digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Hot Photos of the Girls in the Israeli Army [SFW]

blog.800hightech.com — Here is a Collection of Israel’s Military Armed Forces Finest!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ilkeryoldas, on 10/10/2007, -25/+11armed and dangerous
  • juttman, on 10/10/2007, -18/+8War is hell??
    • ScrumFritter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This is a paradox though, because everyone knows Peace > War, but... if there was no war, there'd be no pictures like these... but that can't be right!
  • smellmyballs, on 10/10/2007, -50/+13Height...6'1
    Weight...180lbs
    Sex...YES PLEASE!
    • knetworx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Oh yeah, I remember putting that answer on a G&T test back in second grade.
  • repoulin, on 10/10/2007, -36/+11Good way to promote joining the military in israel
    • Theoxenmooving, on 10/10/2007, -4/+64It's mandatory.
      • Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -22/+1For women? I thought it was only mandatory for Israeli men
        • Laughsatyou, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3shows your ignorance on the matter
        • fantasticFlan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15IIRC, Israel is the only country with mandatory military service for both sexes.
          • Laughsatyou, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15and when the whole region wants to eradicate you it makes sense.
    • godmode, on 10/10/2007, -17/+11like Theoxenmooving said, its mandatory. 2 years of service i think. In a way thats kind of awesome.
      • sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13in another way that is craptastic. At least in the US you get to choose whether or not you want to die for political reasons. It is understandable for Israel they seem to be at war more than the US and it is a much smaller country.
      • wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12 years for women. 3 years for men.
      • MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I think it's cool too. No worse than school, right? At least you're doing something productive, and you probably make a lot of good friends. I don't see what's wrong with it.
        • munna80, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You guys have no clue what you're talking about
    • eschompthis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Good lord those are some pretty girls, we now have evidence that Israel has the weapons of mass destruction, woman.
  • Monkeybrains, on 10/10/2007, -18/+49I thought I was on Fark for a minute.
    • juicebag, on 10/10/2007, -11/+64Sorry about this not being about a 1984 style conspiracy, Apple, Ron Paul, or Linux.
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+34Don't worry someone will start bashing bush here in just a second.
    • Laughsatyou, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2** bashes bush*

      ron paul 2008!
    • ghettodev, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Meme Life Cycle: Internet Hate Machine -> Ebaums World-> Something Awful -> Fark -> Digg.
      • ScottMaximus1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Meme Life Cycle 1.5 Internet Hate Machine ---> Ebaums World ---> Something Awful ---> Fark ----> Reddit ---> Digg ---> Other
        • AwesomeMonster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1something awful? try ytmnd. Most use of memes in the foums are banable offenses.
  • FameMoney, on 10/10/2007, -17/+8Modern Xenas Warrior Princesses !
  • goeatsmsht, on 10/10/2007, -15/+9Chicks n guns?
    Hoo-ya!
    • BleedingCello, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Further promotes my theory that guns can make anyone look better.
    • Laughsatyou, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0guns scare sheltered people.
    • pivovy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"shoot me again I ain't dead yet"
  • gutterboy, on 10/10/2007, -11/+81Shalom ladies
  • str3ama, on 10/10/2007, -3/+149Seeing as how everyone 18+ has to join the army..this would include any hot girl(s)/women in Israel.
    • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -56/+30Yup. Might as well just be titled "Hot Israeli Chicks". Better yet, "Hot Israeli Chicks Currently Being Indoctrinated into Zionism to Keep the Palestinian Genocide Train Rolling".
      • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -17/+34a) Stick your head in toilet.
        b) Flush.
        c) Repeat if necessary.
        • turpenine, on 10/10/2007, -28/+13you support israel over palestine why?
          one says a book said they get land cause of firstsies, one says finders keepers.

          so, in conclusion, you are a dick.
          • foopirata, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22Funny, cause them Moslems say "Palestine" is theirs because their "prophet" "journeyed to the farthest mosque", and to THEM, that's an allusion to Jerusalem, while the Jewish people, that for 2000 years has yearned to go back to Jerusalem, praying towards it 3 times a day and wishing each other "Next Year In Jerusalem Rebuilt", according to you, have no rights to it whatsoever...
          • Scraniel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Very true foopirata.
            Also, it wasn't until following the creation of the state of Israel and especially after 1967, that Muslims claimed that Jerusalem is one of their top holy cities. Before that it was only Mecca and Medina. But that's just not enough.
          • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'd support Israel, but Palestine pretty much said "get out or we'll fight you out". Israel said, "No, we just faced the Holocaust", Palestine said "we're going to bomb the ***** out of you", it didn't work, and Israel won the fight. Since they won the fight, they get to stay there...since Palestine decided that whoever wins the war gets the land and Israel won on those terms.
          • wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You are forgetting to mention that Israel first said "let us live in peace side by side". And then they kept saying "can we live in peace now?"
        • jedicurt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Technically can't that same argument be used in the illegal immigration problem in the US? Didn't California and several other states change from being in Mexico one night, to being part of the US the next??? I could be wrong... it could have gone from Spain to the US over night... but still

          • Phrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not exactly in one night, but yes, most of the south-western US was Mexico prior to the Mexican American war of 1846-1848
          • wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So, when is the US going to return the occupied territories to Mexico?
          • ScottMaximus1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1HAHAHA

            James k. Polk says "This land is your land, Your land is my land"

            "bitch"
          • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1But the U.S didn't then wage unending terrorism and genocide against the Mexican population of California... Other than that, good analogy.
          • wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Did Mexico attack the US repeatedly with the stated goal of annihilating it? Did the Mexican population of California blow up American teenagers in pizzerias? Do Mexicans fire rockets into the day care centers in the towns in Texas? What do you think would happen if they did?
        • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6turpenine: I don't support either over another. Both have extremists that cause collateral damage on mostly innocents, with some of the collateral damage being intentional. He obviously supports palestine over israel. so, in conclusion, you are pus coming from a wart on a dick.
        • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Simple really: Who is rolling tanks into whom's territory, razing homes and uprooting olive trees as they go? How many Israelis have been killed by Palestinians in the past 5 years, as opposed to the other way around? Who is flying bombing missions over Syria, and how many Syrian jets have attacked Israeli installations lately?

          If/when those facts are reversed, I'll be pro-Israel instead, but for now it's obvious who the aggressor is in the region. And don't give me this "taking the fight to the terrorists" ***** because 8-year-old schoolgirls that get shot in the head walking home from school are NOT terrorists. Being that we're all geeks in here, let me give you a simple formula that might help clarify things: Israel::Palestine = USA::Iraq, and in both cases all that's being accomplished by the occupation/genocide is massive civilian casualties that only creates more terrorists in the long run. "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"... no need to concern ourselves with the interests of the 99% of peaceable Iraqis and Palestinians who die in the crossfire so long as 1 of the 20 we kill is a legitimate terrorist, eh?
        • wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9@dracostimpy
          Learn some history. This would be a good starting point:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict
          As a first step, pay attention to the map in the top right corner. The green countries are the members of the Arab League. The blue country is Israel. What? Can't find the blue country? Look closely at the eastern shore of the Mediterranean sea. Can you see it now? Yes, it is that tiny. About the size of Massachusetts. Now, try real hard to think, and to draw some conclusions.
        • yogiri, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7@wpi97
          Are you saying that the size of the countries has anything to do with the atrocities they cause? So, a little country MUST br the good and a lot of big countries OBVIOUSLY are EVIL?
        • wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9@yogiri
          No, I am not saying that. I am saying that one should study the history of the conflict, and make statements that make sense, instead of regurgitating the lies about the "genocide" of the Palestinians. The facts are that a Palestinian Arab state was supposed to be created in 1948. Unfortunately, the rest of the Arab governments decided that exterminating the Jews is more important than creating a state for the Palestinian Arabs, and launched an attack on Israel on the day of its creation. So what we have is a country the size of Massachusetts, that has been repeatedly attacked by its larger neighbors since the day of its creation. We also have a huge area controlled by Arabs, and a tiny strip of land that the Jews call home. Apparently the idea of Jews having a home irritates many people on digg. Go read the history, at least the Wikipedia article, and then tell us who you think is evil in this situation.
        • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6@wpi97

          That tiny strip of land the Jews call home just keeps gettin bigger and bigger, all in the name of "security":


          http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/1947+UN+Partition+Plan.htm
          http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/Israel+in+Maps/Modern+Israel+-within+boundaries+and+cease-fire+li.htm

          So you tell me: who's zooming who? Learn some cartography, butthole.
        • wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7"That tiny strip of land the Jews call home just keeps gettin bigger and bigger" Right... After being attacked numerous times, Israel captured territory about the size of Rhode Island. Bigger, indeed! Look at the first map you liked. That would have been the Palestinian state if the armies of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt did not try to push the Jews into the sea. And after the Six Day War of 1967, those nasty Israelis offered to give Gaza and the West Bank back to Egypt and Jordan respectively! In exchange for recognition and peace! Can you believe the arrogance of those people! And they went further. They offered a state to the Palestinians. Then they evicted their own people from Gaza. What chutzpah!

