them, then you'll see peace. Alas, no one is likely to pony up.

--
[Ego]out
1. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Surt · 2009-01-06 09:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Lopsided outcome is policy. They want their opponents to know that starting a fight with them is a bad idea because they will finish it, harshly.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
2. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by ahoehn · 2009-01-06 09:53 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Alas, no one is likely to pony up.
  It's not so much about ponying up, as it is about allowing Palestinian businesses to succeed. Make it easy for Palestinians go overseas for education, stop unfair trade practices that make it difficult or impossible for them to run successful businesses. Palestine deserves, and peace in the middle east demands conditions that allow Palestinians a fighting chance to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps".
  
  --
  Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
3. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by lwsimon · 2009-01-06 09:53 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  550 Palestinian deaths to 5 Israeli deaths is so lopsided that it has to be stopped.
  Are you suggesting there is a quota, and in order to continue to pursue the aggressors, they need to sacrifice a few people of their own?
  
  --
  Learn about Photography Basics.
4. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-06 10:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And what ... exactly ... is the alternative ? Here's the demand of hamas. Note that it's a repeat of an islamic "holy" text :
  
  Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
  "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
  This is the constitution of hamas. The constitution every Gazan lives under. The constitution over 70% of Gazans have willingly accepted.
  What, exactly, is your response to a statement like this, backed up with rockets ? Do tell what the alternative course of action is for israel.
  And don't say "talking". They've been "talking" since 1948. Talking is something hamas only does when they're losing the war, and they never keep their promises. In fact since 1948 it's progressively gotten worse for Israel. Right now there are constant attacks on Israeli citizens. EVERY SINGLE DAY rockets rain down on sderot and other Israeli cities.
  "Putting the parties down to talk it out" is dependant on there not being ANY group ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that will not talk. If there is even one such group, no matter how small, that controls a state or even a city, the policy of "talking" is doomed. It can only work between civilized people. What do civilized people do ? First and foremost, they are true to their word.
  Just because the overwhelming majority of Americans are reasonable people, true to their words, does not mean that every last human is reasonable. Just read the comments in this story made by muslims and my point will be amply supported.
  Hamas does not keep to treaties. Nor does any other neighbour of Israel. The only muslim country that has EVER shown to keep to international treaties when under the slightest bit of pressure is Turkey, and that era in Turkey is coming to an end.
5. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by MrNaz · 2009-01-06 10:05 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  You're making an assumption regarding who started it.
  This particular fighting outburst began with an Israeli "preemptive strike".
  Preemptive strikes are the first blow in a conflict, and calling them "preemptive" does not change that fact.
  
  --
  I hate printers.
6. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by yog · 2009-01-06 10:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Until the security fence went up, thousands of people in Israel were killed by suicide bombs over the past ten years. This week is lopsided only if you ignore history.
  And it's not a question of money. The Pals get plenty of cash grants from the U.N. and Saudi Arabia. They're not "desperate poor", they're one big welfare state. Heck, back in the day, Saddam Hussein was giving about $16,000 to each family of a successful suicide bomber. If Hamas weren't running Gaza, they would be trading with Israel and the world and actually making some money.
  It's not a question of religion. There are over 5 million Jews in Israel but also over 2 million Muslims and quite a few Christians--all living together in peace. The Muslims have representation in government and the only difference is that they don't serve in the military (except for the Beduins).
  It's more a question of land. The Pals want it, the Israelis won't give it, end of story.
  Now what makes the situation more explosive is that the Iranians are exploiting the local Arabs to set up a military forward base in Gaza. They have taken Hamas fighters to Iran to train them in guerrilla tactics and missile tech. They are trying to duplicate their success with Hezbollah.
  That is what this current fight is about--it's really Israel versus Iran, and you'll notice the local Arab governments have been unusually subdued. None of them wants Iran to gain another foothold in their back yard, and while they publicly condemn Israel as do the "useful idiots" in Europe, behind closed doors they are egging the Israelis on.
  
  --
  it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
7. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by HateBreeder · 2009-01-06 10:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  550 Palestinian deaths to 5 Israeli deaths is so lopsided that it has to be stopped.
  Err.. that's the worst logical reasoning i have heared in a long time.
  Would you be happier with a 1:1 death toll? can't an army be efficient?
  I'm not sure about the exact numbers, but the number of civilian casualties is less than 200. that gives a kill accuracy of greater than 60%. Can any other army claim such a moral accuracy figure?
  hypocrite!
  
  --
  Sigs are for the weak.
8. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  All that said, Israel should stop killing recklessly. 550 Palestinian deaths to 5 Israeli deaths is so lopsided that it has to be stopped.
  Huh? So if 10 guys decide to come out of an alley and attack you and your friend, you're allowed to stop, what, 3 or 4 of them? Let the other 6 or 7 beat you up and rob you?
  Israel is not killing recklessly. The Palestinian terrorists are killing recklessly by blindly launching rockets into Israel, and by hiding in civilian areas.
  The Palestinians terrorists need to stop hiding behind innocent civilians. Remember, according to the Geneva Conventions, if you place a military target in a civilian area, any civilian deaths that occur when the other side attacks your military target are on your head. ie: When Hamas or Hezebollah launches rockets from a school or hospital, and the IDF attacks the school/hospital, civilian deaths are the responsibility of Hamas/Hezbollah, not Israel.
  Even Egypt is blaming the Palestinians for this latest flare-up. Finally.
  The solution to the situation is actually pretty simple; it's money. Once the non-country of Palestine isn't made up of mostly the desperate poor, with a few warlords manipulating them, then you'll see peace. Alas, no one is likely to pony up.
  Naive.
  Money isn't the problem. Look at the 9/11 terrorists and the Glasgow terrorists. Doctors, college degreed people. Not ignorant or stupid, and not poor or impoverished. Money won't solve anything. Changing attitudes will. Palestinians need to stop teaching kids that Jews are the source of all evil.
  Also, you inadvertently(?) propose another solution. Kill the warlords. Which is what the Israelies are trying to do.
9. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Surt · 2009-01-06 10:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Not according to any credible news source I've seen. All major international news organizations credit Hamas with rocket attacks prior to Israeli response.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
10. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by timeOday · 2009-01-06 10:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They want their opponents to know that starting a fight with them is a bad idea because they will finish it, harshly.
  I've noticed the American media is very consistent in using loaded, incorrect terminology to imply that Hammas "started it," while Israel is simply "retaliating." The simple truth is, it's a cycle of violence with no traceable origin (at least none that is still relevant). The side most to blame is the side quickest to escalate the existing cycle of violence. Factions in both sides have the will to inflict 100-1 casualties on the other, but only one side has the (US-supplied) means to accomplish this. But we have given Israel the power, without the responsibility. Americans must start taking responsibility for what our bombs are doing over there. But I doubt anything will change until a significant number of Arabs immigrate to the US.
11. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:03 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Yes, well, so what?
  To the civillised world, it just looks like a bunch of religious loonies, stuck in the dark ages, with mega chips on their shoulders who hate each other "just because" have gone on another one of their fruit breaks.
  It looks so childish and backward, the whole situation, I really wish the civillised world would ignore the Middle East (Israel, Gaza, Iran, Iraq, etc.) leaving them to fester in their own self-induced pus while we get on with being human beings.
  I speak for civillisation here when I say, "We are sick and tired of this nonsense. We are sick and tired of you (all sides). When you have grown up we might invite you to join the international community. Until then, until you learn, you are condemned to rot in your own hell."
  If I had my way, I'd turn the entire region, and all the animals that think they are human beings there, into glass from a nuclear raizing.
  Get a life you pathetic vermin.
12. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by timeOday · 2009-01-06 11:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Middle-east peace is impossible. Both sides can point to genocidal passages in the others' scripture, both sides can point to hyperbolic remarks by the others' politicians, and (most importantly) factions on both sides are committed to disproportionate retaliation against the other for past atrocities that can never be un-done.
  However, the US *can* lower the death toll by not pouring high-tech weaponry into Israel.
13. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Surt · 2009-01-06 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  Well, all credible reports i've read in an international news source indicated that Hamas began firing rockets into Israel after a period of some months of no violence.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
14. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by aussie_a · 2009-01-06 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Y'know that sounds a bit like America.
15. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Deadplant · 2009-01-06 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  ...that nearly every Jew I've met is strongly in favor of the Jewish state.
  Ah yes, we call that ethnic pride combined with nationalism. Both of which are barbarisms which cannot stand in the light of reason.
  
  Once the non-country of Palestine isn't made up of mostly the desperate poor, with a few warlords manipulating them, then you'll see peace.
  I get where you're coming from on that but I don't agree.
  Poverty is certainly a huge driver of conflict but I think it is not the key to this one.
  I think that the key to this one IS religion.
  Both sides are intransigent because they actually believe that they have invisible friends who promised them this particular patch of desert.
16. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Raynor · 2009-01-06 11:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Some 50 rockets have been launched from Gaza in recent days, after the killing of three Hamas members by Israel.
  A six-month ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas ended last week.
  
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7799593.stm
  Israel killed several Hamas members, Hamas responded with rockets, Israel responded with airstrikes and an invasion. This seems to be the same tactic Israel has been using for thirty years:
  
  General Moshe Dayan, who commanded the Israeli forces in 1967 and gave the order to occupy the Golan, gave an interview to an Israeli journalist, Rami Tal, in 1976. The interview was kept secret until April 1997, when it was published in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharanot. It has been authenticated by Israeli historians, and General Dayan's daughter, Yael, a member of the Knesset, insisted that it be published.
  
  In the interview, Tal interjected, "But they were sitting on the Golan Heights...."
  
  "Never mind that," said Dayan. "I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started.... It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything - (it was) in the demilitarized zone - and [we] would know in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until, in the end, the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force.... And that's how it was."
  http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-akins.html
  There have also been talks of the US selling the Israelis our C-RAM (Counter - Rocket, Artillery and Mortar) systems (based on the naval Phalanx CIWS). It would take one to two dozen of them (Depending on if you wanted redundant backups) to completely cover the Gaza strip, from the outside. This would allow Israeli to intercept rockets, artillery and mortars before they ever leave Palestinian airspace.
  
  I find it a tad interesting that a few months before Israel gets near immunity to rocket attacks, they get 'fed up' and invade.
  
  --
  "Dictator Flakes. They WILL be delicious."
17. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by theStorminMormon · 2009-01-06 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Would you be happier with a 1:1 death toll? can't an army be efficient?
  Yeah, the logic is just bizarre. Whoever wins = bad guy.
  
  --
  The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
18. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  And what ... exactly ... is the alternative ?
  Come to Ontario.
  That is the solution.
  We will give Israel a block of land to form a new homeland. It will be lush, resource rich and surrounded and protected by friends.
  I will personally help with the move and the construction.
  We have more than enough crown land to spare and we will be happy to give it to Israel.
  We will create programs whereby Canadians and Americans can donate their time and resources to help you through the first few decades.
  IF on the on the other hand you (as I have been told by every jew I have suggested this to) decide that this solution is unacceptable on the grounds that the shithole in the middle-east has to be your home because it is 'holy' and your god promised it to you then you can stay there and rot. If you have a shred of decency send your children abroad to live free while you suffer and die for your faith.
19. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by nicolas.kassis · 2009-01-06 11:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Hamas would claim that their organization is mostly a civilian one. The Hamas are just the neighborhood thugs. When I hear that the IDF hit the house of a hamas leader and then say "They were hiding in civilian areas". So the Leaders have to live in the desert? BUT with that said, hamas needs to be gone but I don't think Israel can accomplish this with the current method.
20. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Deadplant · 2009-01-06 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  hell ya.
  With one additional step: take all the children into protective custody first.
  They are the only ones we can be sure are innocent.
21. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by caitsith01 · 2009-01-06 12:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This week is lopsided only if you ignore history.
  It's also lopsided if you reject the infantile reasoning that past deaths justify future murders.
  A modern military force aggressively and methodically assaulting a primarily civilian region outside its national borders containing a few militias armed with crude explosives and rocks looks pretty lopsided to most rational people.
  Israel is clearly violating the firm international law against collective punishment. It is killing and intimidating an entire population to punish it for the crimes of a few. If you think that this type of behaviour is acceptable, then I presume you also think that September 11 was acceptable insofar as the US has not exactly been an angel in its activities in the Middle East and therefore it was acceptable for a group from that region to exact revenge on defenceless US civilians? No? How odd.
  Your comments about the Palestine being a "welfare state" also ignore the principal causes of that, namely Israel's control over passage into and out of Palestine and Israel's seizure of large sections of useful land within Palestine. Most countries would probably be welfare states under such circumstances. Your comments about aid are also laughable given that Israel is the world's largest recipient of foreign aid.
  Until Israel removes all illegal settlements and withdraws to its original borders, it will not have the moral high ground in this debate. If it does that and is subsequently attacked, then it will have my full sympathy and will be justified in limited and properly targeted retaliation.
  
  --
  Read Pynchon.
22. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Trillian_1138 · 2009-01-06 12:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't disagree that almost all Jews are in favor of a Jewish state in theory, and most are specifically pro-Israel. I just wanted to weigh in as someone who is culturally Jewish (that is, I enjoy and appreciate the rituals/holidays without believing in the Judeo-Christian god) but was nevertheless raised religiously Jewish (complete with Bat Mitzvah). So, with all that in mind, I'll say my piece...
  I think Israel is nuts. I think any religiously-based country has problems at its very core but especially one that was founded by outsiders who relocated a lot of people to create the country.
  If a bunch of people get together and decide together to form a religious community, great. As long as they don't prevent people from leaving, I really don't care (even if I might not understand the motivation). But do have the winning powers of WWII spin the globe and say, "Hey, this'll work! Lets stick they Jews here so we don't have to deal with them!" is just monumentally stupid and asking for trouble.
  Furthermore, the Israeli and Palestinian governments (such that they are) are behaving like children. I have nothing but sympathy for the people on both sides, but Israel and whoever happens to be 'representing the Palestinians at any one moment are both acting like they couldn't possibly understand how anyone could see the other's viewpoint. And, from where I'm sitting, when two bullies are fighting, even if they're both ultimately wrong, more of the fault lies with the bigger bully. In this situation, that means Israel. If they want to keep any sort of position as an internationally respected power, they need to stop acting like it's the Palestinian's fault they're fighting because the Palestinians knocked over Israel's sandcastle when Israel retaliates by carpet-bombing the Palestinian beach. (An exaggeration, I know...)
  So that's this (cultural) Jew's two cents...
  -Trillian
  PS - I know that's monumentally simplifying how Israel was created, but the more I've read and studied about Israel's history and the history of a Jewish state, the less I like it...
23. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  What do civilized people do ? First and foremost, they are true to their word.
  Oh, I thought you were going to say "First and foremost, civilized people bulldoze villages, round up the inhabitants, and move them into camps."
  I guess I was thinking of a different group of "civilized people" than you are.
24. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 12:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Over the past 10 years Israel has killed far far more Palestinians.
  But your right part of this is about land. A land that was taken from Palestine without them having any say.
  Lets not forget either that this current crisis did not start with Palestine shooting missles into Israel but that Israel shot and killed 3 Palestinians that were on there own side of the fence. It seems that the media keeps saying this was started by Hamas with missles. Really Israel started this with unprovoked murder and Hamas retaliated.
25. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  THANK YOU. Jesus (pun unintended), I wish I had mod points for you. Thousands of them.
  Maybe Palestinians ought to, you know...not elect the sort of people who provoke military responses that end up in said 550/1 ratios. Hmmm.
26. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  I think the situation is a lot more complex than you make it out to be. Although, I found your post most enlightening. I like the whole Israel vs Iran conclusion. The conclusion was kind of like a game of mouse trap where the net doesn't fully trap your opponents mouse. The cruel sting of disappointment.
  The only solution is compromise and the ability of certain "grown ups" on both sides being able to share. Both sides need to be put over the knee of Ban-Ki Moon and spanked with the UN wooden spoon. In my opinion, it needs to be used more often. The US is certainly in need of a good bare bum spanking.
27. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  Jew controlled media you mean. If the hadn't taken Palestine by force, killing women and children there would have been no war, no rocket and no Hamas at all.
  But their fucking invisible friend told them they must genocide the native people of that land and camp their retarded Israel state just like they did 3 thousand years ago.
28. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by SystematicPsycho · 2009-01-06 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  Turkey hasn't always abided by international treaties, the occupation of Cyprus is one example.
  
  --
  Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
29. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by linuzer · 2009-01-06 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  occupation begins in 1948
30. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  It's more a question of land. The Pals want it, the Israelis won't give it, end of story.
  But who stole it?
  Thats the elephant thats in the room you forgot to talk about.
31. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  The electing of known militants to power was a really stupid idea. However the Palestine prime minister position appears to be selected by the legislation and is not an anonymous process. This is a bad system as there could be pressure applied to get your man elected. That's as bad as having someone with strong Opium ties - so much so that US troops can't stop anything dealing with Opium - to be President of Afghanistan like there is now.
  Then again you don't need to be a 3rd world country to elect War mongering officials. Just look at Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield.
  I do have to give the Israelis credit on how they go about hitting targets. They phone ahead and warn people that if they're living above weapon caches to clear out. When I heard that I was really impressed on how they are trying to avoid collateral damage.
32. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by MichaelSmith · 2009-01-06 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Middle-east peace is impossible. Both sides can point to genocidal passages in the others' scripture, both sides can point to hyperbolic remarks by the others' politicians, and (most importantly) factions on both sides are committed to disproportionate retaliation against the other for past atrocities that can never be un-done.
  However, the US *can* lower the death toll by not pouring high-tech weaponry into Israel.
  Israel seems reluctant to actually use high tech weaponry. Why don't they intercept rockets fired from Gaza? There are plenty of theatre defence systems which can do that.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
33. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by linuzer · 2009-01-06 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  I have to say you don't know anything about Islam, in Quran definition of Islam includes ( Islam, Jews, Christianity ). and As Muslim i have to say the quote above from our prophet is fake.go read yourself in quran
34. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Stormwatch · 2009-01-06 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  nearly every Jew I've met is strongly in favor of the Jewish state. Maybe there is something to that.
  "Consider how many years it took before American Jews gathered the nerve to criticize Israeli policies in the occupied territories. They were afraid of being labelled "Jewish anti-Semites," a wonderfully designed phrase - designed to make Jews who criticize their own people feel particularly guilty. And even now, a non-Jew who dares to criticize the policies of Israel or of any official Jewish body can expect to be attacked with the "anti-Semite" label. And it works. Who can forget the Six Million? Who can forget the Holocaust? (You can't, because we won't let you!) Criticize anything Jewish, and we'll link you to the Nazis. And you'll run for cover. If you write anti-religious essays, you probably already limit yourself to anti-Christian rhetoric and leave the Jews and their religion alone; that is to say, you avoid even the risk of being labelled an anti-Semite. Thus, the effectiveness of the label in stifling criticism is precisely why Jews are so overly quick to use it." -- David Dvorkin, "Why I Am Not a Jew"
  
  --
  Circumcision is child abuse.
35. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by fatmal · 2009-01-06 14:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  This week is lopsided only if you ignore history..... It's more a question of land. The Pals want it, the Israelis won't give it, end of story.
  As you quite rightly say you shouldn't ignore history, however, you are only considering more recent history and you should look back 60 years. Israel was created in 1948 with land taken away from the Palestinians - all they want is their own land back!
36. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by linuzer · 2009-01-06 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  have you ever been under fire? did you serve at military? did you ever heard a gun fire from 5 meter? have you ever had a night under rocket attack? have you ever lost one of your family in war? have you ever wounded in war? do you know what's mean once your whole family are killed? I'm waiting for your answer:), BTW I experienced some of them.
37. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 14:08 · Score: 0
  
  Talk about ignoring history:
  You might want a lesson from
  Avi Shlalm, professor of international relations at Oxford.
38. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 14:39 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah - because accurate smart bombs kill so many more civies than, say, carpet bombing. /sarcasm
39. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by alexhmit01 · 2009-01-06 14:56 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Israel is clearly violating the firm international law against collective punishment. It is killing and intimidating an entire population to punish it for the crimes of a few. If you think that this type of behaviour is acceptable, then I presume you also think that September 11 was acceptable insofar as the US has not exactly been an angel in its activities in the Middle East and therefore it was acceptable for a group from that region to exact revenge on defenceless US civilians? No? How odd.
  No, collective punishment is when a militant hides in a city, and rather than risking troops to flush them out, you carpet bomb the city. "Intimidating the population," "crimes of the few," the government of Gaza is Hamas... defacto since they ousted the PA, and quasi-legally since Hamas's legislative electoral victory was based on dominating (70%+) the votes in Gaza. The blockade is legal because Israel is in a state of belligerency with Hamas run Gaza.
  
