[Hamas] are elected by Palestinians and numerous reputable Western countries make the distinction of their military wing being the actual terrorist organization. Ironically similar to the IDF, I'd say.
As opposed to the "numerous" (the actual number being 2) western countries who define only the military wing of Hamas as terrorist, how many western countries define the IDF as a terrorist organization? Or if you'd rather not debate these "nuances" then stop trying to equate IDF to Hamas.
Nobody in the West defines the IDF as a terrorist organization, because the Israelis would be offended and would pull the Jew card. A big shitstorm would ensue. But there are many countries in the Middle East that hold that particular view, because they are not allies of the Israeli government.
This is called "diplomacy", and is practiced by "diplomats". I am not a diplomat, and have never been accused of diplomacy. I call it like I see it, and as I see it, there is very little difference between the two sides of the border.
Your problem is that you have a vested interest in one side. Its your "team", and you make many excuses for abhorrent behavior on their behalf, when looked at from a neutral perspective, it makes you a hypocrite. This is reflected not only in you, but on a political level, most major governments.
Not surprisingly, this is the same mentality that is common among outlaw motorcycle gangs who clash over turf. It has been said many times that there is no right and wrong in the purview of Hells Angels as it relates to society, they only concern themselves with "right" (meaning correctness) as it pertains to
them. They define "right" internally, and dispense justice when their lines have been crossed. They don't use diplomacy to gain respect, they demand respect and use violence to maintain it.
As this translates to governments, devout membership or citizenship is not different. The zeal and zealotry is an exaggerated response of the edicts handed down from On-High, the party line. WE have concluded that THEY are in the wrong, and WE will retaliate or enforce our will upon THEM. The devout members, whipped into a frenzy of righteousness, wholeheartedly agree - regardless of rationality. The offense of the incident is practically meaningless. It is, by and large, a reason to retaliate against a foe. It could even be preemptively, or the retaliation could be many times larger than the incident that spawned the action - which is nothing more than a signal of superiority and an assurance of future, similar responses.
It is not the MAD scenario, but the inordinate response of multiplicity. For every one of ours you kill, we will kill ten of yours. And then they actually carry it out, to the letter - and the denizens of the superior force cheer the might of their protectionists, secure in their confidence that this threat of multiplicity is fearsome enough to preserve their sanctity of life. What they never really contemplate is this threat has to be perceived as a wholesale calculation of life among both sides by governing representatives who will never be included in the calculation.
And what all this boils down to is the threat of violence, acts performed and promise of future acts to maintain the status quo, since respect is not given freely by mutual accord. This is by definition, terror, and is a tactic of terror
ist organizations - the use of random violence against civilians when diplomacy fails. And while I'm sure the IDF would be more than happy to oblige an all-out conventional war, the Hamas military forces do not have the capacity to wage a legitimate counterstrike with conventional weaponry. This limits their options to random acts, but by no means justifies the retaliatory measures deemed appropriate by the IDF - which do fall under the definition of terror strikes whether you like it or not. The only difference is, the IDF proudly announces they were operating from a legitimate, standing army with uniformed participants and proudly stenciled equipment.
Trying to legitimize the act with officially owned equipment makes no difference to the ultimate outcome. Its still an act of terror. And by that measure, the IDF terrorists, and the supporters are sponsors.
The State of Israel has many, many times dropped the ball on legitimate acts of retaliatory war against legitimate armies of their neighboring countries, more times than they have been successful in the masquerade of "defending their homeland". They have had countless opportunities to strike and
occupy a foreign nation, which is the ultimate purpose of war - to conquer and absorb your foe to ensure no future harm would come from their defeated army. The fail to do that, because they know the ultimate outcome would be the mobilization of all surrounding armies and they would be wiped off the face of the earth.
So they sit in their little hole and wave their Israeli flag, like an island of temporary privileged Ivy League grad students, milking Uncle Sam's generous trust fund to fuel their ongoing circus, and expecting him to fork over the horsepower if shit gets too thick. This is the implication that rankles me the most, even more-so than the charity our country extends to fund their crazy little experiment - that the United States will bomb the shit out of anyone who makes the mistake of pushing the limits of mutually-exchanged terror acts as revenge for their policy of multiplicity.
The Free Talk Live BBS
Author
Topic: It's time for another Jew thread (Read 86379 times)