          "Learn some cartography, butthole. " Excellent argumentation! Very well thought out. I will be sure to learn the science of drawing maps, i. e. cartography.
        • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Fine, you win.. it's all the Arabs' fault. Let's kill them all and watch how peaceful life is in Israel once its borders reach clear to China and Russia. I'm sure they'll get along just fine with their neighbors then, since all they want is a little patch of land (aka the Middle East) to establish their happy little theocracy. The Jewish homeland will prove once and for all that it is possible to create a peaceful theocratic state, even if every other theocracy throughout history was rife with internal struggle right up until the day it collapsed from its own idiosyncrasies. Congrats on winning the debate, wpi97... can't wait.

          By the way, about that six day war... remind me again who started that one?

          "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack against Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent invasion by Egypt." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

          Sounds kinda like how the US invaded Iraq to prevent them from invading, umm, the US? Israel? Who exactly was Iraq about to invade again... I forget?
        • wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Ok, I will address your lies one by one.
          1) When did Israel threaten to kill all Arabs? On the other hand, read Hamas charter: http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm Nice, huh?

          2) "once its borders reach clear to China and Russia" During the 60 years of its existence Israel has captured tiny area in a series of *defensive* wars. It gave the Sinai back to Egypt in exchange for peace. It withdrew from Lebanon, where it held a strip 10 miles wide to prevent cross-border attack by the PLO and then by Hezbollah. Israeli army evicted Israeli citizens from Gaza. Compare that to countries that practiced real expansionism, such as Russia, US, China, Germany, France, and Britain. Israel is not trying to expand, it is trying to survive. I told you they offered to give the West Bank and Gaza back after the Six Day War. Did that not happen? Did Ehud Barak not offer a state to Arafat?

          3) Israel is not a theocracy. Marriage and burial are left up to the religious authorities of whatever religion one practices. All other matters are decided by civil authorities. Israel is a parliamentary republic, and all its citizens, including over 1 million Arabs have the right to vote and hold an office. If you want an example of a real theocracy, look at Iran or the Vatican.

          4) From the link you presented: "In May 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula" "Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israel flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel." If you are a country the size of Russia, you can wait for the enemy to attack you. If you are a country the size of Israel you cannot. Also, think about this: as a result of losing the Six Day War, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria lost very small percentage of their territory (actually Gaza and the West Bank were not even theirs, they were supposed to be Plaestinian). Now I have a question for you: what would happen if Israel lost any of the wars with its neighbors?

          5) What does Iraq have to do with any of this? Or should we now talk about how Iraq was one of the Arab states that attacked Israel in 1948, or that Saddam bombed Israel with Scud missiles during the First Gulf War, even though Israel had absolutely nothing to do with it?
        • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21) http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm

          2) If you shoot first, it's not a defensive war. Period.

          3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Israel - Any state that automatically grants citizenship to people of a specific faith is, by my definition, a theocracy. You call it what you want, liberal democracy, integrated state, whatever. Just because Arabs live there doesn't meant It's not a theocracy. Iran has plenty of Jews, doesn't it?

          4) If Israel lost any of the wars with its neighbors, the USA/UN would have fixed that problem. We've been fighting proxy wars for Israel ever since its inception. You think we'd intervene to save Kuwait's worthless ass, but somehow turn our backs on our "indispensable ally"? Digga pleez.

          5) Iraq has every thing to do with this, since it's one of those proxy wars I mentioned in #4. I'm not a Saddam apologist by any means. I'm glad he's dead and him launching scuds at Israel was totally heinous. That said, claiming Israel has nothing to do with US involvement in the Middle East in any capacity is ridiculous; aside from defending the petrodollar, Israe
        • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Keyboard froze and I didn't wanna lose what I had so far so I just submitted it as-is, but point made nonetheless.
        • wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ah, so you are capable of having a discussion without making unfounded statements and without using the word "butthole". Good. :)

          1) You have posted a link to a bunch of quotes. Some I agree with, some I do not. The website is clearly biased against Israel, so I doubt the authenticity of some of those. Even if some of these quotes are true, none of them say anything about exterminating the Arabs. Compare the worst of them to the Hamas charter. Regardless of any of it, the Palestinian Arab state would have been created in 1948 if the Arab states did not start a genocidal war against Israel. Israel agreed to coexist, the Arab states did not. After that Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank respectively for 19 years until 1967. During that time nobody made any attempt to create a Palestinian state. Why?

