|
Grex > Agora41 > #37: What can be done in the middle east? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 604 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 300 of 604:
| 
Apr 24 16:15 UTC 2002 |
Re #298: No, but we're talking aboublocks worth of two-story flats being
flattened completely. That's actualy more difficult than taking out a tall
building, since gravity doesn't help you.
|
lowclass
|
|
response 301 of 604:
|
Apr 24 19:20 UTC 2002 |
I doubt the IDF is using Military issue Carbines. They have higher
standards for military eqiupment, at least for their own use. THe F16's they
use have isreali dessigned digital equipment in place of American milspec
standard issue.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 302 of 604:
|
Apr 24 19:48 UTC 2002 |
Of course, only a very small part of the camp was destroyed, despite
propaganda to the contrary. Examine these photos:
http://mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ll60
|
slynne
|
|
response 303 of 604:
|
Apr 24 19:53 UTC 2002 |
Well, it was only a very very small part of NYC that was damaged last
9/11.
|
jp2
|
|
response 304 of 604:
|
Apr 24 19:54 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 305 of 604:
|
Apr 24 20:07 UTC 2002 |
303: If there were two skyscrapers in that part of the camp, you might
have a point. However, there were not. So you do not.
|
slynne
|
|
response 306 of 604:
|
Apr 24 20:28 UTC 2002 |
Depends on if we are talking relative damage. Saying that the damage in
Jenin is just a tiny little area doesnt diminish what happened there.
|
lk
|
|
response 307 of 604:
|
Apr 24 20:51 UTC 2002 |
David, I wasn't aware that demolition experts have a harder time with
smaller buildings than with taller structures due to gravity. If the
walls of the first floor are weakened or destroyed, gravity works just
fine to bring down the second floor of a small building.
A few dozen homes in a relatively small area were destroyed because
illegal combatants, in gross violation of all international norms,
turned a civilian area into a war-zone and then perpetrated "neighborhood
suicide" -- to the chagrin of many of the people who lived there -- by
setting off powerful explosions designed to damage tanks and kill soldiers.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 308 of 604:
|
Apr 24 21:13 UTC 2002 |
Here's how the Palestinians deal with suspected "collaborators:"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/672146/posts
Where's the Danish indignation over this? I guess they're too busy worrying
about how we're treating the Al Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo to concern
themselves with how often the Palestinians string up anyone who dares to
question the moral legitimacy of blowing up 13-year-old girls.
|
klg
|
|
response 309 of 604:
|
Apr 25 00:14 UTC 2002 |
Lets' see. An indiscriminate attack on unsuspecting sneak attack on civilians
who had not participated in any violent acts toward the attackers vs. a
surgical strike against an area harboring bomb makers and terrorists dedicated
to the killing of civilian women and children and destruction of a legitimate
country. Yep. That sure sounds like a moral equivalent to me.
|
russ
|
|
response 310 of 604:
|
Apr 25 01:30 UTC 2002 |
Re #296: Interesting bit of logic you have there, Marcus. Tell me,
why would a terrorist go to the trouble of getting an M-16 when a
Kalashnikov would be far cheaper, much more available in the region
and have more plentiful ammo?
Second question: What would it take to convince you that Arafat has
been taking guns given him for his police forces and using them to
arm terrorists? Serial numbers?
Third question: If it was proven that Arafat was arming terrorists,
would you finally condemn him? What would it take to convince you
that he must be removed before there can be peace in the region?
|
mdw
|
|
response 311 of 604:
|
Apr 25 02:05 UTC 2002 |
Perhaps he thinks the M-16 is a better arm. If it's scarcer, perhaps he
thinks the relative scarcity makes it a better status symbol. Or
perhaps he just wound up with it because nobody else wanted it, is
looking to upgrade, but hasn't yet succeeded.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 312 of 604:
|
Apr 25 02:32 UTC 2002 |
They sound different from AKs (apparently in a big way), which could confuse
Israeli troops, especially in an ambush situation. Plus, when you whack other
Palestinians with them, you can blame it on the Israelis.
The M-16 *isn't* necessarily a better firearm, at least not in rough
conditions.
|
bru
|
|
response 313 of 604:
|
Apr 25 03:22 UTC 2002 |
I don'r believe the isrealis use american arms. The galil may use the same
caliber bullet, but is a very different weapon.
|
russ
|
|
response 314 of 604:
|
Apr 25 04:45 UTC 2002 |
Re #311: You didn't even try to answer questions #2 and #3. What's
the matter? Would it force you to reveal your hidden agenda?
|
pthomas
|
|
response 315 of 604:
|
Apr 25 04:47 UTC 2002 |
Isn't the Galil based on the AK-47?
At any rate, the Galil has been phased out in much of the IDF at this
point in favor of the CAR-15, which is the carbine version of the M-16.
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/car15.htm
|
mvpel
|
|
response 316 of 604:
|
Apr 25 05:26 UTC 2002 |
Re: 312 - especially with that teeny-tiny little .223 bullet. Give me a .308
any day of the week. Saving up for a Springfield M1-A (California-legal, of
course.)
|
happyboy
|
|
response 317 of 604:
|
Apr 25 11:05 UTC 2002 |
scoped out any promising clock towers, walter?
|
lk
|
|
response 318 of 604:
|
Apr 28 18:02 UTC 2002 |
News from this morning:
Amnesty military adviser: no sign of massacre in Jenin
|
slynne
|
|
response 319 of 604:
|
Apr 28 19:11 UTC 2002 |
That is good news. Although, interestingly the AP is reporting that
Israel isnt allowing a U.N. inspection.
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israel's Cabinet
barred a U.N. fact-finding mission on
Sunday from investigating allegations
surrounding Israeli army actions in a West
Bank refugee camp, saying the United
Nations is ``out to get us.'
|
gull
|
|
response 320 of 604:
|
Apr 28 21:14 UTC 2002 |
Hmm...if they have nothing to hide, why are they preventing an independent
investigation?
|
slynne
|
|
response 321 of 604:
|
Apr 28 21:24 UTC 2002 |
There is the possibility that they honestly think the UN is "out to get
them". I'll bet Leeron can explain why Israel might think that.
Personally, I think it is a bit paranoid of them if that is really what
they think. Of course, they could have something to hide and could be
presenting the "UN is out to get us" theory as a way to justify not
having a U.N. inspection. I have to say that I would feel more
comfortable with a U.N. inspection.
|
klg
|
|
response 322 of 604:
|
Apr 28 21:39 UTC 2002 |
Pop Quiz: Out of all the members of the UN, which is the only one
that is barred from sitting on the Security Council?
|
jp2
|
|
response 323 of 604:
|
Apr 28 21:57 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 324 of 604:
|
Apr 29 00:49 UTC 2002 |
The reason Israel has put a hold on the UN team is precisely because it is
not independent and balanced.
|