• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israeli tanks 'enter Gaza' after deadly clashes

They have breached the border.
They've placed explosives on the Palestinian side and set them off.
That's how you breach a ****ing border.

I don't know even how to begin and explain to you that crossing the border into the Israeli side, placing the explosives on the Israeli side and setting them off in order to breach the border and cross into the Israeli side again is the most retarded thing that one could do.

What next?
You'll complain that launching rockets into the Israeli side is alright because they've launched those rockets from their own yards?
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
Placing explosives or mines on your side of the boarder is perfectly fine
Click to expand...

Yes, but not when the intent is to blow up a breach in a wall the other side built. Clearly the intent was to breach it, naturally, when Israeli soldiers saw the terrorists try blow it up, the thought process wasn't "oh OK, its on there side of the boarder", the thought process was most probably more like "they are trying to do something fishy", so engaging them was a perfectly fine response. It was pure provocation.

Now as for an agressive act. Blockades are considered an act of war, so each day Israel enforce it it is creating an agressive act
Click to expand...

Attempting to blow it up, equally, is an act of war and an aggressive act.
 
Last edited:
East Jerusalem has been falsely labeled as occupied. That is an ill informed recognition. Israel and its people have always seen East Jerusalem as Israel no less than they see Tel Aviv as part of Israel. They live there like its Tel Aviv, build there like its Tel Aviv, and work there like its Tel Aviv.

Unfortunately the same thing is going on in North Cyprus at the moment (only the world believe Turkey's presence there is an occupation rather than the existance of the de-facto Turkish state). However, if the UN or the US where to turn around and tell me to "stop building there", i would be absolutely enraged.

God knows how Israeli's feel. Good on Netanyahu. I support you fully.
 

The article does not mention anything about the explosives being set off.

And where does it say the Palestinians crossed into Israel?

And I already adressed the rocket fire did I not
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The article does not mention anything about the explosives being set off.

And where does it say the Palestinians crossed into Israel?

And I already adressed the rocket fire did I not
Click to expand...
Even if the article didn't(and it did happen), your assumption that the militants need to cross the border and place the explosives on the Israeli side before the Israeli defense forces can react is simply ridiculous and has no logic to back it.


IDF officer, soldier killed in Gaza clashes - Israel News, Ynetnews
 

Where does the article say the explosives were set off?

Placing mines on your side of a boarder is perfectly acceptable

The US can place all the mines it wants to along the Canadian boarder and Canada has the right to complain, but not attack the US over it. Israel has the right to place all the mines it wants to along the Gaza boarder and the Palestinians have all the right to place mines along the Gaza boarder it wants.

All as long as they are placed on their respective sides of the boarder
 
Gazan militants try to breach the Israeli-Gazan border on a daily basis.

It cannot be compared to the Canada-US border, and comparing it anyhow is simply showing that the one doing the comparison has no basic understanding of the situation.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Where does the article say the explosives were set off?

Placing mines on your side of a boarder is perfectly acceptable
Click to expand...

I corrected myself, look back at my post.

Do you actually think placing mines near the boarder is ok? You dont see that as a provocation? Really?


The IDF didnt attack them until Hamas attempted to kidnap a soldier. The US in this case is clearly provocating Canada. As a result, Canada would have the right to neutralize the targets especially if she believed those targets posed a threat to the nation...in this instance there is more of an excuse because Hamas is also a terrorist faction.
 
Read the entire article

Gee placing explosives several dozens of meters away from the fence in Palestinian territory is such a provocation.

And the devices exploded AFTER Israeli forces crossed into Palestinian territory.
 
Last edited:

As long as the mines are in US territory it is perfectly fine.

It will have no effect on any Canadian not trying to cross into the US illegally. The US would be within its rights to kill anyone crossing its boarder illegally, and as such not a provocation to Canada

If the US placed the mines in Canadian territory now that is a provocation as it crossed into Canadian territory, and Canada should (not that it could) wipe out the forces that crossed into Canadian territory
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Placing mines on your side of a boarder is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...
Nowhere did it state that mines were being placed. It said explosives. On the border, I imagine such explosives would constitute either breaching charges or an IED type device being planted to kill/injure IDF soldiers as they pass by on patrol. Remote detonation. It would be negligent of IDF soldiers to not investigate the nature and potential of materials being planted in their proximity.
 
I figure since Obama showed Isreal that they have no friend in the USA the Peace Process can finally move forward. No more pansy hand holding meetings on the false belief hamas is a willing partner to peace.
 

Read the Ynet news article posted by Apocalypse

The explosives were being placed several dozens of meters away from the fence in Palestinian territory.

There is no way explosives placed several dozens of meters away from the fence would be able to kill Israeli patrols on the Israeli side of the fence


Lets not forget that Ynet news is not a pro Palestinian news source. Everything in that article points to no provocation for Israel to cross into Palestinian territory for this particular incident.
 
