Several dead, many wounded in bus attack in Israel

[Goober]

It tells me that not all Palestinian leaders work for terrorist organizations as Colpy implied.

Look, all I'm saying is that I don't understand why Israel thinks that retaliation would actually solve the problem. It only makes things worse. I thought we all realized this after the U.S. went into Iraq because of 9-11.


There appears to be collateral damage as well:

Egyptian soldiers killed as bomb explodes near border

Egyptian soldiers were killed in an Air Force assault near the Taba-Eilat border while searching the area for infiltrators.

According to Egyptian media, the two soldiers killed were members of the central security service. An Egyptian security official told Egypt's official news agency that two more soldiers were hurt in the aerial attack. He said that the Israeli aircraft was following infiltrators and opened fire while the wounded soldiers were in the area.

Egyptian soldiers killed as bomb explodes near border - Israel News, Ynetnews

Of course not all are terrorists - just like all Israeli's are not against a 2 state solution.

A question.

How many attacks, how many dead before you think that Israel has the right, a right that all countries have which you believe only Israeli's should suspend, to retaliate against attacks.

Now if this was in Canada - surrounded by weak neighbors who want your destruction - constant attacks, with the death toll rising - How long would Canadians put up with it. Not long. You know that as well as I.

 

[mentalfloss]

Of course not all are terrorists - just like all Israeli's are not against a 2 state solution.

A question.

How many attacks, how many dead before you think that Israel has the right, a right that all countries have which you believe only Israeli's should suspend, to retaliate against attacks.

I can't speak for previous attacks in Israel, but if any attacks to us were on the same small scale as this one (10-12 people), it wouldn't matter much, would it?

 

[Goober]

I can't speak for previous attacks in Israel, but if any attacks to us were on the same small scale as this one (10-12 people), it wouldn't matter much, would it?

You are not thinking - I stated constant attacks - same as Hamas or groups in Hamas controlled Gaza perpetrate-

Extrapolate those numbers to put them in perspective - we have a population approx 4 times that of Israel.

Now think - public anger - massive demonstrations - now what do you honestly think the Govt would do.

The same Damm thing that the Israeli's do - Retaliate.

 

[mentalfloss]

You are not thinking - I stated constant attacks - same as Hamas or groups in Hamas controlled Gaza perpetrate-

Extrapolate those numbers to put them in perspective.

I understand.

12 peeps/mo. * 12 months = 144 peeps/year.

In just one year, they might be able to build a case for war if they didn't retaliate. Even then, I personally wouldn't say it's enough.

Also, maybe I'm getting into the realm of fiction here, but can't we detect and intercept long range rocket attacks yet?

 

[weaselwords]

Well with all the hand ringing we do when we lose one of ours in Afghanistan I think your question is slightly askew. We've gone to great lengths to "hero worship" our military what with the "Highway of Heros" the sombre motorcade & bowed heads along the way. I think it does matter.
For Israel it matters more given the small population, the constant threat of violence and the incessant calls for its eradication any retaliation must be magnified so that it teaches a hard lesson to those who want to see it wiped from the map.

 

[EagleSmack]

How so?

By suggesting that the Israelis really don't know who carried out the attack and should conduct a complete investigation before taking action.

That was silly.

What am I dodging here? I already responded to both you and Eaglesmack's exaggeration about who or what caused this incident..

There was no exaggeration... I was following suit.

 

[mentalfloss]

By suggesting that the Israelis really don't know who carried out the attack and should conduct a complete investigation before taking action.

That was silly.

Okay, maybe not a complete investigation, but initial reports to the media were basically: "Yea we know it's them and we're going in. How do we know? We just do."

Whenever someone isn't fully transparent, that seems a bit sketchy to me.

Later reports suggested that they already knew the attack was coming prior to it happening, and then there was more explanation of the particulars and whom it was. All that was fine, but you should try to validate yourself early before going in to attack.

I can understand if you have more experience with this conflict, but at face value, how could anyone take the government spokeshole seriously if there is no transparency? The fact that all the pertinent details came out 3-4 hours afterward only exemplifies that no secrecy was necessary.

 

[EagleSmack]

No, you are the one who was talking about Hamas attacking wedding parties. I just pointed out how the US has targeted wedding parties. People who live in glass houses.... I never said that is all the US targets, you did.

Oh yes I know. We absolutely and intentionally target wedding parties. One after another after another. I mean... it makes SO MUCH SENSE doesn't it? I can just see our pilots in the ready room looking over the Wedding Engagement Announcements from the local papers and drawing up their missions from that. I mean if the Afghans tell us that we hit a Wedding instead of Taliban Insurgents it MUST be true! It seems that every time we drop a bomb over there they say we hit a wedding. It MUST be true! Right?

(how absurd)

Okay, maybe not a complete investigation, but initial reports to the media were basically: "Yea we know it's them and we're going in. How do we know? We just do."