  Until Israel removes all illegal settlements and withdraws to its original borders, it will not have the moral high ground in this debate. If it does that and is subsequently attacked, then it will have my full sympathy and will be justified in limited and properly targeted retaliation.
  What is magical about the 1966 borders? What makes them legitimate? Or do you want to go back to 1948 (Egypt and Israel did a small land swap between the wars, which Hamas originally claimed that the Gaza withdrawal was incomplete. Or do you mean the UN Partition plan, rejected by the Arab side? Israel has NEVER had a recognized eastern border... the 1948 armistice line was an armistice demarkation, NOT a legal boder... and with the withdrawal from Gaza, Israel IS within it's pre-1967 borders in the disputed area.
  Whenever Israel gives up land to "get the moral high ground," they get attacked from that land, and critics conveniently forget that they gave up that land. Israel retreated from Gaza, and rockets rained down ever since, so why on earth should they withdraw from land where rockets could hit major population and economic centers like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
  Take a trip to Israel one time, IT ISN'T THAT big, without passage through Judea and Samaria (which you really don't have), the country has a choke point where it is too narrow to be safe. Israel, grabbing Gaza, cut it in half. When Jordan last launched an attack (1967), they tried to split the country in two. That's a dangerous situation without a reason to believe that it will be peaceful.
40. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Oktober+Sunset · 2009-01-06 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  No traceable origin? How about when the Isrealis stole the Palestinians' land? I'd say that's a pretty traceable origin.
  
  --
  What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
41. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 15:27 · Score: 0
  
  Didnt the original Israeli borders extend into the Sinai peninsula? Israel has been giving up land ever since it was founded with UN and global support.
  I will not absolutely say that they are morally correct in their actions, but they are fighting a group that wants their destruction. Every battle they enter is a battle for the survival of the state of Israel and if they give that up then the Jewish population would have to flee. Palestine is gone, its been over a half a decade, its safe to say that it is rightfully Israel's land now.
42. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Dr.+Hellno · 2009-01-06 15:32 · Score: 1
  
  Until the civilized world becomes energy-independent, leaving the loonies to their own devices is not feasible. Until the civilized world is confident it would face no threat from Israeli or Pakistani nukes pilfered in the ensuing chaos, it is not desirable. We either turn the entire region (and probably close to a billion innocent people) into glass, as you say, or we try to interpose ourselves there in some less-lethal way. They're both unpalatable options, but I for one don't need the largest genocide in history on my conscience.
43. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by TapeCutter · 2009-01-06 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  "Heck, back in the day, Saddam Hussein was giving about $16,000 to each family of a successful suicide bomber."
  
  Is that "back in the day" when Israel was bulldozing their homes as routine government policy, sometimes deliberately entombing said relatives?
  
  "This week is lopsided only if you ignore history."
  
  The death toll has never been in the Palestinians favour, unless you read history with one eye closed.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
44. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Dog-Cow · 2009-01-06 15:38 · Score: 0
  
  Palestinians teach their children to hate. It's probably too late for them.
45. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by E++99 · 2009-01-06 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  All that said, Israel should stop killing recklessly. 550 Palestinian deaths to 5 Israeli deaths is so lopsided that it has to be stopped.
  Isn't the whole point of war to make it as lopsided as humanly possible?
  And the only reckless killing I've seen has been on the side of the Palestinians, despite their poor success rate. The reason many Palestinian civilians are dying as that the Palestinians are relentlessly pursuing the strategy of using their civilian populations and their children as human shields. It's the same thing US rangers faced in Somalia, where a sniper would lie down in the road, a woman would lie down on either side of him, and several children would lie on top of him. The only choices for the ranger are to die or to lob the grenade anyway. We did the latter, and so is Israel. The fact that the international community is rewarding the Palestinians' sickening tactics with sympathy and support only means that there will be further unnecessary loss of civilian life in future conflicts, as the Muslim world is shown that the strategy works.
46. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 16:02 · Score: 0
  
  If Israel has low tech weapons i would expect more casualties, the accurate weapons allow to try to avoid ( as much as possible ) to harm uninvolved civilian.
  also you would be surprise, and this comes from IDF soldiers, the order is first to avoid hurting uninvolved and then harm hamas.
  Imagine for just a sec what will happen if israel wanted to flatten Gaza ? what do you think will be the death toll and how easy it will be for her.
47. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by hittman007 · 2009-01-06 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  If I had my way, I'd turn the entire region, and all the animals that think they are human beings there, into glass from a nuclear raizing.
  Interesting, and you think this is civilized?
  
  --
  --- When you start with the conclusion that you want, then throw out any facts that don't agree, is it true?
48. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Dog-Cow · 2009-01-06 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  The Romans. The people that the Jews stole it from 3000+ years ago don't exist any more. There has not been an independent, sovereign state in the area of Israel other than the Jewish state for over 3000 years. After the Romans, the area was under the control of several different empires. Eventually, it was controlled by Turkey (Ottomans), who were kicked out by the British in WWI.
  Learn some history. The one group with the best claim to a State in that area are the Jews. Or you do you arbitrarily decide to ignore a certain amount of history to justify your view?
49. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Dog-Cow · 2009-01-06 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  Romans stole it from the Jews.
50. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  Let's look how people behave. Israel has a big industry relating telecom, agriculture, computers, (NT and XP were developed by Microsoft Israel). People work and the growth they had had in the past 40 years is incredible, Israel was an underdeveloped nation, now has unique technologies and features to share with (i.e. sell to) the world.
  Israel is backed (finacially?, morally?) by the U.S., true. Why Arabs don't want to take care after Palestinians and help them to develop? They don't have natural resources, but let's help them.
  They also care about geopolitical issues, and we have to admit it, Pals are victims of Israel, but also of their "brothers".
  Hamas is just another way to revenge emotionally the death of someone, or the despair.
51. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by wallsg · 2009-01-06 17:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Do you prefer a more "fair" or "symmetrical" response by Israel? Would you be happy if they just randomly lobbed a rocket or mortar at a Gaza civilian population center for each one lobbed into Israel?
  What would be an acceptable US response be to you if Reconquistas in Tijuana demanded that the US withdraw from "occupied" land, lobbing mortars and rockets into San Diego on a daily basis, regularly blowing themselves up in the Gaslamp Quarter and at Padres games, and a Reconquista-led Mexico did nothing about it? I think you know what we would justifiably do about that, and it doesn't involve dozens of stern UN resolutions.
  It is obvious that the Israelis are not intentionally attacking the civilian population. Israel hits targets from which they've been attacked and hits weapons depots. The fact that these are mosques, schools, and civilian population centers is entirely the fault of Hamas, and this is planned by them to elicit just such a knee-jerk response as you provided. Hamas is the side that intentionally targets civilians as a matter of strategy.
  If Israel wanted to attack the population they would level entire cities as was done in England and Germany in World War II, or just have walking artillery barrages from one end of Gaza to the other. Now that I think about it, there is a strong parallel between Hamas rocket attacks on Israel and German V-2 attacks on England and Belgium.
52. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  There have also been talks of the US giving the Israelis our C-RAM
  There fixed that for ya.
53. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, prosperous people lean less toward violence as a whole. Palestine is literally a closed off camp, which few can escape. Things will not get better until education and prosperity can grow.
54. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 17:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think it is pretty hard at this point to figure out who the aggressors really are this has gone on too long. If you are suggesting that the number of casualties is unimportant when a nation is claiming to simply be defending themselves then you are nuts.
55. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  If talking doesn't work, and so far military action hasn't worked, what do you suggest? It seems to me you believe the only way to end this conflict is to get rid of the Palestinians, you know like a genocide or something. Hmmm.
56. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  We (U.S.) have no right to meddle in this situation. Let them fight it out between them without my tax dollars. When they have bloodied and bruised one another enough to care about peace, we will be waiting to help make it happen.
57. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  The best post in this discussion yet. You totally nailed it.
58. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by timeOday · 2009-01-06 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  No traceable origin? How about when the Isrealis stole the Palestinians' land? I'd say that's a pretty traceable origin.
  My guess is the Israelis would point to some previous event that justifies that action (in their mind, at least). Maybe somebody attacked Israel from that territory. Maybe the Israelis occupied the land 1500 years ago and somebody took it from them. Who knows? All I know is, when it comes to armed conflict, it's always - always - the other guy's fault. Look at our "preemptive defense" invasion of Iraq. It was Iraq's fault, for failing to prove they couldn't attack us in the future, despite our repeated demands.
59. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  60% accuracy is good? Your ID name is fitting, you are a sick fuck if you think 40% civilian casualties should be applauded. I hope to God you are simply having a bad day.
60. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by SomebodyOutThere · 2009-01-06 17:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  A modern military force aggressively and methodically assaulting a primarily civilian region...
  They aren't given any choice. Hamas, like Hezbollah, deliberately places military equipment and personnel in densely populated civilian areas.
  
  --
  Everyone but you is telepathic.
61. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Plutonite · 2009-01-06 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Middle-east peace is impossible. Both sides can point to genocidal passages in the others' scripture
  
  That's basically it, isn't it. Religions in particular, and active ideologies (that seek to recruit followers) in general, are destructive towards those who don't comply. It's part of the vileness of those who invented them, whether out of involuntary insanity, or careful planning, to include these ideas - this unconditional feeling of enmity towards all others who don't follow their version of The One Way - along with all the 'nice' teachings that play on the human instinct to worship, and to breed the notion that those Others share those same feelings of enmity, and that this is how things must be. This is how the deity wishes it. If that were not the case, the religions wouldn't be convincing enough when taken literally, which is how they are meant to be taken, as per the earliest and most revered followers. If you are right, then They are wrong, and must be fought, and killed and silenced, and subdued, either now or in some later foretold battle.
  If there was no religion, many good things would disappear from the world. Many wonderful values would cease to exist. But the world would be a whole lot more peaceful, at least in this day and age.
62. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Neoprofin · 2009-01-06 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  The funny thing is that Hamas has thousands of weapons that were provided by the state department to the "peaceful moderate factions" which no longer exist, and Isreal has quite a weapons industry. I don't think removing the U.S. from the picture would make the conflict much different.
  
  Speaking of, while you're at it why don't you call the Russians and Chinese to task for what their AK-47s have done to Africa and the Middle East for the last 50 years. What about the French? British? Belgians? Anyone?
  
  Weapons don't cause conflicts, they just affect who wins.
63. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Neoprofin · 2009-01-06 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well they tried just getting rid of Isreal, but that plan also failed, a lot.
64. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by ravenshrike · 2009-01-06 19:24 · Score: 1
  
  Um, no? The Turks owned almost all of the land in the area that jewish interests didn't pre-WWII and then was turned over to the jews afterwards when Turkey came out on the losing side as part of europe's we hate you so we're giving you a place to go, now leave gesture. It wasn't until '67 that the israelis 'took' land 'belonging' to the palestinians.
65. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by ravenshrike · 2009-01-06 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it would. Israel would have no real interest in not steamrolling the palestinians if the US cut funding.
66. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Mr.+Beatdown · 2009-01-06 19:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There's a huge difference between targeting people who place themselves in civilian areas for their own protection, and targeting civilian areas. No one here who is honest with themselves really thinks Israel is targeting the civilian population. And, though it's lopsided, it would also be lopsided if I were to slap Mike Tyson and call him a bitch, then complain when he beat me up. The fact that the militias are bad at what they do (kill as many Israelis with as little risk as possible) as the Israelis are very good at what they do (kill as many militia as necessary) has no bearing on the justice of the actions of either.
  
  --
  My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
67. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 19:49 · Score: 0
  
  the US *can* lower the death toll by not pouring high-tech weaponry into Israel.
  No. It can only lower the death toll of one side, predominantly Palestinian terrorists.
  What do you think happens when the terrorists, now emboldened, get a nuke or chemical weaponry? Do you not think they would use it in a second?
  Israel is killing terrorists of the same ideology that would see you killed.
  The conflict in Israel is but a single front in a global Islamist war.
  Also, America shares a lot of military technology with Israel. By denying support to Israel, an ally, America would be shooting itself in the foot.
  You may care to question what return they get on their investment of $2bn a year in Egypt though. Ditto aid money to any number of other backward Arab states, who accept the money and then shout "Death to America".
  This whole "proportionality" argument is a nonsense.
  If you had a deranged murderer, standing on your doorstop armed only with a knife, and you called the police, would you want them to send only one police officer, armed only with a knife? Or would you expect them to send everything they had.
  Nobody complained, for years, when it was only Jews doing the dying.
68. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by ultranova · 2009-01-06 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  Israel seems reluctant to actually use high tech weaponry. Why don't they intercept rockets fired from Gaza? There are plenty of theatre defence systems which can do that.
  
  Then what would the local politicians heroically save Israel from ?
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
69. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yep agreed, So the point you are making is?
70. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by BananaPeel · 2009-01-06 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Its not just lopsided its wanton indiscriminate killing.
  They know that their activity is resulting in significant civillian deaths and they still carry on using the same methods. If that doesn't make those deaths intentional murder I don't know what does.
  TBH both sides are f*"ked up, but the isreli government chose to go in with such force and they chose to sustain a campaign which they knew was killing civillians. This makes them just a bunch of dickheads. Personaly I have stopped buying anything made there... suggest you do the same
71. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by phozz+bare · 2009-01-06 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  Israel is clearly violating the firm international law against collective punishment.
  Sorry, but I'm sick of hearing this "collective punishment" crap. Hamas is the governing body of Gaza, therefore this is war. In war civilians get hurt.
  When the Brits carpet bombed Dresden, was that not collective punishment?
  When the US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was that not collective punishment?
  When Hamas sends rockets into Israel, preventing hundreds of thousands of people from being able to lead normal lives for 8 years (and counting), is that not collective punishment?
  And what is this nonsense about "actions of a few"? This is not some small rogue group. Again, this is the democratically elected government, and these are its actions. The Gaza police is not exactly arresting rocket launchers, the rocket launchers are part of the government's army.
  You have also conveniently forgotten that with regards to Gaza, Israel has removed all its settlements and withdrawn to its original borders. Do you think that after this response it will be happy to do the same in the West Bank?
72. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by phozz+bare · 2009-01-06 20:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  NT and XP were developed by Microsoft Israel
  No they weren't, Microsoft Israel is a pretty small shop with no significant software development. Intel, on the other hand, is another story; much of its cutting edge CPU technology is in fact developed in Haifa.
73. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 20:52 · Score: 0
  
  "A modern military force aggressively and methodically assaulting a primarily civilian region outside its national borders containing a few militias armed with crude explosives and rocks looks pretty lopsided to most rational people."
  1 - over the last 8 years rockets have been fired daily from Gaza. targeting civilian targets in israel. this includes the sease-fire, BTW, in which less were fired.
  2 - since the sease fire ended last month, rockets have been fired, arround 20 a DAY. including MILITARY GRADE - GRADs - again TARGETING ISRAELI CITIES.
  "Israel is clearly violating the firm international law against collective punishment"
  how is that?
  Israel is not violating any such law. all countries have the right to take actions to protect their citizens.
  "Until Israel removes all illegal settlements and withdraws to its original borders"
  we are talking about GAZA here, right?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_unilateral_disengagement_plan
  they pulled out of Gaza in 2005. where the rockets are being fired from, and where Israel is currently taking action.
  "then it will have my full sympathy"
  I'm sure when I'm dead you'll sympathies me. and that would be great. but I'd rather be ALIVE then be sympathized by you or the international community.
74. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-06 21:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No there are not. Rocket defense systems, like they are installed on carrier groups for example, protect tiny areas against threats fired from a huge area, with an absolutely enormous area of "neutral ground" that can absorb any amount of battering (ie. the sea).
  First imagine the path of a rocket that is intended to strike a ship in a carrier group : it is a very direct, ever so slightly curved path that goes over water. So what do rocket defense systems do at a base level : they simply slow down the rocket. The rocket still does a little bit less damage, but does it to the ocean surface, which can take any amount of battering.
  Suppose a rocket in a freefall trajectory were to strike a carrier group. By the time the rocket is in range of the defensive systems it is "hanging" (falling, but not infinitely fast) right above the ship. Any bullet, rocket or whatever fired at such a rocket will ultimately hit the ship. So what do carrier groups do if someone tries this ? Simple : they move themselves.
  Israel does not have a "sea" buffer zone between itself and hamas, devoid of life, devoid of humans. If they were to down hamas rockets directly over their launch site, they would fall on the schools, hospitals, etc were hamas fires them. Downing them a little bit further in their path and the downed rockets would fall on a palestinian city. A little bit further still and it falls on an Israeli city.
  No matter how or where you down hamas' rockets : there will be victims, who have done nothing wrong other than being in the path of a randomly fired rocket.
  Therefore the defense against terrorist rockets, fired from populated areas, must be the prevention of those rockets ever being fired in the first place. Once fired, once merely the fuse is lit, casualties cannot be avoided (though one can try to make the people firing them the victims. Of course in palestine, the director of one of the UN schools was firing rockets, straight from the edge of a playground, filled to the brim with children. If you "prevent that rocket from reaching its target", you will have killed a lot of children using your "high tech" system. Even if you're using a laser to detonate the rocket at a great distance, those children will be blased with shrapnel, that was intended to kill jews. Now given that their parents are very much aware of that school being used as a rocket launch site you could say ...
  However the point I'm trying to make is simple : "High tech" is not some magic miracle that can solve any problem just like that.
  And even if these considerations are solved, there is still the price. It costs about $12000 to down a single rocket. Which is a great defense against $200000 sidewinder rockets, but a horrible idea against $200 qassams.
75. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Inovaovao · 2009-01-06 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  >> Would you be happier with a 1:1 death toll? can't an army be efficient?
  
  > Yeah, the logic is just bizarre. Whoever wins = bad guy.
  
