Talk:Israel Defence Force
From RationalWiki
[edit] Israeli bulldozers
I don't mean to be a P.C. thug but this is a really gross way of looking at Israeli bulldozers that are proven to be used for destroying private homes of law abiding Palestinians.--158.143.165.215 20:42, 29 February 2008 (EST)
- You missed the sarcasm? human
21:03, 29 February 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, it totally went over my head--158.143.165.215 21:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)
- Sorry you missed it. It seemed pretty obvious when I wrote it. But maybe that's because the gov't here doesn't bulldoze buildings with uparmored D11's (yet), only the occasional crazy person does (really). human
23:07, 29 February 2008 (EST)
- Sorry you missed it. It seemed pretty obvious when I wrote it. But maybe that's because the gov't here doesn't bulldoze buildings with uparmored D11's (yet), only the occasional crazy person does (really). human
- Yeah, it totally went over my head--158.143.165.215 21:20, 29 February 2008 (EST)
[edit] An attack article?
Wow, this is pretty much just an attack on the IDF, which is the military force of a sovereign nation. It seems like every HRW report has nothing to do with IDF in particular, but rather with Israel's national policies. I would suggest making this article just a redirect to Israel because of this, and merge the content. Thoughts?--Tom Moorefiat justitia 10:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't a merger is the right way to go. I think it's less of an "attack article" than it could be, but a little more level-headedness wouldn't go amiss.
d hominem 10:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see why being "the military force of a sovereign nation" makes a group immune from articalization? Although if you mean that they are only the "instrument" of the national policy, rather than the "source" of their actions, I guess it could become a section there. ħuman
20:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- That is what I mean, yes.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 21:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- The IDF deserve an article as much as the US Army deserves one. Both armies have a scary amount of military power, but both are the military arms of their respective governments. The IDF is merely the medium through which the (abhorrent) Israeli policy is carried out, so its a bit stupid to target it exclusively. MarcusCicero 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I guess the only question is how much any despicable methods are "approved" or condoned by the respective governments, and how much they are made up in the organization itself. Since in both countries (?) the military is subservient to civilian control, I suppose in the end the moral burden of any military activity rests with the government? It's not like the POTUS says "Army, please secure the border" and they nuke Mexico on their own initiative. ħuman
22:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I guess the only question is how much any despicable methods are "approved" or condoned by the respective governments, and how much they are made up in the organization itself. Since in both countries (?) the military is subservient to civilian control, I suppose in the end the moral burden of any military activity rests with the government? It's not like the POTUS says "Army, please secure the border" and they nuke Mexico on their own initiative. ħuman
- I don't see why being "the military force of a sovereign nation" makes a group immune from articalization? Although if you mean that they are only the "instrument" of the national policy, rather than the "source" of their actions, I guess it could become a section there. ħuman
- In perhaps one of the greatest films ever, one U.S. general launched a nuclear strike on Russia out of fear of loosing his precious bodily fluids to the reds. People should take these things seriously! 86.40.222.227 22:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)