PDA

View Full Version : Israeli Ground Forces Cross Border Into Gaza Strip



Moon
01-03-2009, 02:20 PM
Israeli Ground Forces Cross Border Into Gaza Strip

Saturday, January 03, 2009

DEVELOPING: Israeli ground forces began moving across the border into the northern Gaza Strip in an escalation late Saturday night of the weeklong offensive against Hamas.

The incursion was confirmed to FOX News by Israeli defense officials, and witnesses in the Gaza Strip reported seeing troops moving in a development that Reuters described as a small column of Israeli military vehicles backed by combat helicopters.

Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip had intensified Saturday evening as tanks began repositioning themselves around the border despite international efforts to secure a cease-fire and avert a ground war between Israel and Hamas.

Israel launched the aerial campaign a week ago in a bid to halt weeks of intensifying Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza. The offensive has dealt a heavy blow to Hamas, but failed to halt the rocket fire.

Early Saturday, Israel dropped leaflets in downtown Gaza City ordering people off the streets.

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475576,00.html)

Lars1701a
01-03-2009, 02:25 PM
I am glad to hear it. I wonder how long it will take the magic negro to chime in and tell them to use "restraint"

asdf2231
01-03-2009, 02:42 PM
Godspeed and do a better job this time.

Dan D. Doty
01-03-2009, 09:57 PM
The Moonbats will be having a fit about this; wonder how many will go to to fight against the IDF?

My guess, zero.

Come on TiT, now's your chance.

Zeus
01-03-2009, 10:12 PM
Israel okays call-up of tens of thousands of IDF reservists (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052311.html)
http://wa-ne1.www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gifBy Barak Ravid (barakravid80@gmail.com), Haaretz Correspondent, and Reuters

Israel's government has approved the call-up of tens of thousands of reservist soldiers, it was annnounced Saturday, almost simultaneously with the launch of a Gaza ground incursion aimed at halting rocket fire on Israel's southern communities.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said in a statement that, in accordance with a secret cabinet discussion Friday, the government ordered the armed forces "to draft the necessary reservists, on a scale of tens of thousands of troops."

The Gaza ground operation launched Saturday had actually been approved last week, but Olmert promised his ministers that when the time came to begin the offensive, it would first be brought for fresh approval by the security cabinet. On Thursday night, Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak held a meeting that lasted until 4 A.M., during which it was decided that that time had come.

On Friday afternoon, at around 2 P.M., the security cabinet convened at Olmert's office at the Defense Ministry building in Tel Aviv. The meeting was held in utmost secrecy, and the military censor even banned reports that the discussion had taken place.

As the cabinet debate dragged on, the two ministers from the ultra-Orthodox Shas party said that they would stay at the meeting despite the imminent onset of the Sabbath, as the discussion constituted "pikuah nefesh" (the saving of human life which allows Jews to break religious laws). Olmert told the two to go home, but to each leave a note with their votes on the issue of a ground operation.

In the voting, 10 ministers were in favor of the operation, while two - Haim Ramon of Kadima and Eli Yishai of Shas - abstained.

mark1
01-03-2009, 10:43 PM
I am glad to hear it. I wonder how long it will take the magic negro to chime in and tell them to use "restraint"

Whenever Israel starts getting serious, the "international community" pressures Israel to stop. Which is just postponing the inevitable. Eventually Israel finds itself repeating the operation at a later time. If they want to be successful now, they have to finish what they started and kill the damn terrorists, no matter what the "international community" says. Only when Israel itself is convinced that they won should they retreat.

By the way, just to remind everybody, Israel totally withdrew from Gaza three years ago, yet the terrorists are still fighting Israel from there. So even if you are against the so called "settlements" (which is a stupid position to take, but that argument is for another time) Israel is totally justified here. It is as if North and South Carolina had a war, and the North agreed to stop fighting, signed a truce, and withdrew all of its forces from South Carolina. And the South Carolinians then commenced rocket attacks over the border into Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Raleigh-Durham, and Ashville. Same situation here with Israel and Gaza.

SarasotaRepub
01-03-2009, 11:16 PM
Godspeed and do a better job this time.

Agreed. A much better job.

Milly
01-03-2009, 11:33 PM
I do love watching CNN and Fox when the rockets are lighting up enemy cities. It's like a super fireworks display.

jeskibuff
01-04-2009, 07:01 AM
just to remind everybody, Israel totally withdrew from Gaza three years ago, yet the terrorists are still fighting Israel from there. So even if you are against the so called "settlements" (which is a stupid position to take, but that argument is for another time) Israel is totally justified here. It is as if North and South Carolina had a war, and the North agreed to stop fighting, signed a truce, and withdrew all of its forces from South Carolina. And the South Carolinians then commenced rocket attacks over the border into Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Raleigh-Durham, and Ashville. Same situation here with Israel and Gaza.No matter how simply you explain things, some people (a.k.a."liberals") will NEVER.GET.IT! They feel the need to dig up some bogus explanation that suits them better ("North Carolinians must have done SOMETHING wrong to deserve the rocket attacks"). Again, affirming that liberals are the dumbest people on the planet.