  But it's an interesting intellectual exercise since usually we have
  
  whoever wins = good guys
  
  Remember: history is written by the winners...
76. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-06 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's basically it, isn't it. Religions in particular, and active ideologies (that seek to recruit followers) in general, are destructive towards those who don't comply. It's part of the vileness of those who invented them, whether out of involuntary insanity, or careful pla
  If the idea of applying "evolution-theory" ideas to memes has any value, this is exactly what ANY SUCCESSFULL ideology will do. The actual contents of the ideologies matter little. IF they grow, they will "be destructive towards those who don't comply". Until they have a hugely comfortable position in the world, which seems to be that they control at least half of it, and christianity controlled about 70% of the planet in 1930, and did indeed become a peaceful ideology.
  Just like successfull genes are "destructive" towards those with different genes. The very reason we die "of natural causes" is that we are killed by our own genes to give better chances to those with better DNA (ie : our, or someone else's children). (See : "Sex and the Origin of Death" by William R. Clark, for example : not all organisms can die of natural causes)
  Do you believe in evolution ? How could you possibly expect anything else to happen ?
  The only chance for world peace, if evolution theory indeed applies to "memes", is that one religion/ideology wins, with however many casualties that requires. And even that would be a temporary "fix" : eventually the winning ideology would diverge into multiple branches and restart the conflict. Just like you see in the "muslim world" : they're killing amongst themselves even more than they're killing jews. The only peaceful periods in muslim history are those when massive, successfull "jihads" were executed against their neighbours. Those only brought temporary internal stability, the longest of those peaceful periods lasted about 30 years.
  The only reason that there is peace in America is the extremely homogenous ideology that is there. Of course, everybody seems to be trying to fight that homogenity. That "tolerance" (a misnomer if there ever was one) will not lead to peace, it will lead to war.
  This of course means that as "atheism" (or any other ideology) grows, it will, inevitably, become violent. I daresay you're already seeing huge signs of that on the internet, and in universities (at least in mine).
  If it indeed conquers the planet, violently, it may, after reaching a certain size, become peaceful again, as has happened with christianity. But that will not last. Not for any ideology.
  Of course this also means that unless the massive inroads and challenges made to christianity stop before a certain amount of damage is done (that seems hugely unlikely), christianity will resume being a violent ideology, through natural selection : only violent christianity will grow. And soon it will take over the rest of christianity. Given how widespread it is, and how much technology it controls, I highly doubt anything will be able to challenge christianity the next time it tries to conquer the planet.
  In 200 years there will be a huge christmas tree, imported at great cost from some exotic location, right in the middle of mecca. In the white house, the duma and shangai alike you will be fired for merely thinking about abortion. And there will be world peace, for a while.
  The basic mechanism of evolution is conflict. Conflict by competing for resources (ie. letting the other starve) or direct conflict : killing eachother.
77. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by master_p · 2009-01-06 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  A big question I have is why Israel doesn't give some land to these people to make a Palestinian state. If you build it, they will come! and if you help them build a civilized society, it would be themselves that will prevent Hamas and any other form of terrorism to happen.
78. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-06 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason Israel fails is that they're holding back.
  The only reason palestine fails is that they're powerless assholes, who can only feel good about themselves by stoning women.
  3 guesses what's going to happen, in the long term ...
79. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  However, the US *can* lower the death toll by not pouring high-tech weaponry into Israel.
  I was under the impression that the purpose of much of R+D in "high-tech weaponry" was to prevent civilian casualties - to make more accurate weapons.
80. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-06 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  Come to Ontario.
  That is the solution.
  We will give Israel a block of land to form a new homeland. It will be lush, resource rich and surrounded and protected by friends.
  That's not true.
  At the end of WWII such a question was posed to every state in the world, including Ontario. They denied the request.
  Before WWI the ottoman empire responded in the positive and gave "palestine" (the current states of Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, the Sinai and a large part of Saudi Arabia and even a piece of Iraq were all part of Palestine) to the Zionists. That's why in 1948 there was such a large presence of Jews in Israel.
81. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 22:04 · Score: 0
  
  And every reasonable person sees that muslims' R&D has been for several decades research into making MORE civilian casualties.
  Which hamas is very much trying to put into practice right now.
82. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by rastilin · 2009-01-06 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  Israel is clearly violating the firm international law against collective punishment. It is killing and intimidating an entire population to punish it for the crimes of a few. If you think that this type of behaviour is acceptable, then I presume you also think that September 11 was acceptable insofar as the US has not exactly been an angel in its activities in the Middle East and therefore it was acceptable for a group from that region to exact revenge on defenceless US civilians? No? How odd.
  
  I disagree. It was the state which attacked Israel, the state is made up of it's people, QED. The important distinction is that Israel isn't aiming for civilian targets on purpose, but that Hamas is using it's own civilians as a shield. Since they also target Israeli civilians on purpose, it's far too much of a stretch to accept that the civilians of the Hamas government are more important than the lives of the soldiers of your own country.
  
  Your comments about the Palestine being a "welfare state" also ignore the principal causes of that, namely Israel's control over passage into and out of Palestine and Israel's seizure of large sections of useful land within Palestine. Most countries would probably be welfare states under such circumstances. Your comments about aid are also laughable given that Israel is the world's largest recipient of foreign aid.
  Forgive my ignorance, but... doesn't Egypt do the same thing? They do it for the same reason that Israel does, Palestine sends out suicide bombers through it's borders.
  
  Don't get me wrong, it tears me up that the locals are suffering because of the actions of their government. However by allowing, funding and enabling their government to carry out attacks against innocents in other countries; they are complicit.
  
  --
  How do you kill that which has no life?
83. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Reservoir+Penguin · 2009-01-06 22:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If terrorists took over a US school and starting shooting at police from there, would it be ok to level it with artillery? I guess terrorists didnt give the army any choice? If Hamas took over an Israeli school (aka Beslan seige in Dagestan, Russia) would IDF start firing tank rounds into the school? Unthinkable, in both situation the would send special forces to kill the terrorists and there would be many casualtires among them. It's "they didn't have any choice" only because they dont value the lifes of arab kids, since taking many causalties in the Lebanon war IDF is very agressive at protecting their soldiers at any civilian cost. The world was (rightfully) outraged at the way my country conducted the Second Chechen War, leveling any building they were fired from with airstrikes and artillery. Because it's not the kids fault that some armed men setup a mortar firing position next to the UN school. It was the only place in Gaza they thought to be safe. How were they suppoised to drive them off? So NOT using artillery against a school full of kids, even if you are fired from that position is a valid moral choice in my opinion.
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
84. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by rastilin · 2009-01-06 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  The side most to blame is the side quickest to escalate the existing cycle of violence.
  
  I believe another poster made the perfect argument. "Would you rather Israel respond proportionally, by firing rockets randomly into Hamas population centers?". They have the right to take action to defend their civilians, that's what they're doing.
  
  Americans must start taking responsibility for what our bombs are doing over there. But I doubt anything will change until a significant number of Arabs immigrate to the US.
  The Americans have no involvement in this whatsoever. Don't be so quick to assume your government is a godlike entity that controls the world like a giant spider. There are other governments out there too you know.
  
  --
  How do you kill that which has no life?
85. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by NM+Kuttiady · 2009-01-07 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  Thats when you count 50 Palestinian deaths as "no violence" .....or perhaps your white superiority attitude doesn't see them as humans...
86. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Tarwn · 2009-01-07 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they really should have just lobbed hundreds of missiles randomly over the border and been done with it. That would have been much less indiscriminate.
  And so far their "wanton indiscriminate killing" seems to have gotten pretty lucky, in that more Hamas militia members have been killed then civilians...either that indicates a much larger Hamas force in the area (ie, high 'militia' to civilian ratio) than Hamas, the media, or Israel has indicated (and also that Hamas for once is not claiming any number of it's members are civilians) or it's just pure dumb luck that the "wanton indiscriminate killing" only penetrated far enough into the country to see 500 people and a high number of those were militia.
  
  --
  Whee signature.
87. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by nomad-9 · 2009-01-07 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  The "Peace process" is a process that ultimately leads to war.
  It deserves an Orwellian Newspeak Award.
88. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 00:33 · Score: 0
  
  Actually your comment is loaded.
  Every time there is a ceasefire that has been agreed by both sides, you have peace. Every time somebody breaks the ceasefire, that side is the side that "started it" in a very real sense.
  Israel/Palestine was never a "cycle" of violence. It is a series of seperate conflicts, mostly "started" by the Palestinians and/or surrounding states like Egypt, Jordan or Syria and mostly "ended" by Israel, through superior military force.
  Rapid escalation is the quickest way to end a conflict if you are the superior power - it may seem cruel, but remember that there has been peace over and over again in that region, always to be broken by Palestinians and those who share their beliefs.
89. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by jabster · 2009-01-07 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  "responsibility"?
  Let's review:
  According to International Law and the Geneva Conventions: It is illegal to hide ammunition and weapons among civilians. It is illegal to fire weapons from a civilian area/building. It is illegal to fight wearing civilian clothing (in this case you can immediately be executed if captured and have NO Prisoner of War status).
  The responsibility for these civilian deaths lies COMPLETELY with Hamas.
  Also, let's not forget that Hamas is intentionally targeting civilians.
  I guess by your logic, WWII was the US's fault since we "escalated" by dropping the atomic bombs.
  And Hamas definately has the ability to inflict 100:1 casualties. Strap a bomb on one "martyr" and send him into a crowded shopping mall. Unfortunately for you and Hamas, Israel has done a pretty good job recently of stopping those nutjobs before they can do any damage.
  Until people like you start to recognize Hamas for what it is, and to accept Israel's right to exist and to defend itself, not much is going to change over there.
  
  --
  Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
90. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 00:48 · Score: 0
  
  International law clearly states that if attacks are initiated from civilian location, then the other side has full right to treat those areas as war zones and attack and destroy them. If some one is shooting at you from his house, and you shoot back and kill him and the rest of the occupants of this house well... then i can't say it's pretty or should be done blindly but it fair since it leaves no other real choice in the matter. For example the Hamas was using the UN school that was bombed as a launching sight repeatedly. Knowing full well that families have taken refuge in that structure.
  These guys care less about there people then the palastinians then the Israelis, thats the sad cold truth.
91. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by nomad-9 · 2009-01-07 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  They want their opponents to know that starting a fight with them is a bad idea because they will finish it, harshly.
  Very theory-of-gamish. The problem is that feelings such as passion or decades of deep-seated hatred (from both sides) override rationality. Probably why that policy will never work, and might even worsen things.
92. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by EasyTarget · 2009-01-07 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  "in order to continue to pursue the aggressors, they need to sacrifice a few people of their own?"
  They have. 550 so far and counting...
  Or are you one of these retards who thinks that Israel, as the invader and military occupier of Palestine for 40 years, is somehow not the aggressor?
  
  --
  "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
93. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Actually most of the weaponry used is made in Israel. Only the fighter planes are made in the US, and even in those most of the electronics (on board computers, displays) is made in Israel.
94. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by tcr · 2009-01-07 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Lopsided seems likely if one side believes in the value of human shields...
  
  --
  
  Information wants to be beer.
95. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by inekam · 2009-01-07 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  You are saying that 550 to 5 is a lopsided number. How about 98,521 to 4,538. That number looks very lopsided to me too and that is the number of US and Iraqis killed. There is not such a thing as a proportional response to terror. It needs to be wiped out.
96. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by blueskies · 2009-01-07 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  550 Palestinian deaths to 5 Israeli deaths is so lopsided that it has to be stopped.
  So, if they "spend" Israeli troops on bayonet charges and lose more soldiers they can continue the fight because it will not be as lopsided?
97. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  oof! So close to a Godwin!
98. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Macd275 · 2009-01-07 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  timeOday (582209)"The side most to blame is the side quickest to escalate the existing cycle of violence."
  Would we react any different if Hamas (TERRORISTS) were striking our country from land that we GAVE them in hopes of peace? Imagine after that gesture those same people you GAVE land to fire rockets or allow others to fire rockets INDISCRIMINANTLY into YOUR COUNTRY? I can tell you after a little while I would get fed up and go FIX the problem through force, the only thing people in that region understand.
  timeOday (582209) "Americans must start taking responsibility for what our bombs are doing over there."
  We don't like to see it on the news but there are civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military is the BEST and most technologically advanced in the world and we still have civilian casualties form time to time.
  timeOday (582209) "only one side has the (US-supplied) means to accomplish this."
  If anyone remembers we were GIVING weaponry and supplies to Fatah, a Known Terrorist Organization, and when they were crushed by Hamas (TERRORISTS) take a wild guess as to who seized, and are now using, all that American made military hardware. Last I checked we SELL Israel their equipment. We GAVE Hamas (TERRORISTS) weapons by supplying their rival.
  EgoWumpus (638704) "Israel should stop killing recklessly. 550 Palestinian deaths to 5 Israeli deaths is so lopsided that it has to be stopped."
  BTW all that numbers game crap plays right into Hamas (TERRORIST'S) hand to get you to believe they are the victim of the "Evil Zionist Empire". There is a point at which you can make this argument but I don't know if 550 deaths is that point. This is especially true knowing that it is a FACT Hamas (TERRORISTS) has been known to used Human Shields.
  All I am saying is Hamas (TERRORISTS) wants civilian casualties to try and get the "world" on their side. Let Israel do what it needs to do to protects its people and if you have a problem with that then remember what we did after we were attacked by terrorist.
99. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by slashdotwannabe · 2009-01-07 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  If by "preemptive strike" you mean reacting to the 22 times Hamas attacked in violation of the ceasefire, you are entirely correct.
  
  --
  This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
100. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by FTWinston · 2009-01-07 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  They've been "talking" since 1948? Thats a bizarre definition.
  
  And lets be clear, every single day, rockets certainly do NOT rain down on Sderot. That's gross exaggeration. The latest cease fire certainl wasn't unanimously adhered to, but it was a significant improvement.
  
  Its not my intention to attempt to justify any violence by Hamas et al, but after 60 years in what amounts to an oversized concentration camp, its understandable that people get more than a little mad.
  
  Also, I'd debate that the overwhelming majority of americans are reasonable (the overwhelming majority of all people are not),
  and that Turkey is the only Muslim country to have kept to any international treaty while under any pressure.
  
  And lastly, you seem to be of the impression that Israel complies with international law? Ha!
101. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by FTWinston · 2009-01-07 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  It is obvious that the Israelis are not intentionally attacking the civilian population.
  
  Ha
102. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  What the hell do you expect?! After 50 years of occupation and oppression they're not exactly gonna be best friends.
  I live in Scotland; a country that was victim to the political machinations of its more powerful neighbor over 300 years ago - and to this day we're still bitching about it, to the point of cutting of our main source of income (the Barnett formula) just so we can call ourselves 'independent' (read: wards of the EU). A 300 year old perceived slight, still holds bad blood, so of course a 50 year old conflict that still rages today, with the death and starvation of millions, the bombing of power and sewage plants, the completely locked down borders that don't allow even base materials for life, let alone medical aid - is gonna result in more than just bitching to the international community.
  Seriously, what do you expect the people of palastine to do?! Roll over and give the Israeli's the rest of their land? Shut and up be happy they've not died yet? I know for a fact i wouldn't stand for that in my homeland - and im 100% certain your average red blooded, patriotic, gun mad slashdotter wouldn't either.
  As others have said, the almost untraceable origins of this conflict don't really matter - what matters is the here and now, and if Israel wants to continue to pretend to be civilised its gotta stop shelling civvies and schools, starving millions and provoking even further attacks by not stopping illegal settlers. Adhering to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed would also be a good start.
103. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Surt · 2009-01-07 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that the Israelis have the strongest possible evidence that it has worked : fact. When they respond to these attacks with an intense response, the other side often reduces attacks for months or years.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
104. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Haeleth · 2009-01-07 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Hamas does not keep to treaties. Nor does any other neighbour of Israel. The only muslim country that has EVER shown to keep to international treaties when under the slightest bit of pressure is Turkey, and that era in Turkey is coming to an end.
  Do pray tell us more about the strange parallel universe you are visiting from. In our reality, Israel has a neighbour called Jordan, which is a Muslim country that has coexisted peacefully with Israel for many years, even going so far as to abandon its territorial claims to the West Bank, and signed a peace treaty in 1994 that neither side has broken.
  Oh, and in our reality, Turkey is a secular state.
105. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  What do you mean by "That's not true."?
  I am talking about today, now.
  I cannot speak for my ancestors.
  What I am about to say is pointless speculation but perhaps if they had known how many innocent children would be killed by terrorists and armies they might have said yes.
106. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by nidarus · 2009-01-07 07:18 · Score: 1
  Mod parent up. I'd also add - even without considering civilian casualties, it's apparently very hard to even hit such a missile in the first place.
  Living in Israel, I hear IDF officials talking about anti-missile technology all of the time (prolly to justify their incredibly expensive research projects), and:
  
  It looks like a trivial problem, but it really isn't.
  The technology simply isn't there yet (look at how well the Patriot missiles worked during the first Gulf War).
  When it will be there, it's still an extremely expensive missile to shoot down a very cheap and easy-to-produce missile.
  Basically, the reason Israelis don't use anti-missile systems is not due to "reluctance", but for very practical reasons.
107. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 07:38 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  That's not true.
  At the end of WWII such a question was posed to every state in the world, including Ontario. They denied the request.
  Before WWI the ottoman empire responded in the positive and gave "palestine" (the current states of Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, the Sinai and a large part of Saudi Arabia and even a piece of Iraq were all part of Palestine) to the Zionists.
  Actually, that's not quite true either. The possible settlements in Canada and Australia were not considered until after the Uganda proposal was turned down in 1905.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zionism#Support_for_other_homelands
  
  That's why in 1948 there was such a large presence of Jews in Israel.
  Actually Jews have been returning in rather large numbers since the early 1800's. There has been a consistent and determined ideal to return to the supposed homeland for centuries, it just took a while for their patience in supernatural intervention to wear out and to decide to take it for themselves. There's little point in denying this - its the cause of a fundamental schism in orthodox circles.
  Like it or not this is the cause of the real problem in the middle east. Two groups of people demanding the right to self-determination. The only way to solve this without mass-removal of one the groups, is to hope the moderates on both sides (and they are there - the ones who really do just want to live and let live) become the majority and inject some civility into their respective sides. This would require ignoring religious fundamentalists on both sides, the Islamic nut-jobs who are hell bent on death and destruction, and the Ultra Zionist control freaks who think they have a God given right to their holy land. I don't see this happening in the short term, and as unpopular idea as this may be, I really think it's time that we sent a peacekeeper force to make damn sure things are done properly - the rockets are stopped; the aid is allowed in; and journalists are allowed back in.
108. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by nidarus · 2009-01-07 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  A modern military force aggressively and methodically assaulting a primarily civilian region outside its national borders containing a few militias armed with crude explosives and rocks looks pretty lopsided to most rational people.
  The HAMAS's policy is one based on violent struggle against Israel. It's something that they're proud to announce. The fact that they chose to fight against an enemy that is much stronger that they are (and to do so while using civilians as a human shield) might not be "fair", but it's the HAMAS's choice, and ultimately, the choice of the people who voted them into office.
  
  Israel is clearly violating the firm international law against collective punishment
  First of all, saying that any international law is "firm" is ludicrous. Basically, nobody cares about it. Even open, democratic nations like the US or the UK ignore international law when it doesn't please them, and I'm not even talking about Russia or China. "International law", where it comes to armed conflicts, is a joke.
  Second, if you think the purpose is just collective punishment, then how do you explain that the buildings targeted were either HAMAS military installations, houses of HAMAS officers or weapon storages? Even if you say that it's Israeli propaganda, it's clear that it's not just a carpet bombing. Why? Because of the incredibly high percentage of armed militants among the dead.
  
  Until Israel removes all illegal settlements and withdraws to its original borders, it will not have the moral high ground in this debate. If it does that and is subsequently attacked, then it will have my full sympathy and will be justified in limited and properly targeted retaliation.
  This experiment was already performed on a small scale, guess where? The Gaza strip.
  After removing all of the settlements from the Gaza strip (at a great cost, btw), did HAMAS announce that it had no quarrel with Israel on the Gaza strip? No - they starting shooting even more rockets from the strip. Why? While according to you, Israel has "original borders" it can retreat to, according to the HAMAS, "Historical Palestine"'s borders include all of Israel. Nobody, I repeat, nobody in the HAMAS claims that if Israel retreats from all of the West Bank (as it already retreated from all of the Gaza Strip), it will recognize Israel's right to exist. The war simply has nothing to do with it.
  But, apparently, Israel should do it to... gain your sympathy. Great...
109. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  What, exactly, is your response to a statement like this, backed up with rockets ? Do tell what the alternative course of action is for israel.
  Maybe they could go back to their own scriptures, which include, among other things, a passage where their God commands them to take the land of Canaan from its previous inhabitants by slaughtering every man, woman, and child living there; and then later on a passage where one of their great heroes is celebrated for killing Palestinians and cutting off parts of their genitals as a means of counting the death toll.
110. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Cederic · 2009-01-07 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Your numbers are out of date:
  
  About 300 of the more than 670 Palestinians killed so far are civilians, according to Palestinian and U.N. figures. Of those killed, at least 130 are children age 16 and under, says the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which tracks casualties.
  (from Associated Press, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcUECSml8TBNV82UJjUVkYddt2zgD95I95SG2)
  Are you really saying that a 40% collateral damage rate is acceptable?
  Are you really suggesting that 300 civilians, including 130 children, are worth killing in response to.. well, how many Israeli deaths? 5? 10? Shit, three of them were friendly fire.
  This is not proportionate. This is not moral. This is not accuracy.
  This is not even efficient.
  One day someone's going to nuke Israel. Palestine will get fucked the same day. At least then it'll be a fair fight.
111. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by EgoWumpus · 2009-01-07 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  I am not in the least arguing such a thick-headed course as that. However, Israel is killing hundreds of people - mostly civilians - in a disproportionate attack on Palestinian camps. If someone hits you in a bar, or on the playground, coming back and blowing their head off with an assault rifle is a similar, disproportionate response.
  In the playground situation, chances are you're isolated from other people because you've demonstrated a distinct lack of sense and control. In the 'adult' situation, similarly if there is a law enforcement structure around. If there is not, you run the very high risk of someone deciding to ace you before you hurt them, just like you did the first guy. Regardless, people will not treat you as 'a nice person they want to get along with'.
  Israel is digging a very deep hole here. The Palestinians are vastly disadvantaged militarily, economically and educationally. Continuing to pick this fight is not in anyone's best interest - and it's clearly not really a fight. It's Israel killing hundreds of people. They're clearly not at risk.
  This is proven by the lopsided casualties. It's proven by the fact that minorly wounded Israeli soldiers are getting the best medical care in the world, and doctors in the Gaza Strip don't have antiseptic to use while stitching the wounds of children caught in the fighting. If Israel cannot recognize it's barbaric behavior in this instance, it remains only for everyone else to say something. Past transgressions are not sufficient reason for this.
  