          2) Are things always that clear-cut? Egypt massed troops on Israeli border, and closed the Straight of Tiran, cutting off Israel's only shipping route into the Indian Ocean and to southeast Asia. These were clear acts of aggression. Some say it was Nasser's bluff, but who really knows that? More importantly, how could Israeli leadership have known that? Imagine, you are the prime minister of a country that is 20 miles across. A country that has attacked you before, and has been formally at war with you for 19 years has an army of 100,000 men on your border, with the USSR urging them on. Do you wait, and risk being annihilated?

          3) From Webster's: theocracy: 1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided 2 : a state governed by a theocracy. You, of course, are free to make up your own definitions, but I would say that Webster's has a bit more authority in this case. As you can see, citizenship policy has nothing to do with it. Kuwait, for example, does not grant citizenship to any foreigners at all, and neither do many other Arab states. Another point is that Jews are an ethnic group, which happens to have its own religion. One does not have to be a practicing Jew, to get Israeli citizenship. Having a Jewish grandparent is sufficient. Depending on which grandparent it is, many people eligible for Israeli citizenship are not even Jewish, according to the religious law. The reason for this is that having a Jewish grandparent would have earned you a place in a death camp in Nazi Germany. Israel is a refuge for a dispersed people, who have been persecuted for centuries. Here is another one for you: http://www.digg.com/world_news/Israel_to_grant_citizenship_to_hundreds_of_Darfur_refugees

          4) "If Israel lost any of the wars with its neighbors, the USA/UN would have fixed that problem." *****. The US did not give any military aid to Israel until after the Six Day War, when they realized that Israel was a useful counterbalance to Soviet influence in the region. The UN could not care less. 900,000 Jews were expelled from the Arab countries after the creation of Israel. Was there a UN agency created to help them, as was the case with the Palestinian refugees? No. There was no help from the UN at all. Did the UN stop genocide in Rwanda? Did the UN stop genocide in Darfur? It has been clear for some time that nobody is going to protect the Jews from being exterminated other than the Jews themselves.

          5) The US involvement in the first Iraq war had nothing to do with Israel. It had to do with the threat to the oil supply. The US is involved in the Middle East for its own interests. If it wasn't for oil, the US government would not even know that any of those countries, including Israel, even existed. I disagree that this is a proxy war. Israel has been fighting its own wars for 60 years, and so far it has been doing quite well. Israeli air force could have bombed Iraq into the stone age in 1991, but they did not respond to Saddam's attacks in order to not jeopardize the US-led coalition. After that, Iran has been a more serious threat to Israel than Iraq. If the US ever goes to war with Iran, then it may make some sense to call that a proxy war for Israel, unless it is a joint operation.
        • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11) It's easy to agree to coexist when you're the one snatching up a big chunk of land and calling it your own. If I park a camper in your backyard and put a fence around what I determine to be my part of your yard, would you peacefully accept my right to live there?

          2) Yes, it's always that clear-cut. He who shoots first is the aggressor, period. Argue if you will that Egypt started it 20 years earlier, but after a 20 year standoff, I'd say he who breaks the standoff is the aggressor this time around, regardless of what happened two decades earlier. Canada just staked its ownership of the Northwest Passage... if they close that down, do you think the US will launch a pre-emptive strike against them? And no, I'm not an Arab apologist... they've done many bad things as you rightfully point out. I'm merely stating that Israel's the one with the upper hand now thanks to the fact that the Israeli lobby dictates US foreign policy, and rather than use the US to deter their enemies in the region, they're using us to annihilate their enemies.

          3) When people of a certain race are granted citizenship and the government openly encourages that ethnic group to emigrate, then what happens when Jews are 99.9% of the population of Israel? Israel may not be run by a mullah, but when everyone there worships the same god, there's a VERY high likelihood that religion will dictate how the country is run. It may not be Webster's definition of theocracy yet, but they'll have to update the dictionary after Israel shows us the new & improved way to create one.

          4) "In a 1993 interview for the Johnson Presidential Library oral history archives U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara revealed that a Carrier battle group, the U.S. 6th Fleet, already on a training exercise near Gibraltar was re-positioned towards the eastern Mediterranean to defend Israel. The administration "thought the situation was so tense in Israel that perhaps the Syrians, fearing Israel would attack them, or the Russians supporting the Syrians might wish to redress the balance of power and might attack Israel".