Whenever someone isn't fully transparent, that seems a bit sketchy to me.

Later reports suggested that they already knew the attack was coming prior to it happening, and then there was more explanation of the particulars and whom it was. All that was fine, but you should try to validate yourself early before going in to attack.

I can understand if you have more experience with this conflict, but at face value, how could anyone take the government spokeshole seriously if there is no transparency? The fact that all the pertinent details came out 3-4 hours afterward only exemplifies that no secrecy was necessary.

Well before we jump to conclusions, Hamas should do an investigation on the air strikes before accusing the Israelis. Maybe not a complete investigation but you know... none of this...

"Yea we know it was them. How do we know? We just do."

That just seems sketchy and not fully transparent.

 

[mentalfloss]

Well before we jump to conclusions, Hamas should do an investigation on the air strikes before accusing the Israelis. Maybe not a complete investigation but you know... none of this...

"Yea we know it was them. How do we know? We just do."

That just seems sketchy and not fully transparent.

This metaphor would be more credible if Hamas actually admitted that they caused the attack.

With the Israeli response aerial attack, the Israelis already prepped the media that they would strike hard.

There was a higher degree of uncertainty in identifying the negligent party of the Hamas attack than the negligent party for the Israeli attack, so your attempt at showing a hypocritical fallacy did not work. That is why I asked you if you really wanted to go there.

Then you hired Bear to tear up this thread and I had to deal with 3 pages of bullied inquisition.

 

[EagleSmack]

The US has never purposely targeted a "wedding party".

I would doubt we ever hit a wedding party. The first time we were accused of hitting a wedding party I thought to myself...

"Damn... somebody really messed that up."

Shortly after they accused the US of bombing another wedding party and I thought...

"WTF is wrong over there... how do we keep screwing up and hitting weddings?"

Then they said we bombed yet another wedding party and I thought...

"Hmmmm... that sounds suspect. Three wedding parties in a row? Somethings fishy."

Now I chuckle at the accusations of us hitting wedding parties. The accusations are complete nonsense and they should at least chose another social event at this point. A graduation party? A birthday party? Heck maybe even a 50th Wedding Anniversary!

 

[Goober]

This metaphor would be more credible if Hamas actually admitted that they caused the attack.

With the Israeli response aerial attack, the Israelis already prepped the media that they would strike hard.

There was a higher degree of uncertainty in the Hamas attack than the Israeli attack, so your attempt at showing a hypocritical fallacy did not work. That is why I asked you if you really wanted to go there.

Then you hired Bear to tear up this thread and I had to deal with 3 pages of bullied inquisition.

Hamas has a tight grip in Gaza - They know who is and is not in these groups - Do you ever see them rushing out to turn them over to the Israel's - They would receive a firer trial in Israel compared to Gaza.

 

[mentalfloss]

Hamas has a tight grip in Gaza - They know who is and is not in these groups - Do you ever see them rushing out to turn them over to the Israel's - They would receive a firer trial in Israel compared to Gaza.

No, they haven't. And so that I can at least appear a bit more neutral about this, it is pretty s hitty for Israel that Palestine can't get their own act together. I would say that if anyone needs to grow some balls, it should be Fatah and they should maybe try and usurp Hamas or Hezbollah or whomever else defines the 'crazy' part of that region.

 

[EagleSmack]

This metaphor would be more credible if Hamas actually admitted that they caused the attack.

With the Israeli response aerial attack, the Israelis already prepped the media that they would strike hard.

There was a higher degree of uncertainty in identifying the negligent party of the Hamas attack than the negligent party for the Israeli attack, so your attempt at showing a hypocritical fallacy did not work. That is why I asked you if you really wanted to go there.

Then you hired Bear to tear up this thread and I had to deal with 3 pages of bullied inquisition.

So because Hamas hasn't admitted to the attacks then the Israelis should not respond? If I was Hamas I would never admit to an attack. It is foolish to do so and perhaps they are learning.

So it IS hypocritical. Your response is possibly what Hamas wants... Hamas didn't admit to the attack so it maybe isn't them and Israel should not respond until they are sure. Until YOU and others like you are satisfied or convinced. But even then they shouldn't respond because as you said "you just don't go and bomb your enemies".

But you do not know the intel that Israel has, and you most likely would discard it as Israeli propaganda anyways.

I didn't hire Bear. Did you hire Cliffy or aberfet or whatever he/she is called? Of course not. Don't be silly.

Just to clarify - The Isreali's attacked themselves - causing all this?

Yes Goober... that has been asserted.

So they unintentionally hit 5 wedding parties. And you know this because?

Seems to me that the US is always bragging about how advanced and precise their bombing technology is. They can hit a target from a long distance using Smart Bombs and painting their targets. So how do they unintentionally hit 5 wedding parties with such advanced technology?