  --
  [Ego]out
112. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by HateBreeder · 2009-01-07 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Well, these numbers are the fault of Hamas.
  I bet you're one of those people that go and protest against the "community" when someone commits suicide.
  I on the other hand, put the responsibility for the suicide on no one other than the person who committed it.
  These are big philosophical differences.
  Say a criminal took a baby as a hostage, and walked around with a gun killing 10s of people.
  You would probably not stop him and let him finish off the entire population.
  I on the other hand, would say that this has to stop - and if the child dies while stopping it, then that's unfortunate.
  The truth about the method Hamas is using is even worse - Hamas builds mortar and missile launchers, inside schools, hospitals and UN facilities. It then proceeds to fire the rockets with hopes that when soldiers will retaliate, there will be an abundance of civilian casualties - that will put international pressure on Israel (due to the hypocritical nature of politics, especially being lobbied by arab oil).
  So hamas uses civilians as human shields to promote his political agenda.
  That is a war crime. You should look it up.
  You should blame hamas for all civilian deaths - Israel has never targeted even a single civilian - whereas hamas continually fires rockets into civilian population (not military facilities!).
  I'm going to disappoint you once again - no one will ever nuke Israel, but I can assure you, that if such a scenario will ever happen, it will be the end of the human race.
  
  --
  Sigs are for the weak.
113. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting, and you think this is civilized?
  No, I put it in to be sarcastic, to make a point regarding the vehement hate these people have for their fellow human beings.
  Also, to point out that it is just a worthless piece of desert, no more or less important than any other place on earth and probably less useful. Those that claim the land could just as well claim any other land on earth. As another poster said, offering the Israelies Ontario, they can come and build their Jerusalem on England's green and pleasant land if they like. And just like Ontario, we won't be hostile.
  It's time that the animals on both sides realised that we are all human beings. We are all in this together.
  To quote the Great Prophet Mustaine, "We all live on one planet, We'll all go up in smoke."
  Maybe soon the children will be born open-fisted?
  Stop the God-damned (although there is no god) fighting!
114. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by EgoWumpus · 2009-01-07 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  An interesting note to be made is that the popularity of Hamas has risen since Israel started this attack. A military response will only beget people who are bitter at what Israel is taking away from them - and they don't have a lot to begin with.
  The solution is, actually, to give the Palestinians stuff they don't want to lose. Jobs, homes, medical access, education even. You give it to as many people as you can, but you focus on giving something solid to few rather than giving something flimsy to many. Get those people who are in the middle something they won't want to lose in the fighting.
  Then, I bet, you'd see a significant shift. That you lay all Palestinian motivations in the same bucket as Hamas clearly demonstrates that you're not very saavy regarding how people are. Do you agree 100% with your president? With all of your presidents? With Congressional edicts? Are you happy with all parts of the US Constitution (I'm assuming US citizenship for sake of illustration), it's Code [of Laws] and so on?
  You're very right; talking to Hamas is not useful. They're using the plight of their people to push their own agenda. But I don't think it's the answer. Only once people have something to lose will they stop themselves and those around them from taking destructive actions. That can work two ways, btw; you can give the Palestinian middle and lower class something that will dissuade them from getting involved or electing violent leaders, or you can give their leaders either through action or inaction the weapons that will cause Israel and the rest of the world to think twice before starting a war. One of those routes is reasonable.
  
  --
  [Ego]out
115. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  Palestinians teach their children to hate. It's probably too late for them.
  Most ethnic groups tech their children to hate in one form of another. Xenophobia is an unfortunate facet of primitive human nature that can be overcome by enlightenment through education and experience.
  When (religious) dogma gets in the way, and when it is politically-incorrect to oppose religious dogma (in case it hurts peoples' feelings) there can be no progress.
  The Middle East is a good 500 years behind Western Europe.
  Here's a solution to the problem:
  Take all the children and good people out of the region. Leave everyone else to have a good all-out war. While they're busy fighting and giving each other Hell on Earth, drop a few nukes on 'em.
  Problem solved. Peace on Earth.
116. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by EgoWumpus · 2009-01-07 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  I would agree that it were religion if fanatical religious beliefs weren't so strongly correlated to lack of education, which in turn is largely the result of general wealth. The religious reasoning for the fighting is used for entirely emotional reasons. I posit that most of those emotional reasons stem from poverty on the Palestinian side. On the Israeli side, I think that it is continuing emotion from the loss of a large part of their population.
  To be truthful, that irony is the saddest facet of all of this.
  
  --
  [Ego]out
117. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by EgoWumpus · 2009-01-07 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  In a war between two sovereign states I might agree with you. But Hamas is a group that operates independent of the population over which it's governing. As an institution, or set of institutions, they aren't really providing anything. Courts, medicine, education, infrastructure - they don't have the resources for any of those things.
  What they do have is guerrilla structuring and weapons. You would have to not only be lopsided, but literally annihilate them. We couldn't even do that with Germany. The problem in this situation is that continued reckless (see below) destruction only gets more people on Hamas's side.
  And it is reckless. The number of civilian and child casualties is way too high for it to be otherwise. It's impossible, to my mind, to imagine how killing children is going to do anything other than galvanize people against you. Their parents will lose the will to live, except for vengeance. And the other children will only grow up seeing the result, not the reasoning, behind the deaths of people just like them. They'll empathize with that and hate the most proximal perpetrators for it. That's basic, uneducated reaction - and it's well established that they have no education to speak of.
  
  --
  [Ego]out
118. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Cederic · 2009-01-07 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  That is a war crime. You should look it up.
  I don't need to look it up. I know it's a war crime. I'm not trying to defend its legality.
  It doesn't excuse the slaughter of civilians by Israel. That's no better than the murder of thousands of unarmed Iraqis by the US. Bombed any weddings lately?
  Small arms fire from the vicinity of a school should not ever result in 30 dead children.
  Aerial bombing of civilian populations is not justified by mortar and rocket attacks that kill less than a dozen people a year.
  Would it be better not to have those rockets firing? Sure. How about finding an appropriate solution that doesn't involve indiscriminate killing?
  
  Israel has never targeted even a single civilian
  Now that is just utter proven bullshit. There are a lot of cases of Israeli soldiers targeting civilians, aid workers, journalists..
  
  if such a scenario will ever happen, it will be the end of the human race.
  This is not necessarily a bad thing.
119. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by EgoWumpus · 2009-01-07 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  That is very true, and shouldn't be tolerated. But 'not tolerating' it shouldn't necessitate the killing of the human shield. Israel has it's blood up and isn't thinking about this.
  
  --
  [Ego]out
120. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by EgoWumpus · 2009-01-07 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  I am very against US actions in Iraq as well, and think that it's a humanitarian holocaust there perpetrated by my government. I think, in fact, that the 100k number is low for what the deaths in that region has been.
  But I would posit that a disproportionate response is precisely what acts of terror are designed to instigate. As long as we persist in thinking of ourselves as needing to not 'appear' weak, we're going to have people attack us to reflexively get support when we then go in and wipe out a bunch of people. In particular, the leaders of those organizations are well practiced at that sort of manipulation - and we're clearly very vulnerable to it because many of our leaders also benefit from it.
  All that aside, the invasion of Iraq was not in response to a terror attack. The invasion of Iraq was an aggressive imperialistic move justified on an erroneous basis. It's even less justifiable than Israel's barbarism.
  
  --
  [Ego]out
121. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by EgoWumpus · 2009-01-07 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Alright, I've seen this reasoning a half dozen times. It's idiotic, and unimaginative. Israel clearly is not at risk in this endeavor; three of those five people were lost to friendly fire incidents. On the flip side, they've killed over six hundred people now, including over a hundred children. They're murdering.
  The lopsided numbers aren't pointed out to be corrected, but as a huge indicator that something is wrong. You see those kind of numbers in a 'war' and you know you're being lied to. It's not a war, it's shooting fish in a barrel. Except it's not fish. It's people.
  
  --
  [Ego]out
122. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by HateBreeder · 2009-01-07 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Israel has never targeted even a single civilian
  Now that is just utter proven bullshit. There are a lot of cases of Israeli soldiers targeting civilians, aid workers, journalists..
  I don't know what lies the media has been feeding you, but never ever, were civilians the target of an Israeli strike. You can call bullshit as much as you like... but for me, having served in the Israeli army, watched leftist journalists deliberately provoking soldiers, walking around a platoons sticking cameras to their faces and shouting "murderers!! death to Jews!!" - in face of all that, they were NEVER the target and we never got an order to attack them.
  Eventually they run into the line of fire trying to show the israeli "brutality" from their unbiased point of view.
  There are a handful of objective news channels out there... Reuters and the BBC are by far the WORST, with utter lies and photoshopped pictures (I'm not making this up: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165165/ )
  the best one i've seen so far is FOX news. comes second only to Israeli media stations (which are a bit too left biased in my taste)
  
  --
  Sigs are for the weak.
123. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by EgoWumpus · 2009-01-07 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Weapons don't cause conflicts, they just make having them a lot easier.
  Fixed that for you... ;)
  
  --
  [Ego]out
124. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by WiiVault · 2009-01-07 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  So let me get this straight? You are pro genocide of the Palestinians? Oh boy. I'm at a loss for words.
125. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Cederic · 2009-01-07 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE6D7123AF933A15757C0A9659C8B63
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1429096/British-cameraman-shot-dead-by-Israeli-soldiers.html
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/06/israel2
  http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/889281.html
  http://www.usatoday.com/travel/cruises/item.aspx?type=photo&photo_id=0eY4akVfByfWH&tid=05YG14l3Yj8zn&pn=1
  http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=5480&Cr=unrwa&Cr1=
  None of those are Reuters, none of those are BBC.
126. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by turgid · 2009-01-07 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  I live in Scotland; a country that was victim to the political machinations of its more powerful neighbor over 300 years ago - and to this day we're still bitching about it
  I was born and brought up in Scotland. My family is Scottish through and through going back generations, and my father made sure that I "knew" how stupid the English were... Having said that he is a Unionist (Tory).
  When I was a small child I was fiercely patriotic. I was going to grow up and marry a pure-bred Scottish woman and have a Scottish family, all brought up in Scotland.
  By the age of about 15 I realised the absurdity of national boundaries, and was prepared to make a life for myself anywhere in the world.
  I went as far as south-east England and married an English woman.
  It's obvious to most semi-intelligent people that modern national boundaries are anachronisms, and exist for political reasons. All human beings are one and the same fundamentally.
  All of these petty conflicts are to be pitied, even the trivial Scotland vs. England rivalry. Scotland only joined with England to form the United Kingdom because it was bankrupt because the Scottish colony of Jamaica went wrong etc.
  A federal UK might be a good idea nowadays, but it will never happen. England would need to be split up into 5 or 6 regions. The English would never have it.
  Now, a federal, democratic United States of Europe would be even better. Whether Scotland was still in the UK or independent within Europe then wouldn't really matter... but the English just wouldn't have it. They are England, after all, "The best country in the world. Take that, Johnny foreigner!" It's why we still have pints, feet and inches, pounds and ounces, and banknotes with Her Maj's face on...
  Oh, is that reality calling? *harp noises* Time to wake up.
  
  --
  Stick Men
127. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Neoprofin · 2009-01-07 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  That you're trying to be a smug shit about the GP suggesting that this wont end until the Palestinians are dead or stop buying into Hamas, completely ignoring that there's been a 60 year campaign to wipe out the Israelis that just hasn't been very successful.
  
  Until the Palestinians come to grips with the fact that they are never going to get that land back unless Israel is in a giving mood, and move on with their existence, there will never be peace. (And that's assuming you believe that the Palestinians would settle for getting what they want unless they also get the destruction of Israel.) Of course that hasn't happened in the last 60 years, and it's probably not going happen any time soon, as GP points out it's a lot more likely that Hamas or some similar group will probably continue to goad Israel until they turn Gaza into a sheet of glass.
128. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Apple+Acolyte · 2009-01-07 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  They have. 550 so far and counting... Or are you one of these retards who thinks that Israel, as the invader and military occupier of Palestine for 40 years, is somehow not the aggressor?
  Are you one of these retards who thinks that Israel still has any presence in Gaza? Israel quit Gaza years ago, removing its military installations and making it Juden-rein by eliminating Jewish homes like Gush Katif in 2005. That's right, Israel ethnically cleansed Jews out of Gaza (part of the land of Israel), based on the false promise of the Israeli left that doing so would lead to peace with Gazans. But instead of fostering peace by ending the so-called Israeli "occupation of Gaza" (a misnomer because Israel can't be occupying land technically and morally its own), the overtly terroristic, antagonistic Hamas (which vows never to recognize Israel) was elected by the "poor, oppressed" Arabs of Gaza, and Hamas launched thousands of rockets on Israeli civilians - 7,500 from 2001-2009. Rockets were fired even when there was a supposed cease-fire. How long was Israel supposed to quietly endure open warfare from Hamas on its citizens? How long was Israel supposed to neglect is obligation as a sovereign country to protect the lives and property of its citizens? Apparently, according to radical Muslim-lovers like you, the answer would be never. Learn this: Jews will not willingly march into ovens or go in front of machine guns, submissively accepting another Holocaust.
  
  --
  Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
129. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Apple+Acolyte · 2009-01-07 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with lumping all religions together in the fashion you do is that not all religions are guilty of what you accuse them all of. For instance, while your statement that religions foster in their adherents an, "unconditional feeling of enmity towards all others who don't follow their version of The One Way" certainly applies to a great degree to Islam, it certainly does not apply to Judaism. Judaism has always taught that there are many paths to God and salvation, and while Judaism does teach that its views are the correct ones and proper for Jews to hold, it also acknowledges that the other nations of the world have their own wisdom; Judaism specifically prohibits its adherents from actively seeking converts or in any way pressuring others to discard their religions in favor of Judaism.
  
  In contrast, Islam teaches that the whole world is divided into the world of submission (to Islam) against the world of war (which is against Islam) and that Muslims have certain obligations to wage jihad and actively seek converts through violent means.
  
  Judaism serves as much of the basis for the other two monotheistic faiths that sprang from it, Christianity and Islam. And I'm sure that if you read the holy texts of Judaism, you'd realize that even for a secular, atheistic person, the words are replete with powerful, very positive morals and standards of behavior. Judaism teaches for example, one to care for his family, to love his neighbor, to act ethically at all times, and even to act with a certain level of kindness toward one's enemies. I'm betting that you have little understanding of Judaism while assailing all religions.
  
  Muslims control 99% of the lands referred to as the Middle East. Israel controls a bit less than 1% of that land. Muslims are in control of 52 sovereign countries, 22 of which are ethnically Arab by majority. There is only one Jewish country Israel, a country so tiny that you could easily miss it on a map. Israel is on a small percentage of a greater area of land that some of us religious Jews refer to as Greater Israel, which is closer in area to the original Palestine Mandate that Lord Balfour declared should be set aside as a whole as the Jewish homeland, in recognition of the historical bond between the land of Israel and the Jewish people. (The Land of Israel was the land of the ancient Biblical Commonwealths of Israel.)
  
  The religion of Islam does not place any restrictions on the level of conquest of its adherents. In fact, Islam commands its subjects to bring the entire world to subjugation to Islam. Judaism, on the other hand, normally seeks peace with the other powers of the world. Jews pray for peace constantly. While in exile, Jews are commanded to be loyal to the country they live in, and religious Jews are taught not to engage in the politics of the foreign country they reside in but rather to let non-Jews rule over them. But there is one exception: The Land of Israel. Judaism teaches the Jew to love and value the Land of Israel. It is one of the most important aspects of Judaism. It is a land grant that Jews believe is their possession, an eternal grant from God, is of supreme importance. That small area of the world is the only place on earth where Jews are religiously entitled to live. There is no possibility of having a homeland for the Jewish people anywhere else, and Jews would never make a religious claim to any other piece of land than the land of their forefathers.
  
  In the aftermath of the Holocaust, even non-religious Jews saw the great value of restoring Jewish sovereignty over the ancient homeland. And just as prophesied in the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Jewish people, after a long and crushing exile, began to return home to the land of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, of King David, of King Solomon, etc, etc.
  
  Israel today is a country very tired of war, literally traumatized by it in many ways, since it has been forced to fight for its survival perpetually ever since it gained statehood in modern ti
  
  --
  Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
130. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  It's also lopsided if you reject the infantile reasoning that past deaths justify future murders.
  A modern military force aggressively and methodically assaulting a primarily civilian region outside its national borders containing a few militias armed with crude explosives and rocks looks pretty lopsided to most rational people.
  
  All Hamas has to do is stop firing Iranian designed missiles into Israel. They continued firing said missiles during the entire course of the "cease-fire" and have fired multiple ones every single day since the end of it. Including today.
131. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by kj37 · 2009-01-07 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  A six-month ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas ended last week.
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7799593.stm Israel killed several Hamas members, Hamas responded with rockets, Israel responded with airstrikes and an invasion. This seems to be the same tactic Israel has been using for thirty years:
  The article is a little unclear on the circumstances. Israel killed them becuase they were on the way to kidnap Israeli soldiers. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5089940.ece
  What "tactic" is that?
  