Odysseus
01-06-2009, 09:54 AM
I am glad to hear it. I wonder how long it will take the magic negro to chime in and tell them to use "restraint"
He's not going to weigh in until he has to. Right now, it's still on Bush's watch, and he can make the claim that we only have one president at a time (which didn't stop him from negotiating with the Iraqis while still only a candidate), but if he's lucky, Israel will have completed operations and wiped out Hamas before the inaugural or a ceasefire will be in place (the latter being more likely than the former, just because of the time constraint), but if not, it will still be ongoing when he takes office and he'll have to do more than just say "present."

No matter how simply you explain things, some people (a.k.a."liberals") will NEVER.GET.IT! They feel the need to dig up some bogus explanation that suits them better ("North Carolinians must have done SOMETHING wrong to deserve the rocket attacks"). Again, affirming that liberals are the dumbest people on the planet.
Not dumbest, just the most destructive. By siding with what they perceive as the underdog, they're making themselves look virtuous. The fact that the underdog in this case is a rabid pit bull that needs to be put down for the safety of everyone doesn't enter into it.

jeskibuff
01-06-2009, 08:19 PM
Not dumbest, just the most destructive.I stand by the assertion that they're the dumbest people on the planet. I have had conversations with liberals where I put things in the simplest of terms, yet they fail to understand. They appear to absorb what you're saying, but the next thing you know, they fall back on the same old argument.

For instance, a co-worker in Virginia (several years ago) was claiming how inept Bush was at catching bin Laden. He said we have satellites that can read license plates, so why can't we locate him and drop a bomb on him?

I tried to explain the problem in an analogy. I told him to imagine himself sitting on his front lawn with a powerful telescope. I would put a tiny red dot on one blade of grass and he had to find it with the telescope. I was hoping he would get the connection that powerful tools such as satellite imagery are still limited by the ability of humans to digest the vast quantity of information that the tools provide. Then I added the possibility that that red dot could hop from one blade of grass to another, as bin Laden certainly could move from one place to another.

I thought it was a good analogy. I thought that he would understand such simple terms. He certainly looked like he understood.

Several days later, I hear him telling someone else how inept GWB was because he couldn't find bin Laden, even with our powerful satellites.

Sorry, but there are so many similar stories that lead me to believe that liberals are the DUMBEST people on the planet!

PoliCon
01-06-2009, 08:35 PM
jeski - it is a good analogy.

SarasotaRepub
01-06-2009, 09:45 PM
jeski - it is a good analogy.

Yepper it is. I knew a guy down in Sarasota who was a big Dem and
Clinton fan. If you brought up anything and I mean anything negative
about Bubba he'd either get up and leave or one time, just started
shaking his head and go lalalalalalalalalalalala....:D Now THAT was
funny! And then he got up and walked away when we wouldn't stop
pushing his buttons. :cool::D

jeskibuff
01-06-2009, 10:03 PM
jeski - it is a good analogy.Yeah, I thought so. I truly thought the problem was that he was in a kind of C.S.I. mode, where TV gives you the impression that technology is available to instantly solve every problem. Now I think he either was too dumb to make the connection or he wanted to cling to an argument that he could get the most mileage out of. It's hard to tell with these liberals...you put things in the simplest terms, but their eyes glaze over as if protectively shielding their fragile belief system from the truth.

So by my reckoning, either they are too stupid to understand basic logic or they think that they have too much to lose if they admit to the obvious truth. Either way, they're stupid losers, continuing to live as sad, dumb ignoramuses or they're clinging to flimsy fallacies in fear of losing what they value most (which is usually worthless anyway).

Any way you look at it, they're the dumbest people on the planet. You can't reason with them...so why not ridicule them instead?

Get your latest dose of liberal ridicule here: http://www.Newsbusters.org

jeskibuff
01-06-2009, 11:37 PM
I thought about that analogy a little more. It's way off base. Let's do a little math...
Assuming that bin Laden was within the borders of Afghanistan, he had 249,984 square miles in which to roam. One square mile is 5280 feet by 5280 feet, or 27,878,400 square feet. Afghanistan would be 6,969,153,945,600 square feet!

Checking my own physical dimensions, I am about 20" wide and 12" deep. Let's just stretch it and say my aerial footprint would be 2' by 1', or 2 square feet. Osama's probably about that much, just taller.

Now let's talk about that tiny dot on a blade of grass. Let's say it's 1/16" square, which would really look quite big on a blade of grass. That amounts to 1/64 square inches which is 1/9216 square foot (.0001085).

To put that into scale for a 2-square foot man, the size lawn we would need to represent Afghanistan would have to be 378,100,080 square feet which is 13.56 square miles or 8,679 acres!

That's 34,716 times larger than the typical 1/4-acre lot of an American home. Good luck with that telescope!

AmPat
01-07-2009, 09:46 AM
* First of all, to blame GWB for failure to get Bin Laden is ridiculous. GWB has an Army to do that for him. I don't think GWB has time to spend walking the terrain of Afghanistan to personally find one man.