          "In his book Six Days veteran BBC journalist Jeremy Bowen claims that on 4 June, 1967 the Israeli ship Miryam left Felixstowe with cases of machine guns, 105 mm tank shells, and armored vehicles in "the latest of many consignments of arms that had been sent secretly to Israel from British and American reserves since the crisis started" and that "Israeli transport planes had been running a 'shuttle service' in and out of RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire". Bowen claims that Harold Wilson had written to Eshkol saying that he was glad to help as long as the utmost secrecy was maintained."

          5) By taking out Iraq, we've placed American troops in the path between Israel and Iran. Now, should Israel take it upon themselves to bomb Iran's reactors like they did to Saddam's in the 80's, Iran has no chance to retaliate without going over/through US-run territory. Also, Syria is now isolated, and taking it out would be a cakewalk for Israel's military, which is precisely why Israel at present is trying to provoke a conflict with Syria. And since Iran pledges to support Syria, Israel may be able to drag America into war with Iran by doing so. I'm not saying you must agree with me that this is a proxy war, but to not recognize how beautifully our involvement in the Middle East suits Israeli interests is rather buttholish (giggle) of you. Sure, there has to be something in it for us too (cheap oil & sustaining the petrodollar), but we've been pushed along every step of the way by the Israel lobby that as I type this is undoubtedly putting the screws to congress over Iran, and they can be VERRRY convincing since Mossad has the dirt on the 90% of congress that can't pass up on an all-expense paid sex tour in Thailand.
        • wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11) The "big" chunk of land is about the size of Massachusetts. It would have been even smaller if the Arabs agreed to the partition plan of 1948. A good chunk of the chunk was purchased from private owners by the Zionists at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. It also happens to be the chunk of land, in which Jews have resided continuously for over 3000 years, and which has an enormous spiritual significance for the Jews. It also happens to be the only Jewish state in the world, compared to a dozen Muslim Arab states. As Ben Gurion put it, the choice whether or not to create a Israel was not a choice between justice and injustice, but a choice between a bigger injustice (not creating it) and a smaller injustice.

          2) If Canada blockaded the coasts of the US and cut off its trade, and massed an army at the border, then yes, the US would have attacked, even though the US, unlike Israel, is big enough to absorb an initial strike. If someone points a gun at you, you shoot first, if you can. You don't wait in hope that your enemy is bluffing. According to *my definition* this is still self-defense. And please don't start with the "Israeli lobby runs the US government" mantra. This is just as silly and bigoted as saying that Israel caused the tsunami in 2004. It belongs in the conspiracy theory department.

          3) You seem to know very little about Jews. The truly observant Orthodox Jews make up a very small percentage of the Israelis, about 3% if I am not mistaken. While Israel is a Jewish state, in the same sense that France is a French state, it is also secular and democratic. There are over 30 political parties in Israel that are represented at various levels of government, just to give you an idea of the diversity of beliefs and political opinions. The old joke is that for every two Jews there are 3 opinions, so a theocracy or a dictatorship in Israel is virtually impossible. Also religious tourism (mainly Christian) is a major industry in Israel for obvious reasons, so making the country unfriendly to people of other faiths makes no sense. Compare that to many Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, where Jews are not even allowed to enter, regardless of whether or not they hold Israeli citizenship.

          4) The first quote is from 1993, while I was talking about the time before 1967. Even if the second quote is factual, there is a big difference between supplying weapons and preventing genocide which would surely follow Israeli defeat. In my opinion, the US would never actually send the troops to defend Israel prior to 1967 or even for a couple of decades afterward. It was too busy in Vietnam, if for no other reason. Now, maybe, but definitely not then. And even if it did, how many Israelis would have to die before that happened? Regardless, we know from history that relying on an outside military power to defend you is a bad idea. Nobody protected the Jews from the Inquisition, nobody protected the Jews from the pogroms, and nobody protected the Jews from the Holocaust, with the exception of the king of Denmark. Just as nobody protected Czechoslovakia and Poland from being taken over by Hitler in a matter of days.