  There have also been talks of the US selling the Israelis our C-RAM (Counter - Rocket, Artillery and Mortar) systems (based on the naval Phalanx CIWS). It would take one to two dozen of them (Depending on if you wanted redundant backups) to completely cover the Gaza strip, from the outside. This would allow Israeli to intercept rockets, artillery and mortars before they ever leave Palestinian airspace. I find it a tad interesting that a few months before Israel gets near immunity to rocket attacks, they get 'fed up' and invade.
  according to this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/cram.htm Those things have only have 60-70% accuracy at shooting projectiles down. And even then, there is damage from shrapnel , and it really doesnt seem to be in active use anywhere in the world yet.
  And even so, if you could go buy it at Wal-Mart and it would magiclally vaporize 100% of incoming projectiles, Israel should just let Hamas shoot at will until Wal-Mart gets it in stock?
132. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by indi0144 · 2009-01-08 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe because Jews OWN 90+% of world mass media??? maybe?
133. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by blueskies · 2009-01-08 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Alright, I've seen this reasoning a half dozen times. It's idiotic, and unimaginative. Israel clearly is not at risk in this endeavor; three of those five people were lost to friendly fire incidents
  Of course it is idiotic--that was the point. You posted your objection being the imbalance of people dying as the problem. Your expanded explanation makes sense of your reasoning.
  War is always murder. That is the means used to make a country forcefully submit.
  But you have to admit it is pretty close to asking for war when a country's stated policy is that it wants to destroy your country. Not to say at all that Israel has the high moral ground in this situation or anything, but Hezbollah knew before the rocket attacks, that they would get crushed if they awoke Israel to military action.
  You poke the bear at your own peril. Don't act surprised when you get hurt by it.
134. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Surt · 2009-01-08 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if that's the case the arabs should just buy them out with their oil money, it would be cheap for them to do so.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
135. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  A culture (Jew) that teaches that ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING outside their faith and their blood heritage is a PIG can intentionally attack anything they want. Military are trained to inflict terror on Palestinian population and I know it because I have a friend in Israel Army and they are explicitly required to behave in such way, Jew and Arabs are not so different after all.
136. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by indi0144 · 2009-01-08 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  So AMD does not have too much to worry about after 2012(TM) "AMD the CPU for a brave-new-post-apocalyptic-world"
137. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by nomad-9 · 2009-01-08 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that the Israelis have the strongest possible evidence that it has worked : fact. When they respond to these attacks with an intense response, the other side often reduces attacks for months or years.
  ..The evidence points to the fact that, after a period of relative calm (definitely not years) , things get much worse, as the other side rebuilds its strength. What reality shows is that intimidation does not work long term on people that have not much to loose, and probably never will.
138. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-08 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  Oh right, the Israelis should respond with half-arsed rockets and suicide bombers. Makes sense.
  Here's some reading for you:
  1. Nationhood and Jerusalem. Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE, Two thousand years before the rise of Islam.
  2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
  3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.
  4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than 22 years.
  5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
  6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.
  7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.
  8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.
  9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.
  10 The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.
  11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.
  12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab la nds to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people's lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey .
  13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.
  14. The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.
  15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.
  16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
  17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.
  18. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.
  19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
  20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting theTemple Mount and the Western Wall.
139. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Surt · 2009-01-08 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Right, so the best possible policy from the Israeli possibility would be non stop bombings, right, because that's what works?
  The problem is that short term intermittent reinforcement is the most powerful psychological reinforcement possible. There have been plenty of studies documenting this.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
140. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Plutonite · 2009-01-08 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason Judaism isn't as active on the conversion issue is because of the clear tendency towards racism in the old testament. Even today the ashkenazi and sephardi divisions persist. And the people who are "chosen", in the central theme of the faith, do not have to worry so much about the goyyim, who largely don't matter, and are inferior in the most literal of ways. I have spent the earlier part of my life learning about all these faiths, in depth, individually. What you have to understand is that you are talking about books written millenia ago. Do not try to make any of them appear civilized or rational, because they are not. The Torah contains some of the most sickening passages of bloodshed and massacre in the entire biblical history - the God of the new testament is actually known to be more 'merciful'.
  There is no rationality in the tales of religion. The muslim fanatics can kill in the name of religious hegemony, and the jewish nutjobs can kill in the name of their superiority and their divine rights and chosen blood.
  Ask yourself why the more religious right wing Jews are the ones who are warmongering, disgusting war criminals, whereas the secular ones have always called for peace. Who killed Isaac Rabin? It wasn't those terrible muslims, was it? Who lives in the settlements that are built on the blood and land of innocent people? Have you not heard the words of the civilized, secular SPECIAL FORCES divisions - the finest men and women in Israel- that refused to serve in the IDF and published widely read letters? Do you think you know more about these wars and this mess than they do? All religions contain ugliness, because like the other poster said, it's part of evolution - without it they don't survive. There wouldn't be a single practising jew today if 'disbelieving' had no consequences.
  "All Israelites will have a part in the future world . . . The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell."
  --Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah, Lekh-Lekha
  That's religion for you.
  A quick search on how the jewish faith and racial mindset affects politics will give you things like this, and if you go read for yourself you will find much more. Some examples:
  http://www.rense.com/general42/morej.htm
  http://opposingdigits.com/forums/about2072.html
  Don't forget to read the section on scripture. And don't take this as an attack on one faith - this is a reminder of what they all are, or rather, what they NEED to be.
141. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Apple+Acolyte · 2009-01-08 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, more ignorance, from Plutonite, and this time it's ignorance and hatred disguised as knowledge. I'm surprised you're a friend of a friend because you're no friend of mine, you narrow-minded Jew-hating prick. You've been reading far too much Jew-hating propaganda from miserable excuses for human beings like Jeff Rense. You're just a foolish miscreant parroting Jew-hating content, and I'll prove that fact below.
  
  The only reason Judaism isn't as active on the conversion issue is because of the clear tendency towards racism in the old testament. Even today the ashkenazi and sephardi divisions persist. And the people who are "chosen", in the central theme of the faith, do not have to worry so much about the goyyim, who largely don't matter, and are inferior in the most literal of ways.
  Actually, there was conversion practiced in the time of the Torah account. Abraham converted many to proto-Judaism. Ashkenazi and Sephardi divions may persist to some degree in certain insular communities in the exile, but the distinction is largely disappearing in Israel. I'm in love with a Sephardic Israeli girl, and I'm Ashkenazi. You're just a pathetic Jew-hater.
  
  What you have to understand is that you are talking about books written millenia ago. Do not try to make any of them appear civilized or rational, because they are not. The Torah contains some of the most sickening passages of bloodshed and massacre in the entire biblical history - the God of the new testament is actually known to be more 'merciful'.
  Uh huh. You don't substantiate any of those very vitriolic claims. There was bloodshed in Biblical times just as there is bloodshed today. So what? If you had a verse or a teaching from the Torah that you could point to that you find so objectionable, you would have referenced it directly. You're full of it. Judaism has done more to civilize the world than any other single force.
  
  There is no rationality in the tales of religion. The muslim fanatics can kill in the name of religious hegemony, and the jewish nutjobs can kill in the name of their superiority and their divine rights and chosen blood.
  You'll point it out to me when right-wing Jews blow themselves up to kill "infidels," teach their children to be murderers and martyrs, hijack planes in order to fly them into buildings, and pass out candy in celebration of the death of the "infidel." Funny, that kind of thing doesn't occur. There's no way to draw any equivalence between Islamic barbarism and anything at all comparable on the Jewish side, you fool.
  
  Ask yourself why the more religious right wing Jews are the ones who are warmongering, disgusting war criminals, whereas the secular ones have always called for peace.
  Uh huh. Just who would those war criminals be? I suppose you think Arafat, YM"SH, was a hero, right? Israel has always pursued peace. Senile old war hero Ariel Sharon's master plan to disengage from Gaza (by ethnically cleansing Israelis there) was sold to Israel as a way to gain peace with Gaza, and he was one of the most right-wing Israeli leaders.
  
  Who killed Isaac Rabin?
  Most likely the Israeli government, based on what's known about the assassination, and it was blamed on Yigal Amir, who appears to be a patsy. And no one in the public, not even what you'd call the extreme Jewish right-wing, wanted that to happen.
  
  Do you think you know more about these wars and this mess than they do?
  Yeah, I actually do. I do know for a fact that I know more than some jerk-off Arabist toady who has most likely never been to the country he denounces and has only a Jew-hater's understanding of Judaism.
  
  There wouldn't be a single practising jew today if 'disbelieving' had no consequences.
  What? That statement makes absolutely no sense. Those who don't believe in Judaism don't practice it. A huge portion of Je
  
  --
  Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
142. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-09 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately I agree with the parent poster. Judaism has it's ugly sides.
  Are you a Jew ? Do you like "good deeds", a "good path"/"good choice" ?
  In Hebrew this is called "mitzvot", to give a point of comparison for everybody who is not a jew, let's use the arabic word for it "sunna" or "sharia", depending on context.
  So these are rules, and are most certainly not meant to be interpreted indirectly.
  The Jews, ever so scholarly (which is a really good thing) have numbered all their laws, or "mitzvot".
  And I'm truly sorry to be asking this, but, dear "Apple Acolyte", have you done your 355'th law justice lately ? The one about burning cities ? There are certainly enough cities that deserve burning according to Judaism's conditions.
  I realise that Israel has very good behavior, and you're obviously right, racism based on genes does not exist in Israel. There are so many good things about Israel that numbering them would not be possible. Racism based on religion, although certainly nowhere near as cruel as the muslim racism, is alive and well in Israel. And yes I realise why this is, and I would not want Israel to change this, because the consequences are to dire to discuss.
  But let's be fair, and analyse the source of this. Judaism, if ever again practiced like it was in biblical times, would not be seriously distinguishable from islam's current behavior. However, it must be said that that brand of Judaism hasn't been practiced for almost 10 centuries now, but let's be fair and realize what maimonides did : he christianized Judaism, in essence doing what the church fathers did 7 centuries before him : make Judaism's law subject to what basically amounts to the new testament's rules of human behavior. Judaism today is much, much closer to protestantism than it is to the Judaism of Moses or the Judaism of Salomon, or even the Judaism that Jesus Christ was taught. Even the Judaism symbol that graces the flag of Israel, the sign of King David, is not practiced, not even by the most Charedi of the Jews.
  BUT : I would much, much rather live in a world dominated by Jews than a world dominated by muslims. Too bad the domination aspect is just as present in the Torah as it is in the quran. It can easily be argued that 2/3rds of the quran is about hate, and in the bible 99,9% is devoted to love and good deeds. But the domination aspect is more than present. At least with the Jews on top there would be music, wine, love and poetry.
  But to tell you the truth Christians on top seems a much better prospect yet. Perhaps not the church, but Christians.
143. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Apple+Acolyte · 2009-01-09 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately I agree with the parent poster. Judaism has it's ugly sides.
  You may think there are ugly sides. I don't. You seem to be preoccupied with a belief that there is widespread teaching of domination in Judaism. The problem is, you also miss the point and didn't recognize the distinction I pointed to, which is unfortunate because it's very easy to understand. As I told that Jew-hater Plutonite, there is only one part of the world where Jews are allowed and commanded religiously to be dominant, and that is the Land of Israel. Jews cannot be domineering anywhere else in the world according to the Torah, only that relatively small portion of land. In contrast, Muslims are told to spread Islamic domination across the entire world. I know that I'm repeating myself, but until people like you and Plutonite bother to put your biases aside and look at the truth of what I'm presenting instead of ignoring it, I'll continue to repeat myself.
  
  The Jews, ever so scholarly (which is a really good thing) have numbered all their laws, or "mitzvot".
  That's correct, 613 of them.
  
  And I'm truly sorry to be asking this, but, dear "Apple Acolyte", have you done your 355'th law justice lately ? The one about burning cities ? There are certainly enough cities that deserve burning according to Judaism's conditions.
  Um, actually, you're misinformed as to your numbering. The 355th Mitzvah, according to Maimonides's list, is to carry out of the procedure of the guilt offering. You're right that there is a Mitzvah calling for the burning down of cities that revert to idolatry, but again that only applies to Jewish cities in the Land of Israel that are openly disobeying the Torah. And, there are a number of Mitzvot such as that one that by design must be carried out by the authority of the country's religious assembly, once referred to as the Sanhedrin. If I were to list all of the Mitzvot concerning charity, compassion for the widow and the orphan, regard for the well-being of others, including even one's enemies, would that make any difference to you? If I were to mention that Christianity did not invent "Love your neighbor," that that's also a Torah mitzvah, would that have any effect on your view?
  
  I realise that Israel has very good behavior, and you're obviously right, racism based on genes does not exist in Israel. There are so many good things about Israel that numbering them would not be possible.
  Thank you very much for recognizing that fact. Of course, there will probably be some degree of racism in the dark corners of any society on earth, but those who claim there's a class system separating Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews in Israel is absolutely wrong.
  
  Racism based on religion, although certainly nowhere near as cruel as the muslim racism, is alive and well in Israel. And yes I realise why this is, and I would not want Israel to change this, because the consequences are to dire to discuss.
  I would say you're probably thinking of the term discrimination instead of racism when speaking about religion, but again I have to disagree with you. Arab citizens of Israel have more rights than their cousins in Arab countries, including full voting rights. They get to elect Arabs to Israel's parliament, the Knesset, who routinely denounce the existence of Israel in its own national assembly. Arabs build new towns in Israel without getting government permits; when Jews do the same thing the towns get torn down. (Israel is afraid to enforce its laws against its Arabs but not against its Jews.) Arabs even have much wider free speech rights than Jews. Jews get thrown into jail for simple free speech rights that Israel is afraid will incite Arab passions, but Arabs get to defame Jews and the Jewish state without similar fear of arrest. Jews employ Arabs in their businesses, often for the cheaper labor, but they still do it, while many Jews there can't find
  
  --
  Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
144. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by WiiVault · 2009-01-10 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  If you represent the thoughts of the Israeli government than I can certainly understand why a group like Hamas came to power. You are the smug shit here my friend, by falling for the BS that this land is "meant" for the Jewish people. Who says its theirs? Oh yeah them, and the west. When you steal land and put people in concentration camps you should accept the natural outcome. It really scares me how people who have been oppressed for so long can become just as evil as their oppressors so quickly. Sure makes me less sympathetic to their previous plights.
145. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Neoprofin · 2009-01-10 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  I never said once that it was meant for them, that they had a claim to it, that it's theirs rightfully or anything of the sort.
  
  The have it, period. They are in it and they have the will and force to keep it, period.
  
  I didn't make a single call at the right and wrong, the fair and unfair, I simply called it like it is. If you want to believe that a realistic view of the situation (ie: Palastinians will never force Israel out of Gaza unless Israel leaves by their own choice) is some Zionist rant you're more than welcome to.
146. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by nomad-9 · 2009-01-14 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Right, so the best possible policy from the Israeli possibility would be non stop bombings, right, because that's what works?
  On the contrary. My point was that intimidation and violence does not work, long term or short term. 60 + years of an ongoing conflict seems to confirm that.
  Game theory does not apply to that region of the globe, no matter the number of studies made elsewhere. And that would be probably because the theory of games presumes that the actors are for the most part rational individuals. Neither sides in this conflict are remotely close to being rational.
147. Re:Fighting Cultures, Not Religions by Surt · 2009-01-14 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  My disagreement is on the short term. In the short term, it works really, really well. They disrupt Hamas' (or the enemy of the day's) supply lines and the terrorism level drops significantly.
  And that, unfortunately, is the strongest type of reinforcement psychologically. (Short term, intermittent reinforcement).
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Re:Anti-truth and the US/gov't-run media by Slugster · 2009-01-06 09:12 · Score: 1

An important thing for US readers to keep in mind is that the US mainstream press very rarely ever reports anything bad about Israel (I remember the US bulldozer girl, what others can you recall?). To a great extent, British press is much the same way.

Anytime you have armed conflict, bad things happen because that's the way humans are--but in the US media, most of those "bad things" are consistently not done by Jews, even though the Jews there have superior weapons and numbers.

,,,I suppose you could say that I am anti-Israel, but only to the degree that I feel that too many US leaders have thought that whatever happens to Israel would have some immense impact on the future of the US. I generally hope people "over there" don't resort to killing each other, but if they do it's really not the US's problem.

-------

I myself suspect that eventually the tide of world opinion will turn against Israel, for the same reasons it turned against South Africa's apartheid regime. People (in both these examples of countries) who wish to exclude "the undesireables" have to be mean to do it, forever... and others (worldwide) who do not live in a similar situation, come to understand the opinions of the besieged less and less as time goes on.
~
OMG A Voluntary Botnet?? by Arancaytar · 2009-01-06 09:15 · Score: 3, Funny

That's so cool, where do I sign up to turn my computer into a zombie controlled by a shady Command Central? Does that cost anything or is it free?
You aren't creative enough here by coryking · 2009-01-06 09:17 · Score: 1

Dont forget the botnet could be used as a social engineering tool and send out phishing email to everybody @yourmilitary.mil.fu . Get all these people to click on a phising webpage hosted somewhere on your botnet. Hit the right personnel and you could land yourself some valuable information.
And besides, screw military. What about hospital networks, school networks, utility networks? You think those are all somehow on the public internet? Even if the command channels aren't, a large DDOS could bring down their email at minimum.
If you think "cyberwar" is just "log into a unix shell and type 'rm -rf'", you aren't being creative enough. Put yourself into a more evil mindset for a minute and apply all the scams people now use on the intertubes and then add a twist of global-intertubular-war.
1. Re:You aren't creative enough here by morgan_greywolf · 2009-01-06 09:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Dont forget the botnet could be used as a social engineering tool and send out phishing email to everybody @yourmilitary.mil.fu . Get all these people to click on a phising webpage hosted somewhere on your botnet. Hit the right personnel and you could land yourself some valuable information.
  Not likely. If the IT infrastructure in other countries is anything like the U.S. military's, then computers that can send and receive Internet e-mail are most assuredly NOT connected to any sensitive networks. Military and civilian personnel working for the DOD and the various branches of the armed services have completely separate machine -- usually even located in different rooms.
  Even if both machines are on a given individual's desk, the one with the Internet connection will either have all physical drives removed or secured by a locking device. This includes USB ports, firewire ports, etc. Procedures for getting software or data from the Internet onto a secured military network involve jumping through many, many hoops, usually including approval and clearance from appropriate personnel.
  
  --
  My blog
Insightful? by catbertscousin · 2009-01-06 09:25 · Score: 1

Because, clearly, Hamas lobbing rockets and mortars into Israel's civilian areas is such a peaceful, friendly way to behave. Israel is clearly wrong for doing anything to try to protect their own mothers, brothers, uncles, girlfriends, etc. ~

If your neighbor was firing his shotgun into your yard, at your wife and kids, would you just sit there?

--
No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
1. Re:Insightful? by nicolas.kassis · 2009-01-06 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  The question is not should they but how are they. Does hamas need to go? Yes. Will this do it? Probably not since Hamas is built on this sort of conflict.
2. Re:Insightful? by Dan667 · 2009-01-06 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, a couple dozen bad actors are shooting rockets and you think the correct response is to liquidate all of Gaza, civilians and all? You think Israel is refusing to let journalists in, because they are behaving so morally?
  
  If you ignored the rule of law and killed your neighbor, you would end up in prison for life.
3. Re:Insightful? by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 11:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So far the UN reports that the civilian casualty rate (the percentage of casualties who were civilians) is 25%. That means a 75% military rate. Unfortunately, that rate is far better than almost any modern war.
4. Re:Insightful? by Dan667 · 2009-01-06 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  For it to be a war both sides would have to have a actual military. This is just a Israeli liquidation of a walled off population.
5. Re:Insightful? by Antlerbot · 2009-01-06 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  A walled off population that happens to be lobbing rockets at their citizenry.
  Oh look, we're going around in circles again...
6. Re:Insightful? by catbertscousin · 2009-01-07 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Not in the least. Liquidation of civilians is never the answer. Therefore, I object to hamas being allowed to fire rockets and send suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians with no repercussions.
  
  You'd more likely end up with a verdict of self-defense. If you just stand there and let him shoot your family while waiting for the police to arrive, you might get charged with negligence.
  
  --
  No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
7. Re:Insightful? by Dan667 · 2009-01-07 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  A walled off population that Israel is keeping there in a police state. Not quite a circle.
8. Re:Insightful? by Dan667 · 2009-01-07 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  If you killed the person shooting at you and then all of their family and friends then you would be charged with murder and you would get a movie of the week made about you.
Re:future of volunteering your computer into a bot by Dogtanian · 2009-01-06 09:43 · Score: 2, Funny

It's a sort of a seti-at-home kind of thing when you look at it that way...
You mean someone's trying to find out if there's intelligent life in the Middle East?

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
What happened? by Savage-Rabbit · 2009-01-06 09:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Uh, they posted video of mortars being fired from that school last week. Was it currently being used? We have no way of knowing, but that's how all intelligence works.
Point being the elected government of Gaza was using a UN non-military building as a base of operations to launch attacks on a civilian populace.
According to the Israelis what happened was small arms fire coming from the direction of the UN school which in their opinion made it worth firing at. In short, according to the latest news reports, it appears that two Hamas fighters are dead at the cost of some 30+ kids and their care takers being killed as well. The sad thing is that many lives could probably have been saved over the last few days if the Israelis hadn't embargoed all sorts of medical equipment which has been piling up at the border for months. If Israel shot it self in the foot with the invasion and bombardment of Lebanon back in 2006 it is now shooting it self in both feet with this latest raid on Gaza. It is an awsome manifestation of the unshakeable US/Israeli belief that conflicts like this one are best resolved with the lavish over use of firepower but in the long run it won't do anything to end Hamas' resistance efforts. Even if Hamas is "cynically using civilians as a human shield" like the Israelis are claiming it still won't help Israel's cause very much in the long run. All the world will remember is the dead kids. I am no friend of Hamas but no matter how hard you try you won't succeed in making the sheer galactic stupidity of what Israel is currently doing in Gaza sound like a good idea.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
1. Re:What happened? by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  All the world will remember is the dead kids.
  Since when has world opinion saved a single life on either side of this conflict?
2. Re:What happened? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  Since when has world opinion saved a single life on either side of this conflict?
  Never, but when the dust settles the only thing the Israelis will have gained is that they will look like the barbarians until the next time Hamas is dumb enough to send one of their death-volunteers to blow up a school-bus, and this even if it is really true what the Israeli army is claiming (and which I have a hard time believing even if this is Hamas we are talking about) that Hamas is deliberately using civilians as a human shield. After this operation in Gaza winds down the rockets won't stop, the suicide bombers will keep coming, the resistance in Gaza will continue, the misery of the Palestinians will continue and for every civilian the Israeli forces killed in Gaza, Hamas will have gained a battalion of new supporters. No amount of US funded Israeli firepower will ever resolve this conflict. I can only marvel at the appetite both the Palestinians and the Israelis display for prolonging this agony.
3. Re:What happened? by sponga · 2009-01-06 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Those Hamas fighters could have easily told the children to evacuate before they fire those missiles/mortars from the top of the school.
  That is cold and yet the people who voted them in turn a blind eye to that.
Hipocritical summary by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

So in the summary, the Palestinians are accused of e-vandalism, then it finishes with a call to join a pro-israeli bot-net.
Complete and utter hipocrasy, which leads my bullshit filter to tell me that the so-called anonymous contributer is pro-israeli, using an unwitting kdawson to try and garner support by the slashdot crowd.
Fuck war. I just got to a peaceful country after living through years of civil war and the effects on the average person are a thousand times worse than you'll see on the internet/TV/newspapers. NO-ONE involved in ANY war has any moral credence. Cyber-recruiters using people's ignorance are just as much a part of it, too.
1. Re:Hipocritical summary by DaveV1.0 · 2009-01-06 12:57 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Hamas spends five years launching rockets at schools and residential areas and not one word from anyone. Israel decides it has had enough and acts to stop the cowardly fucks and people complain about how mean Israel is and how it is hurting the Palestinians.
  If Hamas had not fired rockets into Israel again, after taking a six month break to build more and better rockets, then none of this would have happened.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
2. Re:Hipocritical summary by ultranova · 2009-01-06 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Hamas spends five years launching rockets at schools and residential areas and not one word from anyone. Israel decides it has had enough and acts to stop the cowardly fucks and people complain about how mean Israel is and how it is hurting the Palestinians.
  