Because they didn't hit a wedding party... at all.

Yea, I don't think it's a Jew conspiracy or anything. Pissed off people sometimes kill other people - whether it's right or wrong.

It was a planned and carried out attack by many. Although I think the idea of Israelis attacking their own troops in such a manner is absolutely ludicrous... if they did it would be a conspiracy.

 

[mentalfloss]

So because Hamas hasn't admitted to the attacks then the Israelis should not respond?

No.

I say the Israelis should not respond for my own reasons - which have nothing to do with the identification of the initial culprits. But it would lend Israel more credibility if they were more transparent before they responded.

So it IS hypocritical. Your response is possibly what Hamas wants... Hamas didn't admit to the attack so it maybe isn't them and Israel should not respond until they are sure.

This is what any responsible government would do. This is the standard I would hold our government to if we were in the same situation. Israel would have gotten way more brownie points and more pull internationally (thereby helping their own cause) if they were more transparent.

But you do not know the intel that Israel has, and you most likely would discard it as Israeli propaganda anyways.

I would not simply discard it as Israeli propaganda if there was a bit more explanation. If I were an Israeli, I would expect my government to cover their bases before continuing conflict.

Regarding retaliation in general, we also suffered consequences when the U.S. went into invade Iraq.

I was in full agreement with the anger after 2001 - but I realized that we were running on emotion instead of looking at all of the possible ramifications. Now, the U.S. is in a bucketload of debt - not solely because of the war effort, but in large part due to it.

 

[Colpy]

I was under the impression that this guy wanted a two-state solution:

Mahmoud Abbas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wrong, yes.. but it's also a bit of a red herring for this new development.

When did Abbas take over Hamas?????

Don't play stupid, it just makes you look.......stupid.

 

[mentalfloss]

When did Abbas take over Hamas?????

Don't play stupid, it just makes you look.......stupid.

He's not part of Hamas - he's Fatah isn't he?

Edit: ahh.. I see what you're saying now. I thought Palestine was still partly governed by Fatah, but it is Hamas now. So it's not Abbas calling the shots anymore.

Got it.

Well then this kind of settles it for me then. If there is any solution to this whole dilemma, it must come from within Palestine. Israelis will never be able to eradicate Hamas, but Fatah may be able to usurp them.

 

[EagleSmack]

No.

I say the Israelis should not respond for my own reasons - which have nothing to do with the identification of the initial culprits. But it would lend Israel more credibility if they were more transparent before they responded


This is what any responsible government would do. This is the standard I would hold our government to if we were in the same situation. Israel would have gotten way more brownie points and more pull internationally (thereby helping their own cause) if they were more transparent.

So if they presented the world with evidence they had, and bombed they would have more credibility? More brownie points?

You don't expect me to buy that do you?

I would not simply discard it as Israeli propaganda if there was a bit more explanation. If I were an Israeli, I would expect my government to cover their bases before continuing conflict.

You wouldn't?

"Dude, it's the Israeli defense minister - of course he's going to say that. That's like asking Peter McKay if it's worth sending NATO in for maple syrup extraction." - Mentalfloss

This tells me you would no matter what evidence was presented.

 

[mentalfloss]

So if they presented the world with evidence they had and bombed they would have more credibility? More brownie points?

You don't expect me to buy that do you?




You wouldn't?

"Dude, it's the Israeli defense minister - of course he's going to say that. That's like asking Peter McKay if it's worth sending NATO in for maple syrup extraction." - Mentalfloss

This tells me you would no matter what evidence was presented.

The statement I read from the defense minister at the time was a simple one-liner, and that wasn't convincing to me at the time.

I don't require an autopsy or anything, just a bit more explanation to help define probable cause.

You're stretching this one way too far now.

Why are you so touchy about this topic?

 

[ironsides]

When the attack first happened, of course none of us knew positively who did it, we just had ideas, but Israel obviously did and while we went back and forth chatting, they ended it.

 

[EagleSmack]

The statement I read from the defense minister at the time was a simple one-liner, and that wasn't convincing to me at the time.

I seriously doubt anything he would have said then or in the future would have you convinced. Your "Maple Syrup" analogy made that clear.

I don't require an autopsy or anything, just a bit more explanation to help define probable cause.

Probable cause? C'mon Mental... are you simply playing devil's advocate now?

You're stretching this one way too far now.

Why are you so touchy about this topic?

Dude, you are the one that stretched it too far by suggesting that it was a possibility that the Israelis did it to themselves and that an investigation with the results published for all to see was needed before the response.

I'm not touchy, the debate interests me and I like responding.

When the attack first happened, of course none of us knew positively who did it, we just had ideas, but Israel obviously did and while we went back and forth chatting, they ended it.

Exactly. They said who did it and responded the way they do. That is their culture.

We must embrace multiculturism right?