* Second, to assume that finding Bin Laden is the ultimate goal is stupid. Finding him would be good but to focus solely on that would jeapardize and compromise the larger mission in Afghanistan. Getting Bin Laden will happen as a consequence of a combat action or an intelligence success.

* Third, I've flown all over that country and it is tall mountains seperated by valleys followed by taller mountains. We would fly repeatedly over the same terrain and after the third or fourth pass we would finally see people. I used to wonder if they were dirt people who came alive because of our rotor vibrations. They dress in earth tone fabric and blend in nicely with the terrain.

* They dress like all the other people in the region. He is not wearing a neon colored robe with a strobe light on his turban.

* Bin Laden has help and is hiding. He isn't waving his rifle at us in some symbolic yet useless gesture of defiance. He is hiding like the RAT he is in a dirt tunnel.

Why can't the voting public hold these liberals accountable for their gross stupidity?:confused:

Odysseus
01-07-2009, 11:31 AM
jeski - it is a good analogy.
It's a great analogy. I'm going to be using that.

Yepper it is. I knew a guy down in Sarasota who was a big Dem and
Clinton fan. If you brought up anything and I mean anything negative about Bubba he'd either get up and leave or one time, just started shaking his head and go lalalalalalalalalalalala....:D Now THAT was
funny! And then he got up and walked away when we wouldn't stop pushing his buttons. :cool::D
I've seen the same thing. A friend's wife was a big lib. At her birthday party in 2004, just before the elections, one of her friends raised his glass and offered a toast to Bush's last year in office. I responded with by drinking to 2008. She was livid about politics being discussed at her party, but for some reason, blamed me for it. It seems that attacking the president wasn't political, but responding was. Later on, whenever her husband and I talked politics, she'd do the same thing that your pal did, cover her ears and do the lalalalala thing until we stopped or were out of earshot.

I thought about that analogy a little more. It's way off base. Let's do a little math...
Assuming that bin Laden was within the borders of Afghanistan, he had 249,984 square miles in which to roam. One square mile is 5280 feet by 5280 feet, or 27,878,400 square feet. Afghanistan would be 6,969,153,945,600 square feet!

Checking my own physical dimensions, I am about 20" wide and 12" deep. Let's just stretch it and say my aerial footprint would be 2' by 1', or 2 square feet. Osama's probably about that much, just taller.

Now let's talk about that tiny dot on a blade of grass. Let's say it's 1/16" square, which would really look quite big on a blade of grass. That amounts to 1/64 square inches which is 1/9216 square foot (.0001085).

To put that into scale for a 2-square foot man, the size lawn we would need to represent Afghanistan would have to be 378,100,080 square feet which is 13.56 square miles or 8,679 acres!

That's 34,716 times larger than the typical 1/4-acre lot of an American home. Good luck with that telescope!
I am so going to use that.

Here's the thing, though. Liberals aren't stupid. If they were, they'd never effectively organize or win elections. What they are, and what we have to fight against, is that they are deluded and that they cling to their delusions because they make them feel good about themselves, and they choose that over clarity. Your friend understood that Bush couldn't find Bin Laden after you explained it to him, but it was more important for him to hate Bush than it was for him to actually deal with the reality of the Bin Laden search. Hating Bush makes him one with his fellow liberals, and defines him as a caring, compassionate member of a self-appointed elite. Since he's not actually involved in the search for Bin Laden, he doesn't have to confront the truth about its difficulty unless it's forced on him, and only for a little while. Once he's out of your earshot, he reverts to type. It isn't stupidity, it's the desire to feel good rather than acknowledge a hard truth and drive on.

I have a five-year-old daughter, and she gives me insights into the liberal mindset, because in many ways, it's an immature desire to remake the world. Think of how a child reacts to things, and you get a lot of the liberal attitude summed up. For example, when my daughter throws a tantrum, shewill decry our unfairness, scream, rant, demand to be allowed to do what she wants, even if it's completely irrational, and then even strike out. As a parent, my job is to get her to understand that she has to obey rules, even ones that she doesn't like or understand, and that her immediate gratification isn't going to come before our responsibilities. Now, think about how gay activists reacted to Prop 8 in California. They ranted about its unfairness, they demanded to be allowed to do what they wanted, despite the law, historical precedent, nature and the will of the majority. They then selected a convenient scapegoat, the Mormon Church (although any evangelicals would do) and targeted them for reprisals which consisted of public tantrums. Don't call them stupid, because you underestimate them when you do. Liberals aren't all stupid, they're immature, and smart, immature people can be very dangerous.


* First of all, to blame GWB for failure to get Bin Laden is ridiculous. GWB has an Army to do that for him. I don't think GWB has time to spend walking the terrain of Afghanistan to personally find one man.

* Second, to assume that finding Bin Laden is the ultimate goal is stupid. Finding him would be good but to focus solely on that would jeapardize and compromise the larger mission in Afghanistan. Getting Bin Laden will happen as a consequence of a combat action or an intelligence success.

Exactly. The FBI spent years building a case against Al Capone, and they knew exactly where he was, but all that they could get him on was tax evasion. Did that mean that the entire effort against organized crime was a failure or that the government shouldn't have fought the mobs?