  A cowardly fuck hides behind children and a murderous fuck shoots through those children to get at him. Fuck them both.
  Personally, I'm starting to think that The Onion proposed the only workable solution.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
3. Re:Hipocritical summary by DaveV1.0 · 2009-01-07 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  So, what is Hamas, a group that shoots AT Israeli children while hiding behind Palestinian children?
  And, what would you do if someone hid behind his children, and started taking pot shots at your child? Just ignore him or shoot back at him?
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
4. Re:Hipocritical summary by ultranova · 2009-01-07 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  So, what is Hamas, a group that shoots AT Israeli children while hiding behind Palestinian children?
  
  Logically, anyone doing this would be a cowardly and murderous fuck.
  
  And, what would you do if someone hid behind his children, and started taking pot shots at your child? Just ignore him or shoot back at him?
  
  Which one are you talking about ? Because they're both killing each other's children.
  As an answer to your question: no, I wouldn't blow up a school because it contains a gunman. I'd set in the SWAT team or the military equivalent. That's because I'd know that not only would blowing up that school make me a murderous fuck, it would also make me a stupid fuck; after all, after I blew it up, everyone who's children died there would be coming for me or my kids for revenge.
  The whole general area seems to be one giant rabies-infested open-air asylum for the criminally insane. It's supposed to be the Holy Land of three major religions, but is looking more like the Temple of Doom each day.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
5. Re:Hipocritical summary by DaveV1.0 · 2009-01-07 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, you would send in troops to stop the fuck. The now all you have to do is scale up to conflict so that it is members of one nation being attacked by the members of another nation, member who are part of the elected government which is doing nothing to stop them from attacking.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Time and time again by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:45 · Score: 0

The Israelis show the world they don't deserve one square meter of the land they were given.
Given that jews have been victims of genocide i find it surprising that we allow (nee, FUND) them to persue one of their own.
Settlement, Apartheid, Gaza "open air prison camp", Ghettos, restriction of movement.
The israelis will not cease until 100% of palestinian land becomes part of greater israel. Then they will continue through syria, Lebanon and their other neighbours.
Seriously. Fuck Israel. It's actions make me sick.
Settle it with a game of chess. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 09:46 · Score: 0

I have an idea. The president of Israel and the president of Palestine should play a game of chess. Whoever wins, wins the conflict. And then the whole world can have some peace and quiet.
1. Re:Settle it with a game of chess. by Myrddin+Wyllt · 2009-01-06 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Chess against an Israeli? That's totally bogus, dude. I pick Battleship, Clue, Electric Football or Twister.
  
  --
  [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
2. Re:Settle it with a game of chess. by gatkinso · 2009-01-07 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's fine... but you should know that the Israeli queen is made out of C4 and rigged to explode the moment it is touched.
  
  --
  I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Link to the software by hessian · 2009-01-06 09:57 · Score: 1

Today's conflicts are won by public opinion.
Now is the time to be active and voice Israel's side to the world.
http://www.giyus.org/

I think it's a good idea for any political organization to do this.
Judging by results on Reddit, Barack Obama's campaign had a similar idea.

--
Futurist Traditionalism
Define terrorist by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:14 · Score: 0

> And since when is someone defending their land from an invader a terrorist?
The first thing you do when you study a new topic is you find some working definition for your terms. In most cases, the working definition for terrorist is a person who is using terror for political or military objectives. Strikes against civilian targets is a common technique to do that.
Terrorism is also, of course, a buzzword. Washington was somewhat dishonorable by then-British standards, though they used different words for it, since he didn't line up in an open field muzzle-to-muzzle with redcoats when he could help it. He did not, however, kill loyalist civilians in the marketplace.
If you join the botnet by nurb432 · 2009-01-06 10:18 · Score: 1

Does that make you an 'enemy combatant'?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Re:If you join the botnet by Paradigm_Complex · 2009-01-06 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  You may have been joking but that's a very good question. I'd mod you +1 Insightful if I had any mod points left.
  
  Hamas historically hasn't really cared if someone is a combatant or not, but it'd be interesting to consider what options Israel - or anyone for that matter - has regarding defense against a DDOS attack from a botnet. Would there be justification in destroying the computer? What if the person didn't join the botnet purposefully/knowingly?
  
  --
  "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Insurance Claims ? by droopycom · 2009-01-06 10:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wait...
You claim you can find an insurance policy that cover your files or server so completely that they would need to invoke the "act of war" clause to deny you coverage for damages caused by hackers ?
I'm curious to see who would actually offer that kind of coverage.
I mean, coverage against flood or fire I can believe, but coverage against hacked password,software security holes and DDoS ???
Couldn't help myself by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:25 · Score: 0

I know a lot of Jewish people and every single one of them have one thing in common -- they are not all the same!!
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Shhh!
YOU MORONS YOU LET IT ON /.! by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:26 · Score: 1

Great, now I have to post Middle-East comments on here? God damn it, how much longer are people going to keep arguing about this?
Re:Why is this News? .... 3 by azadpanchi · 2009-01-06 10:26 · Score: 1

3. e-vandalism maybe morph into e-vangelism...
priceless
Terrible analogy by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 10:32 · Score: 0

"If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers? Any harm that comes to someone as a result of your criminal actions is your fault."
If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team storms it and shoots the 3 robbers along with everyone else inside the bank, then yes the SWAT team would have a LOT of explaining to do.
Your analogy would be SWAT being given the green light to kill anybody in the vicinity of a bank robbery without reason and if someone questions this would have the blood of those killed on their hands. Very poor analogy.
Re:future of volunteering your computer into a bot by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 10:33 · Score: 1

You mean someone's trying to find out if there's intelligent life in the Middle East?
Of course there is! It's called "Haifa".
Muslums just can't get along with their neighbors by Hodar · 2009-01-06 10:35 · Score: 1, Informative

Palestine and Israel. Modern day Syria and Jordan are occupying over 70% of 'Palestine'. Yet, the Muslums rain down hatred on the smaller Israel and proclaim how everything is the fault of the Jew. The Palestines rain down rockets and mortors with the intent to inflict massive civilian death, while Israel uses tactical weapons to minimize civilian death. Israel telephones targets, sends out flyers and detonates 'Sound Bombs' to warn civilians that a military target situated in a populated area is about to be hit. Hamas then forces women and children into these buildings, then parades the bodies around when the cameras come by. Heck, they've been caught robbing graveyards of 3 day old children, so they could have a body to parade around. Then they claim the moral high ground. When was the last time a Jewish suicide bomber attacked a school bus, pizzeria, hospital or marketplace?
Muslum insurgency in the Philipines has Muslims killing anyone who opposed being subject to Sharia law. Do you think they give a rip about Palestine and Israel?
India and Pakistan - the Muslums have been declaring war on the Hindu inhabitants of India for nearly a hundred years. Do you think they give a rip about Palestine and Israel?
How about the Chechen Rebels in Russia, attacking a high school? Do you think they give a rip about Palestine and Israel?
How about the Taliban in Afghanistan? Do you think they give a rip about Palestine and Israel?
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_in_the_Muslim_world#Current_conflicts
your horseshit post is a war crime by Uberbah · 2009-01-06 10:50 · Score: 0

It is a SEVERE war crime, Perfidy to do what those two militants did. You are expressing outrage at the wrong side. Those two Hamas Militants caused the deaths of 68 civilians by engaging in Perfidy, their families should be mourning and begging for forgiveness for the acts of their kin.
Those militants didn't use "human shields", they went home. By your logic, if Hamas sent suicide bombers to the home of the Israeli prime minister, and killed his entire extended family in the process, would the PM be guilty of using human shields? Of course not, that's nonsense - but that's what you are spouting.
NEARLY EVERY SINGLE CIVILIAN CASUALTY IN GAZA WOULD be AVOIDED IF THE MILITANTS WORE UNIFORMS AND AVOIDED CIVILIAN AREAS, requirements of a militia under the laws of war.
THERE IS NO PLACE FOR THEM TO AVOID CIVILIANS, YOU FUCKING JACKASS. Gaza is packed with people - there is no place you can go to and be away from civilians. Nowhere.
And to put your bullshit to bed, Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on the Egyptian air force, because Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran.
So by Israeli logic, Hamas is PERFECTLY JUSTIFED in FIRING ROCKETS INTO ISRAEL in response to the blockade of Gaza.
1. Re:your horseshit post is a war crime by alexhmit01 · 2009-01-06 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  So by Israeli logic, Hamas is PERFECTLY JUSTIFED in FIRING ROCKETS INTO ISRAEL in response to the blockade of Gaza.
  Did I ever suggest that Hamas didn't have the right to rocket Israel? Gaza and Israel are in a state of belligerency. They are hostile powers. When there is a cease fire, they cease fire, the rest of the time, they fight.
  Hamas is well within its rights, as the defacto government of Gaza, to wage war against Israel in response to the blockade. In doing so, they are permitted to attack any valid military target. I think that Israelis that call it terrorism when they attack troops/bases are out of their mind. Similarly, the nuclear powerplant in Dimona is a perfectly valid target, as are any of the ports in the area. Sderot, on the other hand, is a small development town with no strategic relevance. Now, if they target Dimona and hit Sderot, that's not a war crime, but they aren't in the same direction, so they'd be liars.
  Israel retaliated, in 1967, for an "illegal" blockade, which is an act of war.
  Hamas is perfectly permitted to engage in hostilities with Israel. Hamas is NOT permitted to engage in Perfidy and other war crimes while the Israel bashers blame Israel for civilian deaths.
  War is not illegal... Hamas's actions are illegal. Hamas may fire rockets towards Israeli military and government targets, but Israel is permitted to respond to that act of war with its own acts of war.
2. Re:your horseshit post is a war crime by sumdumass · 2009-01-06 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  Lets not forget that Egypt also amassed 100,000 troops and over 1900 tanks and artillery units on the Israel border while threatening attacks and claiming if Israel attempted to do anything about the blockade, it would annihilate them. It's a little different then just Israel preemptively attacking their air force.
3. Re:your horseshit post is a war crime by Uberbah · 2009-01-06 18:42 · Score: 1
  
  And that does....what exactly to change the fact that Israel launched the sneak attack that started the war in 1967? Or that if Israel's stance is that a blockade is justification for a military assault, that Hamas is perfectly justified in their rocket attacks into Israel?
  It does jack shit, that's what. But you do have your nick to uphold.
4. Re:your horseshit post is a war crime by sumdumass · 2009-01-08 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Egypt and other countries were making public statements about destroying Israel and how they were going to attack them and exterminate the land. Massing that kind of troop levels after blockading the only support route that didn't go through another country showed that an invasion was eminient.
  In the current situation, the blockade that your bitching about wasn't put in place until after Hamas started firing rockets into Israel a little over 8 years ago. It was Israel's non-violent attempt at keeping the arms out of the terrorists hands. In other words, the sgyption blockade was because they were going to invade, the Israeli blockade is because they were already beeing attacked. That's two difference scenarios and your purposely skewing them just so you can make an inaccurate statement.
Cheap ass pallies by bdwebb · 2009-01-06 10:51 · Score: 1

Yeah I hate those sneaky, cheap ass pallies with their bubble and insta.....er wait...what were we talking about again?
1. Re:Cheap ass pallies by Mashiki · 2009-01-06 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Bubble wrap, lots and lots of bubble wrap.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
Palestine? by miasmatic · 2009-01-06 10:53 · Score: 1

Since when is Palestine a state? And for that matter, it is not Palestine with whom Israel is waging war. Israel is attacking Hamas terrorists. Not civilians. Not the Palestinian Authority. Not Fatah.
1. Re:Palestine? by Paradigm_Complex · 2009-01-06 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's not really so clear cut who Israel is fighting... or who is fighting Israel. Remember, Hamas was voted in by civilians.
  
  If the White House was being bombed, it'd could easily be considered an attack on the United States, not just the Bush Administration. Same with an attack on American solders.
  
  Israel may be perfectly content with peaceful coexistence with the Palestinian people, but if in it's defense it has to fight their elected government it's not so far off from fighting them.
  
  --
  "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
w007! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:06 · Score: 0

Go Plano! Oh wait...
Refuse to take sides in this! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:11 · Score: 0

I refuse to take sides in this issue. Even if Israel is the democracy and free society, I cannot support a state or culture who justifies their own existence by religion -- from a text full of superstition and outdated values -- rather than objective reason. They can do it with pure humanistic reason, I know they can, but until they drop the religious aspect of it, I refuse to support Israel.

In before "hurrr you're a troll" or "hurrr flamebait" because I said an opinion someone doesn't like.
1. Re:Refuse to take sides in this! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 16:15 · Score: 0
  
  So you, anonymous coward, refuse to take sides on the issue, but really you refuse to support Israel for personal ideological reasons. Sounds to me like you have no real ideology at all since you are making excuses for even being informed and deciding whether there is a side worth choosing.
  Not choosing means someone else makes the choice for you. So you're totally useless. And you waste space with your stupid ass meaningless opinion. I bet you have a flag or ribbon on your car that says, "Support our troops" don't you?
2. Re:Refuse to take sides in this! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 19:08 · Score: 0
  
  but really you refuse to support Israel for personal ideological reasons
  
  Cool straw man argument, bro.
  
  But it isn't going to make me support one group of theocratic faggots over another group of theocratic faggots. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:20 · Score: 0

by country and name list of terror sites:
http://internet-haganah.com/haganah/index.html
hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:26 · Score: 0

'A fascinating approach over the last few days is being made by an Israeli Website, "Help Israel Win," which provides a download so your PC can become part of a worldwide pro-Israeli botnet.
So it turns your computer into a TV?
Their instructions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 11:46 · Score: 0

http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/index.htm
Note these gems:
"The aim of the Israel activist point scorer is to try to make as many comments that are positive about Israel as possible, whilst attacking certain Palestinian positions, and attempting to cultivate a dignified appearance."
"Point scoring works because most audience members fail to analyse what they hear."
"Point scoring is the correct method of communication to use when the audience is likely to be only partially engaged."
It seems to me that they understand the Internet way better than most people.
What they're doing is no different than what any political party does, whether using a printing press, phone calls, MySpace, carrier pigeons, spray paint, or orgone waves changing neurochemistry.
This is RealPolitik(tm), and it's how you get support for your cause in this day and age.
The internet trolls have taken up the cry, too -- the ex-GNAA group INFOTERROR supports Israel:
http://www.infoterror.com/ (NSFW, goatse on page)
On beautiful minds... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 12:03 · Score: 0

> I never have watched Star Trek, don't really like the show.
How do you know you don't like it?
1. Re:On beautiful minds... by planetoid · 2009-01-06 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Instinct.
  
  Same way I can see the title of a TV show called "Pimp My Ride" and I know I don't like it even without ever seeing it.
  
  --
  Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
2. Re:On beautiful minds... by Tomfrh · 2009-01-06 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know you don't like it?
  I do not like it Sam I Am.
where's the real perspective though? by roman_mir · 2009-01-06 12:15 · Score: 1, Troll

I lived in Israel for a year, have relatives there, this does not qualify me as an expert, but I have an opinion.
My opinion is that the conflict between Gaza Strip and Israel is artificial. I believe that the countries that share their borders with Israel: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and those that are very near Israel, let's say "a rocket's flight": Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, this countries in between them have so much unused space, that given the amount of help that Gaza gets from them, it would have been cheaper simply to relocate the entire Gaza population into any of those countries. There is so much unused territory, that rationally speaking, the continuation of this conflict makes no sense. So what I think is happening, is that many of these bordering countries are interested in the continued conflict around them. It is really a perfect way to maintain the state of alarm, to push forward religious agenda of promoting Islam around the world and also very importantly, it is a great way to create more kamikaze fighters, who will not hesitate to strap a bomb to themselves and kill some heretics and go to the Muslim heaven (you know, the 72 virgins and such.)
So I actually think that Israel is just a convenient way of achieving the above goals, if tomorrow all citizens of that country disappeared, the conflict would have to continue. There would always be a way to continue it, it is always easy to come up with other conflicts. Iraq has Sunnis and Shiites - here is a perfect example of why it will make no difference whether Israel exists as an entity or not, there will be conflict because it is profitable for many involved parties to maintain it.
My point is that this conflict in the Middle East will not stop no matter what happens with Israel itself. This conflict is really about control of oil, control of money, control of people through religion, promotion of idea of Islam and so on.

--
You can't handle the truth.
1. Re:where's the real perspective though? by pirhana · 2009-01-06 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  > that given the amount of help that Gaza gets from them, it would have been cheaper simply to relocate the entire Gaza population into any of those countries. There is so much unused territory, that rationally speaking, the continuation of this conflict makes no sense.
  
  Yes ! we can extend your peace formula for all the conflicts in world and relocate people who are kicked out of their home to some other unused land somewhere else. Good right?
  
  --
  http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
2. Re:where's the real perspective though? by Omegamogo · 2009-01-06 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the 72 virgins thing is most likely baloney. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions#Islam
3. Re:where's the real perspective though? by Reservoir+Penguin · 2009-01-06 22:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There is plenty of unsused space in Russia, enough to comfortably accomodate every Jew in the World. In fact we already have an autonomous republic set-up specially for Jews. Welcome to Birobidzhan!
  
