[Captain Sam]

Beren is to blame.

[Beren]

So let's get back then to the original topic of this thread.

Apparently Qatz thinks Qassam rockets are just some sort of oversized firecrackers.

Really serious weaponry, Captain. It almost looks like 13th-century Chinese technology.

[LehmanB]

They declared that they would stop firing rockets.

Why do you assume that Palestine is incapable even of comprehending the concept of peace with Israel?

This is not a ceasefire, this is a Huddnah. This term means a breaking time to RE - ARM yourself. This is verbaly different than a ceasefire- in the intentions it puts. They refuse to stop re arming themselves. They refuse to stop their incitements.

Therefore my answere to your question is no. this is more critical than the rockets.

"[I]f there are attacks . . . there will be a response." Are you surprised that Hamas's statement "we will stop rockets barring Israel bombing" wasn't "we will stop rocket launches no matter what Israel does"?

they often shoot in Huddna's times too. sometimes they blame Israel , sometimes they say they can't control all the groups.

[Captain Sam]

Really serious weaponry, Captain. It almost looks like 13th-century Chinese technology.

Are you trying to troll?
That's like comparing a Car to a Pony.

[Beren]

The technology is the same basically. I would advise Israel to bomb back Hamas to the middle ages, but they are there already. So let me advise IAF to bomb them back to the stone age, where they could produce only dongs.

[Sapper]

This is not a ceasefire, this is a Huddnah. This term means a breaking time to RE - ARM yourself.

I have never seen this explanation for the word. This is only a psychological impairment in yourself where you exaggerate your opponents' nefariousness. See Tactical Hudna and Islamist Intolerance. By: MacEoin, Denis, Middle East Quarterly, 10739467, Summer2008, Vol. 15, Issue 3.

Furthermore, why would you be surprised at all to find out that a militant group rearms, and feel the need to draw attention to it as if it were unreasonable for a militant group to do so? That sounds like being surprised to learn the Pope is a bad Protestant.*

(*Modified George Orwell quote)

[Captain Sam]

The technology is the same basically. I would advise Israel to bomb back Hamas to the middle ages, but they are there already. So let me advise IAF to bomb them back to the stone age, where they could produce only dongs.

Oh for crying out loud. Are you going to compare an AKM to a 14th century matchlock rifle too?


How about this? Obviously an M3 Bradley is no different than a Mounted Knight. The technology is the same basically, right? Being mobile and armored and all...

[Beren]

The technology is totally different, however, they are the same sort of heavily armored mobile units indeed.

If you compare either Qassams or 13th-century early Chinese rockets to an F-15 warplane, then they represent almost the same kind of level of technology. However, if I compare the guys with Qassams to the Chinese soldier with the early rocket I can see more similarities than there are between a mounted knight of the middle ages and a 20th-century tank. Those Qassams work almost the same way as early Chinese rockets did.

[Kman]

The IDF certainly does. Most recently and easily remembered was the Second Lebanon War, e.g., the electricity grid, and other exclusively civilian facilities.

Destroying civilian structures is not the same as killing civilians on purpose.

[Sapper]

Destroying civilian structures is not the same as killing civilians on purpose.

Attacking civilian targets is attacking civilians.

Lobbing extremely imprecise and obsolete rockets in the general direction of enemy territory is not the same as suicide bombing a crowded cafe.

[Tailz]

Destroying civilian structures is not the same as killing civilians on purpose.

It is when you know said structure is full of civilians.

[danholo]

The technology is the same basically.

Who cares? Way to derail the topic. Expected from the irrational.

[Zel]

The technology is totally different, however, they are the same sort of heavily armored mobile units indeed.

If you compare either Qassams or 13th-century early Chinese rockets to an F-15 warplane, then they represent almost the same kind of level of technology. However, if I compare the guys with Qassams to the Chinese soldier with the early rocket I can see more similarities than there are between a mounted knight of the middle ages and a 20th-century tank. Those Qassams work almost the same way as early Chinese rockets did.

So whats your argument? Because the application of basic rockets as weapons goes back to 13th century China, it does not constitute an attack on civilians? I guess both 13th century Chinese and modern Israelis who were killed or injured by them might see it differently. If I use a knife to stab someone to death I still am hold responsible for it, and nobody cares about the fact that I did it in an old fashioned 6th millenium BC style.