          5) I never said that the US troops in Iraq is a bad thing for Israel. But this still does not make it a proxy war. The US started this war in 1991, but Bush-senior made a political decision not to finish it then. The real proxy war is conducted by Iran against Israel through Hezbollah and Hamas. Syria has been isolated for some time now, and it has been buying Russian weapons like crazy and supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. So who is provoking whom now? Obviously, the US involvement suits Israel: they are allies, remember? Just like Israel not selling military technology to China suits the US. Just like Israeli army testing the US hardware in combat suits the US, just like Israel sharing its intelligence suits the US, and just like Israeli companies developing CPUs for Intel suits the US. What is buttholish of you is assuming the wrong causal relationship between these facts, and making up conspiracy theories to back it up.
        • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11) Seems to me the relative injustice is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not saying Jews don't have a right to live there, but they had no right to formally declare a Jewish state there any more than I have a right to declare the neighborhood in which I live "Dracostimpyville".

          2) Self-defense at the personal level and national level is an apple-to-orange comparison, since I'm not endangering the lives of millions by firing the first shot in a gunfight. In international relations, I still say he who fires first is the aggressor. Pre-emptive attacks, no matter how much pressure is being applied, automatically surrenders the moral high ground. Iran understands that all too well, and that's why there's not a chance in hell that they'll do anything to provoke America into war despite our intense pressure upon them. Israel could learn a little something from its enemies in that respect.

          3) I know that government has a lot easier time manipulating its citizens into a consensus when the population is fairly homogeneous, and I know that military service is mandatory in Israel. Put through 2+ years of brainwashing, I'm sure a good majority of Israeli citizens emerge from the military with heads chock full of hatred toward Arabs. Certainly there are exceptions, but even as smart as the Jewish people are, there are still 5 idiots for every smart guy who is capable of recognizing when he's being propagandized. The Germans were damn smart too, and they fell for it. Americans were supposedly pretty smart since we invented damn near everything of importance from the 20th century, but look at us now. Arabs have been comparatively stupid over the past couple thousand years, but right now they're handing us our intellectual asses on a platter.

          4) The 1993 quote was from Robert McNamara, who was the Secretary of Defense in 1967. He was talking about the past, specifically the time right before the 6-day war. Also, remember that little incident with the USS Liberty? If anything, America should have attacked Israel after that, but it instead covered up the deaths of 34 US sailors just to save face for Israel. Sure, it's unwise to depend on foreign help, but maybe Israel should have thought about that before carving out a homeland in Arab-controlled territory. Seems to me the UN had no right to expropriate that land to begin with, and if anything the logical choice would have been to give them a chunk of Germany and kick out the Germans instead of plopping a nation smack dab in an area that would virtually guarantee a state of perpetual warfare. Maybe that was the plan all along, though... nothing helps the rich get richer than war without end.

          5) Except of course that Israel DOES sell our technology to China:
          http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FL21Ak01.html
          I think they recognize that Empire America has run its course, so they're finding a new whale to latch onto for food scraps.

          6) We're not gonna resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict here, so let's just agree to disagree. We can go point-counterpoint for months and still arrive at a stalemate, so I'll let you have the last word. Thanks for the spirited debate (butthole).
        • wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11) What right did the US have to declare independence from Britain? What right did Abhazia have to break away from Georgia? Kosovo will likely break away from Serbia. By what right? Israel was created by a UN vote, i. e. with the consent of the international community. That makes it the most legitimate country on the planet, in my opinion.

          2) "Self-defense at the personal level and national level is an apple-to-orange comparison" So is comparison of national territorial disputes to personal ones, which is what you did in the previous post. "Iran understands that all too well, and that's why there's not a chance in hell that they'll do anything to provoke America into war..." Have you heard of the storming of the US embassy in Tehran and the hostage crisis after the Islamic Revolution? What about attacks on neutral oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq war? What about the captured British sailors? What about Iran's involvement in the Iraqi insurgency? Not to mention Iran's nuclear program. It seems to me that Iran is doing its share of provoking.

          3) You have made lots of general statements here that do not mean much and can be easily refuted. Specific facts and logical conclusions, please. I will only say that Israeli population, 20% of which are Israeli Arabs, who have full citizenship rights, is incredibly diverse Having over 30 political parties for a country of 7 million people is one indication of that. Reading Israeli press or talking to Israelis would also confirm that.

          4) Oh, please. The USS Liberty myth has been debunked decades ago. How stupid would Israeli leadership have to be to intentionally attack a US ship? What could they possible gain that would justify such insanity?