  --
  US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
4. Re:where's the real perspective though? by roman_mir · 2009-01-07 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Actually that is not my point, my point is that without 'help' from the surrounding countries, Gaza would not be a conflict zone today. What I am saying is that there is a vested interest by the Arab nations around Israel to keep the conflict going, a peaceful resolution could have been achieved long ago, whatever that could mean, but the reasons for the continuation of the conflict is exactly that there are too many governments around that want it to continue.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
5. Re:where's the real perspective though? by roman_mir · 2009-01-07 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's a good point. Except that Israel is not about Jews from Russia, there are people there from all over the world.
  However my opinion is that the conflict between Gaza and Israel could have been stopped a very long time ago if it wasn't for the countries that are interested in it, the Arab countries that surround Israel. Whether the conflict could have been stopped by helping people of Gaza to move away to Arab nations or simply by continuing the previous arrangements (don't forget, at some point Israel was really divided into pieces with Muslims and Jews living basically side by side, I mean Jerusalem was half Jewish half Muslim) but this was stopped after too many bomb attacks. The conflict is artificial and is maintained on purpose by surrounding nations.
  Also don't forget that after creation of Israel, entire Jewish populations of surrounding Arab countries were driven out. So people lived in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi-Arabia who were Jews, but after Israel was created there was so much violence to those people, that they were forced to either move out or die. We are talking about a million people at least who were misplaced from those countries.
  Russian Jews only started mass-immigrating sometime after the collapse of the USSR.
  --
  In any case, Gaza borders Egypt and Israel, AFAIC if instead of suicide bombings the Gaza population was doing something useful and profitable for both sides there would be no trouble with the Israeli population. The trouble comes from Egypt and other nations working through Egypt to supply Gaza with weapons and to maintain the constant state of conflict by religious and political means (obviously this plan relies on luck of education). Gaza people do not have to continue bombing Israel, who wants a state of perpetual? This is going on because the Arab nations around want it to go on. My point is still the same: if Israeli population was removed from Israel today, the conflict would continue, but it would be between the Arab nations, like it mostly is. Just check out how often Muslims kill Muslims in various mass conflicts. This is useful to the Arabnations around for political, economic and religious reasons. This is division of oil, money, power, this is not about Israel at all.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
6. Re:where's the real perspective though? by roman_mir · 2009-01-07 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the moderator who marked the above post as 'Troll' is obviously a very biased person and not a fair one at being biased either. The above post is an opinion, not a statement of a fact and not an attack on any particular entity.
  Cheers.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
Re:Insightful ? wtf! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 12:17 · Score: 0

Here we go again...
Atheism is not a religion and therefore there is no leader of atheism. And there have never been any killings in the name of athiesm.
Also list me the "leaders of atheism" you are implying too? because i think you need to check youre facts there big boy...
Now the same cannot be said about religion, there have been a lot of examples of people doing horrible things all in the name of religion.
Historically, athiests have killed far more... by Crazy+Taco · 2009-01-06 12:31 · Score: 1

But when religion becomes involved as a motivating factor, suddenly the problem becomes a LOT bigger, bloodier and more dangerous.
Spoken by someone who doesn't know their history. I'm getting tired of this schtick about "religions kill everyone, religions cause wars, the crusades are the worst conflict the world has ever seen, blah blah etc." In the last 100 years athiests have killed more people than probably every religious war COMBINED. Certainly way more than the crusades or the current middle east conflicts combined. As evidence, I cite Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Kruschev, Castro, the current Chinese government, and most especially Mao Tse Tung. And I'm sure you could find many others among the cast of characters inhabiting all the socialist, communist, or fascist nations that made athiesm their official religion during the last 100 years.
And no, Joseph Stalin being baptized as an infant, and/or Adolph Hitler being dragged to a few church services before he was ten do not make them Christians.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
1. Re:Historically, athiests have killed far more... by justinlee37 · 2009-01-06 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but at least the atheists killing people aren't hypocrites. I mean, I can stand murdering, looting, and raping, but my god man, at least be honest about it.
2. Re:Historically, athiests have killed far more... by Crazy+Taco · 2009-01-09 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, I can stand murdering, looting, and raping, but my god man, at least be honest about it.
  Easy to say when you aren't being murdered, looted or raped. Besides, none of the athiests were honest about it either. Communists often sent people to "re-education camps". They did these things for the "good of the people". There was HUGE propoganda about all of it. They never came out and said, "Yeah, we're killing 30 million people and we're being up front about it." And Hitler, though fascist rather than communist, was not out publicizing where he was removing the Jews to and what he was doing to them. Sure, people probably knew, but do you really think he was up front and honest about it, and that there was no propoganda?
  Actually, the religious groups are probably more honest. Currently many Muslims are calling for the blood of Jews (and in some places Christians) openly, and the only thing they say that isn't true is that they are going to get an end reward for it. But they don't lie about that... they are convinced they are going to get rewarded.
  
  --
  Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
3. Re:Historically, athiests have killed far more... by justinlee37 · 2009-01-10 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Easy to say when you aren't being murdered, looted or raped
  Yes. That's kind of implied.
  none of the athiests were honest about it either
  I actually thought this to myself after I posted, but you know how /. is about multiple posts. Anyway, yeah, nobody who wars is honest about it. But at least an atheist can wage war without implicitly being a hypocrite then and there on the spot. It isn't fundamentally opposed to the basic tenets of their adopted philosophy.
Re:future of volunteering your computer into a bot by Deadplant · 2009-01-06 12:32 · Score: 1

that's the very secular city right?
3 heart-felt cheers for secular jews!
Now get out there and vote!
And you're upset now? by SuperKendall · 2009-01-06 12:40 · Score: 1

Actually, I saw something on one of the news channels that kinda pissed me off. Some Pro-Israeli group had bought TV time nationally
Since Hamas have had national TV time promoting them for years thanks to most news media, it's odd you'd be upset about the concept now.
Israel is just trying to get in their side of the story.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:And you're upset now? by cayenne8 · 2009-01-06 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  "Since Hamas have had national TV time promoting them for years thanks to most news media, it's odd you'd be upset about the concept now."
  ON the US national news?? I dunno..I've not seen any real bias one way or another. If anything, it might be slighty pro-Israel...but, I really don't percieve a slant.
  My beef was..this is just wrong. I mean, when I'm watching tv, to relax, etc...I don't wanna see ands for Russia against Georgia....India against Pakistan...etc. Just seems wrong to sell air time to foreign countries or groups supporting them, to get the general public of a country that really has nothing to do with the conflict to support one side or another.
  Hell, I thought most of the world would rather the US stay out of any foreign business?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:future of volunteering your computer into a bot by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-01-06 12:52 · Score: 1

Yes, Haifa is very secular, but it's not just Jews. It's a roughly half/half Jewish-Arab city.
Re:Of course they use kid gloves by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 12:55 · Score: 0

otherwise they would be using chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons to exterminate every man, woman, and child in the area. Not to mention they would be setting up death camps to exterminate millions of arabs more efficiently. Since they aren't doing these things, they are using kid gloves.
Israel has not been cutting off anything by SuperKendall · 2009-01-06 12:57 · Score: 1

Israel bombs the hell out of them and the Palestinians shoot a few rockets back and deface a couple websites.
Let's see how you deal with eight years of rockets randomly landing around you, at any time.
You wouldn't put up with it. You'd demand something be done. Israel is now doing it - in retaliation.
They're being suppressed by Israel who is systematically cutting off all food, water, and medicine into the region
I'm not aware of the definition of "repressed" where one sends over truckloads of supplies. I guess you must buy a different dictionary.
I'm not particularly pro-Israel, nor am i jewish. But I realize it's only rational that if you attack someone for years they may well eventually fight back - and I think Israel is being too cautious about the whole thing out of some misguided fear of people who already hate them liking them less. I just can't see justification for a group randomly firing large explosives into civilized territories primarily targeting civilians, from anyone.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 12:59 · Score: 0

... nuke it from orbit?
F-16 is about accuracy and hitting hard targets by SuperKendall · 2009-01-06 13:05 · Score: 1

A suicide bomber is merely a poor country's F-16.
Wrong. An F-16 is all about precision, accuracy, being able to take out any targets desired no matter how hard to reach as quickly and efficiently as possible.
A suicide bomber is rolled into one, a chemical/biological weapons program and a madman leader. It doesn't really care who it kills, military or not - just as long as there are as many bodies as possible. It's not about going after hard targets, just the softest possible with the largest body count.
Not to mention of course that the suicide bomber is purely an offensive weapon. If Palestine was really after parity with Israel in fighting they would target military bases with the rockets but they send them to large towns instead...
Nothing anyone has ever done or ever will do justifies response by suicide bombers.
If suicide bombers are really the answer to larger forces with better technology, why was the use not widespread in past wars? Even in war of the U.S. vs. the british you didn't see anything like this from the under-equipped U.S. forces.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:F-16 is about accuracy and hitting hard targets by mjwx · 2009-01-06 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps he should have said a Suicide bomber is the poor countries equivalent of a guided missile, both will end up doing similar amounts of damage.
  
  Wrong. An F-16 is all about precision, accuracy, being able to take out any targets desired no matter how hard to reach as quickly and efficiently as possible.
  Oddly enough so is a suicide bomber, Hamas can fire unguided rockets at Sdrot (spelling, its the most hit target of Hamas missiles in Israel) all day long and not do any real damage, 1 suicide bomber can hit a specific target in Tel Aviv. Same principal as the cruise missile (self guided munitions) but the suicide bomber is less expensive, less sophisticated and less tasteful (if taste can really be applied to war).
  
  A suicide bomber is rolled into one, a chemical/biological weapons program and a madman leader. It doesn't really care who it kills, military or not - just as long as there are as many bodies as possible. It's not about going after hard targets, just the softest possible with the largest body count.
  Where is the chemical component? Hamas aren't using chemical weapons, if they were they would quickly earn the ire of the rest of the world. I think you are listening to Fox news a little too much. Even if they were using chemical weapons they would still be abiding by international rules by using a suicide bomber, a delivery system can not be used solely for the delivery of chemical weapons, modern militarys (since WWI) have gotten around this by placing an explosive component into chemical weapon delivery systems (White Phosphorous rounds, CS gas mortars, not all chemical weapons are nerve agents).
  
  If suicide bombers are really the answer to larger forces with better technology, why was the use not widespread in past wars? Even in war of the U.S. vs. the british you didn't see anything like this from the under-equipped U.S. forces.
  Sending men on suicide missions has been a part of military tactics since militarys began. Back in feudal Japan, a samurai came back victorious or didn't come back at all (weather killed by their enemy or their own hand). In WWI, the big push (essentially human wave attacks) were seen as an effective strategy (I'll admit that they aren't most of the time). In WWII, human wave attacks drove back a better equipped and technologically superior Nazi force. Kamakaze attacks against the US fleet. Same principal, less sophistication.
  
  Suicide attacks can be effective (Russian human wave attacks), but if they are able to be countered (like the Kamakaze attacks) then they lose almost all effectiveness. The war between the British and the US separatists was never desperate, apart from naval power, which had little bearing on land operations in the colonies due to the distances and lack of effective bombardment weapons, the separatists had superior numbers and manufacturing.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
2. Re:F-16 is about accuracy and hitting hard targets by SuperKendall · 2009-01-06 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  All of the attacks you list as "suicide attacks" are against military targets with the intent to eventually break through - so some people will live, otherwise there would be little point to the attack.
  A suicide attack purposely against civilian targets has a very different motive, and is expected to produce very different results.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
3. Re:F-16 is about accuracy and hitting hard targets by mjwx · 2009-01-06 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  All of the attacks you list as "suicide attacks" are against military targets with the intent to eventually break through - so some people will live, otherwise there would be little point to the attack.
  
  Kamikaze attacks?
  
  A suicide attack purposely against civilian targets has a very different motive, and is expected to produce very different results.
  Think more in terms of Total War (Clausewitz, On Kreig). In the Palestine/Israel war there is little difference between a Civilian target and Military one, to either side. In any major war civilian targets are considered valid, for example the TV and radio stations in Belgrade during the Kosovo peace actions (pretty word for war, yes?). During WWII allies bombed Rail yards, warehouses and factories knowing full well they were being run by civilians, we dropped incendiary bombs on Tokyo and Dresden with the express purpose of starting uncontrollable fires. In Vietnam the US and Allies vaporised vast tracts of jungle with Napalm and High explosives and dropped defoliating agents indiscriminately. Total War as Clausewitz describes, does not care about the fuzzy line between civilian and military and no force engaged in total war will cripple themselves by making that distinction.
  
  After we get targeting out of the way, which is a leadership (strategic) decision. A suicide bomber operates on the same principals as any other self guided munition, just less sophisticated and less reliable.
  
  Attacking civilians is a strategic decision, after this decision is made it makes no difference if the attack is made with a Suicide bomber or JDAM dropped from a F16. Both munitions have the same objective, to reach their target, explode and cause damage, both munitions are expected to have the same result.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Watch this and then judge, you never see it in Fox by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 13:24 · Score: 0

http://www.freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=106
ALL wars are about power! by Chris+Burke · 2009-01-06 13:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Precisely. GP post is an absolute load of nonsense, and of course fails to cite any sources for his/her diatribe.
Well, it's not *absolute* nonsense, there is a valid point being made even if it goes to far in actually blaming atheism. And he shouldn't really have to cite sources for the deaths caused by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
The majority of "atheist"-caused deaths which are presumably being referred to were motivated by a desire to obtain and maintain political and social control, not to 'eradicate religion' because of its ideological conflict with atheism. The fact that the perpetrators were from ideologies which were also atheistic does not mean that any of those deaths are attributable to atheism.
The majority of all deaths ever were motivated by a desire for power, control, land, resources. Philosophy, religious or political, is used as a justification or a method to gain the support of the people being sent to war. I mean you don't think the Crusades were really about Christianity, even though that's what the Kings told the knights and the footmen? Was the Inquisition really about weeding out heresy, or was it about wielding terror as a method of social control?
All those leaders I mentioned self-identified as atheists, and persecuted the religious, and slew millions in the names of their political philosophies. We are all wise enough to realize that this truly was in name only, and that their true motivations were to acquire and hold power.
Yet not in the cases where the leaders self-identified as religious?
That's the valid point being made. Religion doesn't cause war any more than non-religion does. Lust for power causes war, and that's a trait that is not unique to any philosophy. As proven by the fact that the many of the largest body counts of the last century, the largest body counts of human history, belonged to those of non-religious philosophies. And it wasn't their philosophy that was the problem!

--

The enemies of Democracy are
1. Re:ALL wars are about power! by erroneus · 2009-01-06 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  My original point is that it is far easier to exploit human emotions when religion is used as a rallying cry. "Onward Christian Soldiers" anyone? "Jihad"? "Fight for Freedom"? "War on Terror"? The same people who are vulnerable to being exploited emotionally are the same people who are vulnerable to religious influence.
2. Re:ALL wars are about power! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 23:22 · Score: 0
  
  So does that mean that religion is 'evil'? Or is the more common factor power hungry 'people influencers' manipulate people into killing others?
  True - some religions make it easier to manipulate people through their lack of mainstream education - but as per the 'non-religious' mass murdering political leaders referenced above show, you don't need the guise of a religion to manipulate the people.
3. Re:ALL wars are about power! by JesseMcDonald · 2009-01-07 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Philosophy, religious or political, is used as a justification or a method to gain the support of the people being sent to war. ... We are all wise enough to realize that this truly was in name only, and that their true motivations were to acquire and hold power.
  This, as it happens, is very near to the point that I intended to make myself. When placing blame, it doesn't really matter whether the leader was genuinely religious/atheistic or just using such rhetoric to incite the masses. What matters is whether religious or anti-religious rhetoric has historically been more successful at inciting violence. Obviously there is some blame on both sides, but I think you'll find that far more people have been killed because they didn't follow the "right" religion than have been killed because they weren't atheist, from the perspective of those actually doing the killing. It appears to me that shared beliefs, particularly subjective or irrational ones, are much more effective at inspiring the masses toward war than any shared lack of belief could ever be.
  (I'm ignoring violence in the names of political ideologies for now, since it can't be directly blamed on either religion or atheism -- although it can often be traced to the same sort of exaggerated, shared beliefs typical of religions, and rarely to anything resembling the typical atheistic absence of belief.)
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
4. Re:ALL wars are about power! by Chris+Burke · 2009-01-07 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  This, as it happens, is very near to the point that I intended to make myself. When placing blame, it doesn't really matter whether the leader was genuinely religious/atheistic or just using such rhetoric to incite the masses. What matters is whether religious or anti-religious rhetoric has historically been more successful at inciting violence. Obviously there is some blame on both sides, but I think you'll find that far more people have been killed because they didn't follow the "right" religion than have been killed because they weren't atheist, from the perspective of those actually doing the killing. It appears to me that shared beliefs, particularly subjective or irrational ones, are much more effective at inspiring the masses toward war than any shared lack of belief could ever be.
  I don't think we're that near, because my point is that blaming either religion or atheism or communism or socialism or nationalism is foolish, since those are not the causes of the deaths, they are merely tools, and the nature of the tool doesn't seem to make much difference. Replace Communism with Catholicism, and Stalin would have been a butcher just the same. Replace Catholicism with Nationalism and the Crusaders would have still ridden.
  There something busted in your reasoning when you conclude that more people have been killed due to religion when the largest massacres in human history were perpetrated by non-religious organizations (admittedly the Nazis were at least cooperative with Protestantism in the beginning since it helped fuel anti-semitism, but that was largely abandoned later). Stop talking in terms of blaming religion vs atheism, since whatever the causes of those massacres, atheism did not help prevent them because even atheists do believe in things, even though those things aren't Gods, and these beliefs have demonstrably been abused to employ people in the murder of billions.
  The religious, non-religious, or political philosophies of the masses are not the problem. Trying to blame deaths on those philosophies, in order to discover which is "the most dangerous" is foolish and misses the point.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
5. Re:ALL wars are about power! by Chris+Burke · 2009-01-07 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  My original point is that it is far easier to exploit human emotions when religion is used as a rallying cry. "Onward Christian Soldiers" anyone? "Jihad"? "Fight for Freedom"? "War on Terror"? The same people who are vulnerable to being exploited emotionally are the same people who are vulnerable to religious influence.
  Except the largest massacres in human history were conducted without religion as the rallying cry.
  And no, I'm not blaming the philosophies that were used as rallying cries in those cases.
  I'm saying the reasoning that says it's easier to exploit the religious, and more wars and deaths happen as a result, is historically inaccurate and simply wrong.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
6. Re:ALL wars are about power! by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-09 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly which religions are invoked by the rallying cries of "fight for freedom" and "war on terror".
  Note also that there are far more hindus involved in the war on terror than Christians, and also more muslims, and a more than nontrivial group of state atheists too, if you count the numbers. And that's only as long as China does not help out. At that point state atheists will outnumber any other group in the "war on terror".
  So, I ask you again, which religion is this cry (and the "fight for freedom" or the communist cry "revolution !") invoking ?
  At the very least you'll have to admit they're agnosticist. And the "revolution" one is fundamentally atheist.
  Which cry has resulted in the most dead bodies of all the cries ? The atheist one, followed closely by the muslim one. Then there is a huge gap of several hundred million dead bodies less and you'll still find that "fight for freedom" killed more men and women than "onward christian soldiers".
  And let's not forget that these cries have varying ages. The "onward christian soldiers" is both the oldest one, and the one with the least death associated to it's name. And "revolution !" in the communist sense is both the youngest and the one with the most deaths associated.
7. Re:ALL wars are about power! by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-09 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm ignoring violence in the names of political ideologies for now, since it can't be directly blamed on either religion or atheism -- although it can often be traced to the same sort of exaggerated, shared beliefs typical of religions, and rarely to anything resembling the typical atheistic absence of belief
  Why do atheist get to be seen as separate from the political ideologies that espouse atheism, while the theists don't get any such luxury ? *
  I mean I can understand that you don't distinguish between the muslim faith, and the politics of jihad, because there is no difference.
  But one could easily argue that the politics of the middle ages and Christianity are radically different. At the very least you'd have to admit that currently practiced christian religion has nothing to do with the political ideology that called for the crusades (who were really a reaction to a jihad, a defensive move, not an offensive one).
  * unless of course you want to stack the deck to make atheism come out on top. If you count communism, an inherently atheistic creed, and a creed pushing atheism on people, atheists are worse than muslims. "revolution !", closely accompanied by a certain statement about "opiate for the masses" killed far more people than even "allahu akbar" did.
8. Re:ALL wars are about power! by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-09 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  The reality is that some ideologies are more suited to demagogues than others. Unfortunately, marx's ideology, arguably the most successfull demagogue ideology ever, was atheist. And very strongly atheist.
  The second most successfull dictator ideology is also politically incorrect to mention : islam.
9. Re:ALL wars are about power! by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2009-01-09 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, of course some ideologies are to blame. You mention nazism's non-association with another creed as an example, but your argument falls flat once you realize that nazism itself is, of course, just as "ideological" as any other creed.
  Some creeds are inherently evil. Even without assholes on top of them. Nazism remained a total disaster after hitler's death. Communism was a total disaster even with people at the head who at the very least can be said to have started out honest.
10. Re:ALL wars are about power! by erroneus · 2009-01-09 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Go back and note that I used the words "exploit" and "human emotion." Many aspects of human emotional weakness are used to a variety of ends not the least of which are marketing products, collecting money in collection plates and televangelical call lines, and garnering support for war.
"the Israelis"? by Paradigm_Complex · 2009-01-06 13:56 · Score: 1

This isn't being done by the Israeli government. Perhaps it's being done by *some* Israeli's. There's quite a big difference there.