Last edited:
You've obviously never seen an IED with daisy-chained artillery shells blow.
 
Tashah said:
You've obviously never seen an IED with daisy-chained artillery shells blow.
Click to expand...

Read the article
SEVERAL DOZEN meters in Palestinian territory

Meaning the only way Israeli forces could be affected is if they cross into Palestinian territory
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Read the article
SEVERAL DOZEN meters in Palestinian territory

Meaning the only way Israeli forces could be affected is if they cross into Palestinian territory
Click to expand...
Or if they patrol next to the border and the explosives cover the radius of a few dozen meters.

One recalls that their intention was most probably to kidnap a soldier, and they've probably tried to use Hizb'allah's tactic when it placed explosives near the Lebanese-Israeli border and waited for an Israeli patrol to pass by, then they've activated the explosives, crossed into the Israeli side and have kidnapped the two soldiers that were still alive from the explosive's damage.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Read the article
SEVERAL DOZEN meters in Palestinian territory

Meaning the only way Israeli forces could be affected is if they cross into Palestinian territory
Click to expand...
Meaning I was right. You've no experience in this arena.
 
Tashah said:
You've obviously never seen an IED with daisy-chained artillery shells blow.
Click to expand...

Even if the shrapnel did not spread far enough harm a patrol that type of IED would be one hell of a concussion grenade with a more extended range wouldn't it
 
moe said:
Even if the shrapnel did not spread far enough harm a patrol that type of IED would be one hell of a concussion grenade with a more extended range wouldn't it
Click to expand...
You betcha. :yes:
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Read the article
SEVERAL DOZEN meters in Palestinian territory

Meaning the only way Israeli forces could be affected is if they cross into Palestinian territory
Click to expand...

Several of Dozens of meters could be two, or three, or four. In which case it would still be very provocative to place them in such a close proximity to the boarder, and also close enough to be harmful. Anyway, as Tasha said, to leave them be would be sheer negligence. What where Hamas doing, trying to blow the ant infestation away? No.
 

Which means at least 24 meters from the fence, most likely 60-100

Well within Palestinian territory. And if Israel was concernedd about the possible explosions hurting their patrols they should patrol 200 meters from the fence on the Israel side of the boarder. Far enough away to protect themselves from the shock wave and close enough to get a good look at the fence.

And of course Hamas was planting explosives with the intent to kill or injury any Israel forces that came into Palestinian territory.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
As long as the mines are in US territory it is perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

No it is not. If a country interprets another countries act as provocative, they have the casus belli to react, that is there right.
Your are looking at it from a "property" perspective which is wrong. Equally i wouldn't sanction genocide against the Canadian people in America as long as it was done "on there side of the boarder".

It will have no effect on any Canadian not trying to cross into the US illegally. The US would be within its rights to kill anyone crossing its boarder illegally, and as such not a provocation to Canada
Click to expand...

Your comparison between the two situations shows that your knowledge on this topic is flawed. Anyway....
When your dealing with a terrorist group who are notorious for blasting rockets over the boarder and carrying out Jihad, the fact that you find it acceptable and "non-provocative" that a terrorist should plant explosives and be allowed to get away with it is....worrying.

If the US placed the mines in Canadian territory now that is a provocation as it crossed into Canadian territory, and Canada should (not that it could) wipe out the forces that crossed into Canadian territory
Click to expand...

You dont know what provocation means. You dont seem to realize it can come from either side of the boarder.
 
Yes I am looking at it as a property perspective. Canada has no authority over the territory of the USof A. As such the US of A has the right to do what ever it wants to on its property. Canada and moan and complain but it has no right to attack the US over things the US does in US territory (unless it is committing international warcrimes and placing explosives in US territory is not an international warcrime). Canada feeling it was a provocative act and a casus belli would mean Canada was being an idiot and should get beat down for being a bunch of morons. It is not a provocative act to defend ones boarders with mines or explosives or Anti Aircraft missile that fire only on planes that cross into your territory

Hamas planting explosives in Gaza is perfectly fine, Hamas planting them in Israel would not be. Nothing worring about that.
You dont know what provocation means. You dont seem to realize it can come from either side of the boarder.
Click to expand...

Yes it can, and both sides can place as many explosives on their side of the boarder as they want. Crossing the boarder is a provocation worthy of response, giving the other side the finger is not. Blockading a country is worthy of a response, not trading with a country is not.

Calling the other side a bunch of names, making threats are not worthy of a response, following up on those threats is
 
Last edited:

Sorry, what part of this is any less provocative? What part of this gives Israel any less reason to secure its safety? None.
 
MetalGear said:
Sorry, what part of this is any less provocative? What part of this gives Israel any less reason to secure its safety? None.
Click to expand...

The fact it was in Palestinian territory

Using your logic the Palestinians are justified on any attack they do on Israel in order to secure their safety
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…