          Israel is exactly where it should be, because it is the ancient home of the Jews. This location is not at all random. We have been saying "Next year in Jerusalem" every year on Passover for the past 2000 years, not "next year in Berlin". Also, read up on the history of the Zionist movement, and what was happening in the Middle East during WWI. Faisal-Weizmann agreement is also a very interesting historical document.

          5) Israel tried to sell weapons to China, which was quickly stopped by the US. The article you linked to presents allegations and speculation, but no proof. Any reaction to the other points I made?

          6) We most certainly will not resolve the conflict. However, I would very much appreciate it if you did not throw around false accusation of genocide and did not make untrue statements about Israel. Criticizing specific actions or policies is one thing. Spreading lies and applying a double standard is called bigotry, specifically Jew-hatred in this case.


        • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I was gonna let you have the last word, but I can't sit here and let you call me a bigot. In all honesty, I doubt it'll be resolved so long as a single Jew OR Arab walks the face of the earth, so ingrained is their hatred of one another, but I swear to you that I have equal contempt for people of all races. Misanthrope... yes, anti-Semite... nope.

          I also made it clear that I side with the victim, regardless of the aggressor. I'm an American and I support the people of Iraq right now more than I do my own government, because WE are the aggressor. Whereas the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict run so deep that it's hard to say who really started it, I stand by my fairly empirical observation that Israel is the aggressor in the present day. Sure, there are crazy Arabs hellbent on terrorizing the Jews and vice versa, but only one entity is militarily engaging the other at the present. When Palestinian troops or tanks roll over Israeli homes or build walls around Israeli neighborhoods, I'll be the first to jump on the pro-Israel bandwagon. Until that time, all I'm seeing is collective punishment against a whole society on account of a few bad apples. You can say what you want about Gaza, but when it's entirely fenced and people have to pass armed checkpoints to come and go, that IMO is just one giant open-air concentration camp. It may not have any gas chambers, but Israeli efforts to divert/poison their water supply and raze their farmland is dooming many to a slow, painful death nonetheless.

          I was impressed by how well you kept the debate confined to the facts, so it saddens me to see you casting aspersions at me now as has become so typical of many Israeli apologists. It reeks of desperation, and it does nothing to bolster your position. My claims of genocide are only false by your myopic definition as it relates to a specifically horrifying and blatant act of genocide, but greater genocides like those that occurred in Stalinist Russia or Maoist China and lesser genocides like Darfur, Palestine and Iraq are no less evil. When I see images of Israeli schoolgirls signing their names on bombs, that's when it officially crosses the line of self-defense and becomes an act of state-sponsored genocide, since kiddie-indoctrination is a tell-tale sign of a government hellbent on committing such atrocities for generations to come. For shame.
        • wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"I doubt it'll be resolved so long as a single Jew OR Arab" Wrong. I am a Jew, and I happen to have an Arab friend. Believe it or not, we have never tried to kill each other. :) Egypt and Jordan have been at peace with Israel for a long time. There is hope.

          "I swear to you that I have equal contempt for people of all races." I deliberately never said that you were an anti-semite. But you do apply a double standard to Israel, and you do make false accusations, which puts you very close to the line.

          Siding with the victim is not always the right thing to do. Sometimes the "victim" is the one who started the fight and lost. It is not that hard to figure out the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict. All you have to do is read up on the history. Arabs started attacking Jews in present day Israel as early as 1890's. A particular famous incident is the Hebron Massacre of 1929, when the entire Jewish community of Hebron was wiped out. This was long before WWII and long before the establishment of Israel. Look it up.

          "When Palestinian troops or tanks roll over Israeli homes or build walls around Israeli neighborhoods, I'll be the first to jump on the pro-Israel bandwagon." So Israeli teenagers being blown up in a pizza parlor is not enough for you? Suicide bombers exploding on buses and in crowded shopping malls indiscriminately killing hundreds of people is not enough? Hamas firing rockets at a day care center in Sderot is not enough? This is exactly the double standard that I am talking about. Palestinian terrorists vow to exterminate Jews, i. e. to commit genocide, and indiscriminately kill civilians, but they are the "victims". The Israelis respond to terror attacks, they target the militants trying to avoid civilian casualties whenever possible, they build a wall which prevents terror attacks, and yet they are the "aggressors".

          Arafat was offered a state by Ehud Barak, and he refused. This state would have included Bet Lehem, the birthplace of Jesus. If all the aid from the EU and the US was invested into the infrastructure, rather than pocketed by Arafat or used to finance suicide bombers, Palestine could have been a country, and rich from tourism alone. All they had to do was agree to stop killing Jews. Victims, indeed. Victims of their leader's bloodthirstiness, stubbornness, and stupidity.