--
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
That's it? Not even pretend sympathy? by Nicolas+MONNET · 2009-01-06 13:58 · Score: 1

Not even a mechanical "I'm sorry for your loss"? You go straight to the cynical talking points?
As for what is said of Hamas, well I'm quite sure they have done their share of bad things. But I know this:
In 2006 Israel said the same thing about Hezbollah. Alright, they're double plus bad, too. Then the family of a Lebanese friend got bombed, in an area where there's never been any Hezbollah, ever. They also bombed the Beirut power station, causing one of the biggest oil spills in the mediterranean, ever. I don't suppose little Hezbollah militants were skinny dipping in the oil tanks, were they?
The only excuse for their behaviour I'm hearing from the Israeli government is that Hamas did it too. It's a very weak argument. But let's accept it. And then what? Seriously, guys? What you're saying is that ... sure you're killing children, but Hamas does it too.
That's it?
You're comparing yourselves to a supposedly terrorist organization. Way to go. Moral high ground! Well there's actually a huge difference, Hamas' measly home-grown rockets have killed only a few people in those past few weeks. Israel, with its high tech equipment, has killed over 600. I'm not sure how this is a positive for the "good guys", though.
1. Re:That's it? Not even pretend sympathy? by DaveV1.0 · 2009-01-06 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  No, it is not "Hamas did it to.", you dumbass. It is "We are tired of taking this shit from Hamas, and if the Palestinians won't stop them we will. And, we are not going to worry too much about the Palestinians, must like they didn't worry about us."
  Now, why don't you shut up and go do something about all those rioting muslims in your slums.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
watch this and then judge, the true side of truth by linuzer · 2009-01-06 14:25 · Score: 1

http://www.freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=106
Reality by eva barttlet by linuzer · 2009-01-06 14:53 · Score: 1

http://ingaza.wordpress.com/
Inter-faith marriages by mahadiga · 2009-01-06 15:05 · Score: 1

Israel and Palestine Governments must step-in and give incentives (for e.g. free health care, govt jobs, free public transportation etc ) to Inter-Faith marriages between Jews and Arabs.
I hope this will create win-win proposition for future generations of Israel and Palestine people.

--
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
Hah! I blow a rasberry at your fatwa! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 15:27 · Score: 0

I have the power to post on different articles on /. at the same time!
I have the power to post from many different IP addresses from all over the world simultaneously!
I am a master of disguises-I can look like three dozen (or more) /.'ers at the same time globally!
Hah! My AC fu is better than Yu!
Great! by cyn1c77 · 2009-01-06 15:37 · Score: 1

Maybe they will stop killing each other and learn that it is so much easier to just insult each other online to settle their differences, while simultaneously downloading pr0n.
Obligatory xkcd by Samah · 2009-01-06 15:54 · Score: 1

http://xkcd.com/350/

--
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 16:19 · Score: 0

Won't somebody please --PLEASE-- think of the Anonymous Cowards!?
Mod Parent Up! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 16:54 · Score: 0

Nice to see someone who has a clue about military law actually post on Slashdot.
Find the real criminals by jandersen · 2009-01-06 18:12 · Score: 1

I hear people screaming themselves to an early grave - again - over this issue, and I am beginning to feel that it is hardly worth the effort.
I feel quite convinced that if we can imagine asking all Palestinians, Israelis, Syrians, etc whether they want peace, even if it means giving up the claims to land and other tangible item all sides have, there would overwhelming support for it. So the question is - who is, on all sides, that keep this atrocity going on and on? If we could capture them and get rid of them, peace would happen naturally. more or less. That's the theory, at least.
Only idiots keep holding on to old grudges - and yes, that includes grudges over who massacred innocents last. I'm not saying it would be easy to put these thigns aside, only that it is possible; and I think a majority on both sides want that. The real criminals are the leaders on both sides, who don't have the greatness to let go of their pet hates and grudges; they live their lives far from the pain and horror they put their own peoples through in the name of "justice" or whatever lie they live behind.
Stop Calling Communication War by rhinokitty · 2009-01-06 18:58 · Score: 1

Hi. I am the Internet. I am a communications medium. People use me to communicate with one another on an unprecedented scale.

I am a "read/write" medium. That means that a lot of the times people can add-on to the creations of others. Sometimes they can even completely erase the communications of others. This is OK, and is not war, but just another form of communication. Granted, I appreciate it when everyone "plays fair," and there are many people (like Slashdot moderators, wink, wink) that help keep things fair for everyone.

I take offense when people refer to communication as war. There are many people who work for many militaries who use me to communicate (sometimes they are pretty angry). That is OK with me, as long as they play fair. This is not war, but communication.

Some might even think about it as a kind of grassroots diplomacy. Wouldn't it be great if more people could talk with those who their government tells them are the "enemy?" More communication usually tends to alleviate misunderstanding, which can lead to resolution or conflict (aka peace).

Please stop referring to what I do as war, I find it inaccurate and distasteful.
Mod Parent Up by WiiVault · 2009-01-06 19:58 · Score: 1

While perhaps somewhat liberal, Democracy Now! has a great in depth style of reporting, and deals with non partisan issues like this in the most honest way possible.
Look who's racist and bigotted by Nicolas+MONNET · 2009-01-06 20:59 · Score: 1

I thought it was supposed to be the islamists. Well they are too.
Do you realize that Israel's unfavourable opinion has reached 70% in Western Europe? Even in the US it's now around 40%. Bullshit on Youtube and Twitter won't fix it.
1. Re:Look who's racist and bigotted by DaveV1.0 · 2009-01-07 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing racists about what I said. It is a known fact that France has large slums full Arabs and Muslims and that when something happens that they don't like they riot. And, that the French police are afraid to go into the slums. Your government allowed them to come to your country, put them into slums and now you are being forced to cede parts of your country to them.
  Western Europe is a joke, a group of corrupt, failed world powers who look disaprovingly at any nation more vigorous than they. They have huge slums of poor, discontent immigrants who cling to their own cultures and the laws of their former countries while the Western Europeans pat themselves on the back for being so open minded and welcoming.
  Do you know why the government of France, Spain, and Germany were against the Iraq War? It was because those governments had contracts with Hussein for favorable oil exports as soon as the sanctions were lifted.
  The fact is you are a bunch of hypocritical cowards.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Non Shall Pass by dbbd · 2009-01-06 21:13 · Score: 1

Remember Monty Python's black knight fight? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
Hammas 'tis but a scratch' will definitely lead to a glorious victory. So they'll loose some arms and legs, so what?
The stupid idiots got their land, got into power, all they had to do was live in peace. All they had to do to prevent this war was give up. Would they be any worse? Using diplomacy would have gotten them much further, perhaps with their limbs intact.
I don't know if they are manipulated or not. What I know is that when the US was whacked (world trade center, remember?) the bombed the hell out of Afganistan. When the British were blitzed, they fought back, didn't they?
So how does it end? "Oh running away? you yellow bastards, come back, I'll bite your legs off..."
Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-06 21:47 · Score: 1, Insightful

Since when did the French Resistance shell German villages?
wow, tough israel crowd here.. by Dailao · 2009-01-06 23:39 · Score: 1

I'm always surprised how so many americans seem to approve of how Israel and the U.S. handle things down there. I'm from Europe, and most people I know have great difficulties to understand why the U.S. can still honestly support Israel. Out of acts of desperation, a few minor groups launch crappy missiles towards israeli settlements, damaging a house or hurting one person; as a response, israeli anihilate 30 or more palestinians. It goes like that all the time.. no matter the cost on the israeli side, the damage on the other side is always so much greater. Apart from that, let's not forget the (illegal) creation of new settlements, not following previous contracts about the separation of the land, and generally being a total bully to the palestinians, making their lives even more miserable. All of this generates even more hate, thus forming the next line of people willing to die for their country - and so on. The problem is self-made.
Believe it or not... by ryzvonusef · 2009-01-07 01:26 · Score: 1

But the Palestinians actually selected the Hamas, on (get this) LOCAL ISSUES! Yes, hard as it may seem to believe, but they selected them on the basis of their various welfare plans (like free Hospitals and stuff), and because Arafat's Party (Al-Fatah) was corrupt. The fact that the Hamas is a Jihadist oragination is of secondary importance to the Palestinians.(heck, even the Fatah party are Jihadist! You folks know that very well...) The people selected them because of their agendas, that suited the people, and because the other folk were corrupt and wasting their tax-money. Isn't that what people in Democracies do? Do you want them to vote for a Party that had grown fat on the people's hard earned money? Because the Hamas would still have been fighting the Israelis, no matter whether they were in power or not. So don't blame (and punish) them for voting in a party that suited them, that would best serve them, that was the lesser of the two evils. You wouldn't like to be told who to vote for, would you?

--
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
1. Re:Believe it or not... by Apple+Acolyte · 2009-01-07 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Gazans can vote for a party that calls for the destruction of Israel. They can justify it by claiming that they voted that way due to local issues and as a vote against Fatah's corruption. They can accept Hamas using their civilian infrastructure (mosques, schools, machine shops, etc.) to make and store weapons of war. They can allow Hamas to launch rockets with impunity from said civilian centers. They can launch 7500 rockets into Israel between 2001-2009. Yes, they can do all of those things. But in turn, Israel has the right and the obligation to protect its citizens from attack. If that means a very costly air campaign, then that's Israel's decision. If that means a costly ground incursion, that's Israel's choice, too. Hamas started the war and kept it going for years while Israel did nothing. Now Israel will hopefully finish the war on its terms. If I were in charge, I would make Gaza into a parking lot, but that's just my opinion. And btw, not all Muslims are terrorists, but no Muslim I've heard from yet wants to lay the responsibility for this war where it belongs: on his/her fellow Arabs. I know they're out there, but it seems the vast majority at least condone Arab/Muslim terrorism.
  
  --
  Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
2. Re:Believe it or not... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  There is no such thing as Palestine, and the Palestinian "people" are a false category. Arab "Palestinians" are ethnically and culturally indistinguishable from the Arabs of the surrounding Arab countries that the so-called "Palestinians" are largely comprised of.
Corrections by TerranFury · 2009-01-07 01:32 · Score: 1

Since my original post ended up being modded +5 Informative, I'd like to make some corrections lest my original post mislead people and create some small amount of incorrect wikitruth.
My definitions were correct, but some of the logic that followed was not. For instance, agnosticism and atheism are only disjoint in the common usage, but logically there is actually room for overlap. There are basically two reasons for this and other logical errors that I made:
1. My definition of atheism is the colloquial definition in modern usage. However, in more precise academic terms, what I refer to as "atheism" is really "strong atheism." By contrast, you really can argue that weak atheism is "not a belief."
2. In some of my arguments I'd conflated knowledge and belief. This made sense to me, but really you can have belief without knowledge ("faith?") or, more arguably, knowledge without belief ("cognitive dissonance?") (The exact logic of this I'll need to think about more). This means that, in my arguments, "strong atheism" was also "gnostic atheism," though in fact "gnostic atheism" is really a stronger belief ("I believe that there is no god and I know this to be true").
Crazy, and illegal by gx5000 · 2009-01-07 01:57 · Score: 1

Over 7,000 people have registered to participate in a botnet attack against another country ?! This can't be legal and these people should be arrested, period. I hope they realise that the other side will be able to discover their ip's and counter attack... And then who will save them ? Users....ah cripes....

--
End of Line.
Sorry. You win the pie piece on that one. by Fantastic+Lad · 2009-01-07 02:46 · Score: 1

And I suppose you figure the Zionists are using the Piece of Eden to control people's minds too, eh?
Piece of Eden?
Well now! There's a new one for me. Not even in Wikipedia. Guess I'll have to go digging to figure out your reference.
That being the case, when you say mind-control, who are you suggesting that it's (presumably not) directed at? Jews or everybody else?
-FL
Ad Hominem emporium by Nicolas+MONNET · 2009-01-07 02:56 · Score: 1

Do you know why the government of France, Spain, and Germany were against the Iraq War?
First, the then government for Spain, that of neofascist Aznar, actively supported the invasion in spite of 80+% of the population opposing it. If your information is so wrong about commonly available facts, what can we expect from your unverifiable claims?
Second, I along with another million people demonstrated in the streets against that war. You can make up all the shit you want about Chirac's ulterior motives, but our government obeyed the vox populi. It's spelled d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y.
In any case, considering the amount of money tricky Dich Cheney's Halliburton's made in that war (hundreds of billions), the sums that would have resulted from the alleged Saddam connections would have been chump change. Why not fault them for that?
"May God exterminate Hamas!" by jabster · 2009-01-07 03:32 · Score: 1

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/01/06/2009-01-06_from_her_lips_to_gods_ear_the_fury_of_a_.html?page=0
""May God exterminate Hamas!" screamed the woman in crystal-clear understanding that the terrorist band's reckless, inhuman actions had brought death to her child."
"All the world knows that Israel would give up the fight in the event Hamas stopped firing and agreed to verifiably disarm." Unfortunately, not "all," as evidenced by some of the comments here.

--
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
finally by Phantom+of+the+Opera · 2009-01-07 03:55 · Score: 1

Two sides that really deserve each other.
It's very sad.
Historical Casualty Ratios, FYI by AdamThor · 2009-01-07 04:15 · Score: 1

Until the security fence went up, thousands of people in Israel were killed by suicide bombs over the past ten years. This week is lopsided only if you ignore history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Casualties
Palestinians:Israelis (victims under age 18)
Dec '87 - 2000: 3.67:1 (16.88:1)
2000 - 2004: 3.37:1 (5.5:1)
2005 - 2007: 15:1 (27.75:1)

--
-- "Oh. This guy again."
Re: I'd disagree by FTWinston · 2009-01-07 04:53 · Score: 1

Surely the key driving force is the past 60 years of atrocities?

Religion, ethnicity, large walls, and other things that draw a clear dividing line between the peoples obviously intensify matters, but it seems to me that the key factor is that the two side hate each other passionately, because they have a history of hating each other passionately, and have in the past given each other many reasons to do so?

Also, don't assume religion is key as to why they fight over this particular patch of desert. The Israelies won't let the Palestinians leave, and I doubt anywhere else would take them anyway.
cant Israel make mini-Patriot missiles by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 05:30 · Score: 0

An invisible scanning shield to stop Hamas rockets from reaching targets - and instead intercept them like US Patriot missiles intercepted Sodom's Scud missiles in the Gulf War?
Would it take too much rocket science?
"Credible news sources" by Runaway1956 · 2009-01-07 05:46 · Score: 0

One must be careful when citing "credible news sources". Look carefully, and you might realize that those "credible news sources" mesh with your own concept of reality. Anything that threatens your concept of reality will automatically be "incredible". People are funny that way........

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Iran angle by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 07:22 · Score: 0

+1.
"Almost the entirety of Egypt's Muslims are Sunnis." - wikipedia
So finally that explains to me Egypt's reluctance to assist Palestinian refugees.
Abolition is oppresion, not a cure by Pax+Romana · 2009-01-07 08:22 · Score: 1

There is no such thing as "impossible" unless you're speaking of math or science, and even then, we don't know if anything's necessarily impossible or not. As to the whole down with religion thing, that has very little to do with the conflict. Yes, Israel was created as a home for the Jews, but the conflict comes from the displacement of Palestinians in the process, not any religious differences that the two groups might have (which don't apply to this dispute anyway, since Palestinians are not part of a single religious group). Also if you want to get rid of religion, then you have to stop humans from thinking. Humans have always wondered about their origins, creation, and what comes after. Science has yet to fully explain these things and humans are also an impatient species. Even if you somehow manage to erase all religions from the face of the Earth there will still be those who believe in a higher order.
Boycott Israeli and USA products by KayakFun · 2009-01-07 10:54 · Score: 1

The parent is soooo right. Israel gets a blank check to do whatever they like from the USA. The USA is vetoing all UN resolutions that would force Israel to do it's part in ending this tragedy.
Now it's time for us to step in like we did in South Africa. Boycott any product coming from Israel. And kick them out of the Eurovision song festival. It's not like Israel is part of Europe anyway. We are civilised.
My grandfather hid jews in the cellar of his Amsterdam shop in the second world war. How can people who have suffered so much turn 180 degrees and become the suppressors themselves? Put up concentration camps (Gaza) and security fences on land that does not belong to them?
The Hamas are no sweethearts, but given the circumstances, what do they have to loose? If Israel follows all UN resolutions, and the Gaza harbour and airport functions again, then the Palestinian middle and working class will kick out Hamas. Israeli hardliners love Hamas and Hamas loves them, because otherwise they would die.
Give land and work to the Palestinians, then they will become addicted to wealth like us, giving up the wish to become a martyr, because they have too much to loose.
Sad by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 11:26 · Score: 0

Reading the post, you would get an impression that all Palestinians are Jihadists. This is a slight of hand often used to implicitly understate and twist the gravity of what is happening. And what is happening is mass murder of civilians based on their ethnic group. There is a name for that, but I will not utter it.
Windows a Jewish Conspiracy!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-07 11:34 · Score: 0

(NT and XP were developed by Microsoft Israel).
So, Windows is a Jewish conspiracy now? Godwin?
I know Windows is an unmitigated pile of crap, but to blame an entire religious group is pure bigotry. Now, SCO and Mormons...
Re:"Help Israel Win" site down, and probably phony by nidarus · 2009-01-07 22:57 · Score: 1

Mod Parent up!
Everybody was so busy with their (incredibly insightful and important) Israel/Palestine Sucks debate, they didn't consider that it's a scam.
I'm an Israeli, and I've never heard of this thing before. AFAIK, it wasn't reported in any Israeli news source - and they love to hype misguided "patriotic" ventures such as this one.
Hamas doesn't even need to be peaceful by alexhmit01 · 2009-01-09 04:18 · Score: 1

Hamas doesn't even need to pick a peaceful means of resolving disputes, they can continue to be a militant resistance. They just can't act like crazed lunatics.
Israel has chosen a violent solution to their problem: Hamas Rockets. They didn't ask, bribe, etc., they are bombing. Violence is acceptable in international disputes.
The problem with Hamas is that they are crazed thugs. They used to "retaliate." If Israel took out one of their important people, they launched a wave of crap at Israel, and the tit-for-tat system caused a someone uneasy truce... Israel would occasionally take out a major Hamas person, and Hamas would blow up a pizza shop/disco hall... or Hamas would see a target of convenience and hit Israel, who would counter attack. That lasted for years.
The problem is that Hamas decided that they were not interest in generally tranquil relations with the occasional period of innocent deaths, they needed a real war with Israel, so they adopted a policy of continual rocket attacks. Instead of waves of attacks when they had some invented cause, they would rocket daily. Eventually they would strike a nerve with Israel, Israel would attack, and they would get the war they needed. They needed a war because they wanted to be the big bad resistance, a crown that Hezbolah grabbed in 2006.
But Hamas has become the crazy thugs of the area, just attacking daily. They aren't looking for anything other than death and destruction, or there would be some sort of meaningful methodology to what is going on.
1. Re:Hamas doesn't even need to be peaceful by sumdumass · 2009-01-10 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that. The parent seems to think that if Israel just stopped shooting at the Palestinians, all would magically be fine. In this latest bat, Israel is reacting to the Hamas thugs who are little more then the KKK of the middle east but better armed. You can also argue that Israel's targeting of Hamas leaders were the provoked retaliations from Hamas Suicide bombings and Rocket attacks. Israel always seems to be able to point to something recent and say their activities are a response to it.
  Anyways, there really isn't a circle because one side started as a response to the other. it may be like a corkscrew or a sine curve but Israel seems to be willing to stop at anytime and has tried in the past just to be disappointed.
  Hamas is the problem and needs to either wise up and get along or be destroyed and set as an example of how not to be.
Lazy... not coward. The problems are in twos... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-10 08:49 · Score: 0

Lazy... not coward.
The problems are in twos...
1 The bible.
2 The Choran.
1 One says to kill because God gave you "land".
2 The other one says it also...
1 People believe.
2 People enact...
As if God would give two cents for "land" you weirdos.
What sad idiocy.
Raiding the websites by anonymuse · 2009-01-11 17:19 · Score: 1

'A fascinating approach over the last few days is being made by an Israeli Website, "Help Israel Win," which provides a download so your PC can become part of a worldwide pro-Israeli botnet. So far 7,786 have joined, already a fairly powerful global computing force...'" Hmm or we can get a few million from 4chan join up and raid the SHIT out of Israeli web sites for the lulz. Just imagine, once again 4chan will be ridiculed by FOX News for raising hell.