[grassroots1]

The IDF has consistently targeted civilian populations, even with chemical weaponry, and they are only continuing to do so now. I don't understand how people can defend such a one-sided situation. It's clear that there needs to be a dialogue, and people defend the barbaric practice of bombing one another?

[ThereBeDragons]

Gaza groups deny rocket ceasefire (22 Nov 2009)
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middl ... 55686.html

Several Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip have denied Hamas claims that an agreement has been brokered among them to stop firing rockets across the border into Israel. The al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, was the latest group to disavow the claim.

The denials are a blow to Hamas, which had announced the ceasefire on Saturday, saying the move was aimed at preventing retaliatory attacks by Israel and to allow Gazans to rebuild their homes, destroyed during Israel's three-week war on Gaza launched at the end of last year.

The statement came just hours after three Israeli air raids wounded eight Palestinians.

The water is so goddamn muddy in this place that I can never be sure that what I'm reading is ever true. An internal Hamas's timing of their statement after the Israeli attack (not before, like the other groups [possibly? I don't know when they released their statements, but the article says it was earlier than the al-Qassam Brigade's statement,]) seems to me like it may be a face-saving measure. Are there any pro-Israelis in the room who are going to state, though, that launching an attack on Gaza after the ceasefire had been announced but before any rockets had landed in Israel again to be a good idea?

other stuff:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... e/ShowFull (23 Nov 2009)

Abu Ali Mutapha Brigades, armed wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine: "option of confrontation and resistance against the occupation in all forms."

Islamic Jihad: The spokesman said that it was inconceivable that the Palestinians would agree to stop the "resistance" while Israel was continuing its "aggression" against the Palestinians. "We stick to our right to confront the occupiers for as long as they are on our Palestinian lands," he said. "We won't accept the principle of security for security. The enemy will leave only through resistance."

[LehmanB]

I have never seen this explanation for the word.

Tehediya or huddnah is a 'ceasefire' with that emphasis. when it has rules of how much time it can be continued with non muslims and a formal duty to recontinue the buttle afterwords. on the surface- whats the difference? a ceasefire.. but it has a dialect, its actualy a term of a law they have.
p.s. can you give me a precise link ?

Furthermore, why would you be surprised at all to find out that a militant group rearms

i am not surprised of that. i'm surprised when people demands israel to stay scilence about it.

[Beren]

I don't understand how people can defend such a one-sided situation.

Perhaps because they are actually on that one side?

[LehmanB]

Perhaps because they are actually on that one side?

or perhaps because they found the statements that the IDF is targeting civilian targets and is using "chimical weapons" as not true.
chimical weapons is a horrible tool which the IDF literaly didn't use. i saw chimical weapons with its meanings in vietnam; not in gaza.

[grassroots1]

or perhaps because they found the statements that the IDF is targeting civilian targets and is using "chimical weapons" as not true.
chimical weapons is a horrible tool which the IDF literaly didn't use. i saw chimical weapons with its meanings in vietnam; not in gaza.

White phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon? I saw pictures of white phosphorus bombs exploding hundreds of feet in the air above civilian areas in Gaza. And you're defending this practice. How is finding that Israel only used conventional bombs to murder hundreds of people instead of chemical ones a reason for defending the practices of Israel? Obviously it's not your reason. Maybe your family is supportive of Israel, maybe your family is Jewish and supportive of Israel, who knows?

[Captain Sam]

White phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon?

White phosphorus is used in war for smokescreens, to mask movement, and to force enemy combatants to withdraw from their position. White phosphorous won't kill you unless you sit in the stuff and breath it in for hours.

If the Israeli's actually wanted to use a chemical weapon, they'd use something like mustard gas, which can actually kill people, and kill them quickly.

I was always very annoyed by the sensationalism and hyperbole crap coming from the anti-Israel camp about white phosphorous. Just so incredibly weak and stupid. I never saw anyone screaming foul when the US used and continues to use white phosphorous in Iraq and Afghanistan.

White phosphorous has been used since WW1, primarily as a smokescreen.