          "that IMO is just one giant open-air concentration camp." This is an example of moral relativism. My grandmother's family was killed in the Holocaust, and I find your statement offensive. Gaza is ruled by Hamas, whose charter you have read, I hope. After Hamas kidnapped Gilad Shalit in Israel proper, and after it has been firing rockets at Israeli towns, what do you want Israel to do? Open the border between Gaza and Israel, so that the terrorists have an easier time getting to their victims? Or should they open the border between Gaza and Egypt, to make it easier for them to get weapons? By the way Israel does supply food and electricity to Gaza. In return they get Qassams, that are made from pipes also supplied by Israel to fix the infrastructure in Gaza. Don't you think this is a little different from rounding innocent people up based on their ethnicity, and putting them in death camps to be exterminated?

          "I was impressed by how well you kept the debate confined to the facts" And I was not at all impressed with your initial post about the "genocide" of the Palestinians, and with your use of conspiracy theories in place of facts. That saddened me too.

          Equating the genocide in Darfur and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is another example of moral relativism. Israel responds to terror attacks and targets militants. Arab Sudanese are deliberately exterminating the people of Darfur. Still don't see the difference?

          Here are some hard facts for you. I went on Wikipedia and totaled the number of people killed by the Israeli military in all the wars Israel has fought since 1948, including last year's Lebanon war, and the current Palestinian intifada. The number is about 82,000, and it includes both enemy combatants and civilians. This is over the period of almost 60 years. Whenever there were conflicting estimates, I took the larger number, so this is probably an overestimate. The estimated number of people killed in Darfur since 2003, i. e. over the period of 4 years, is estimated at 200,000-400,000 and they were all civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict Another point of reference: during the allied firebombing of Dresden during WWII 25,000 civilians were killed in ONE DAY. Puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

          The term "genocide" should not be used lightly. It sounds especially bad, when the population against whom genocide is supposedly being committed keeps growing, as is the case with the Palestinians.

          And please don't tell me about kiddie-indoctrination. Go on youtube and look what the Palestinian children are taught. I don't know where you saw Israeli schoolgirls signing their names on bombs, but even if it is true, it is nothing compared to Arab children being taught to be suicide bombers, or being sent to retrieve used rocket launchers. Moral relativism and double standard again.
      • SirGunslinger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11This is the lighthearted thread... soapbox threads are 3 clicks down.
    • Joshie1, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3Only men are required to join the army for 2 years of service. For women it is optional and most of them choose not to serve.
      • DadeEldron, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2you are wrong, men join for 3 years women join for 2.5 years, unless they are religious or pregnant/married... not optional
        • NovaStella, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You're both wrong, I serve in IDF.
          Men serve 3 years while women serve 2.
    • tuntcickle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1actually i believe a third of israeli women are excused from service. and probably for good reason ;)
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1The sad part is knowing that they're all potential war criminals....
  • getrealnow, on 10/10/2007, -19/+13I'll jump in there fox hole anytime.
    • macbookpromat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13There, their, there is a difference you know.
      • jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Despite his spelling mistake, the sentence sort of makes sense, as if 'there' meant 'the foxhole over there'
      • BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18The correct usage is "them thar foxholes"
        • TuneRaider, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This is one of the most intelligent comments I've read on this page so far.
    • limpits, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7learn to spell, noob
      • transfuse, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Not spelling, retard, it's grammar.
        'I'd jump in their fox hole any time.'
      • Secularian, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Learn to capitalize and punctuate, idiot.
    • clickwir, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5their
  • bightchee, on 10/10/2007, -21/+7What is it about beautiful women that makes us want to have sex with them? Their vaginas.
    /typed in the worst Austrian accent I could muster
    • fhornplayer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That was one of the most grammatically correct sentences on all of digg. And you didn't even mean it to be?
      • bightchee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Really I was trying to reference a Simpsons quote where Rainier Wolfcastle, while hosting a music awards show, asks a rhetorical question then answers it. It was something like "What is it about music that fills our hearts with joy? The notes."
  • SwissCamel, on 10/10/2007, -25/+12I'd throw stones at them any day!
  • 7Mystery, on 10/10/2007, -25/+8I heard Hezbollah got hotter chicks on their ranks.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Too bad they're wearing 50 layers of clothing to cover everything up.
    • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18They even come with beards and leg hair au naturale.
    • DCB360, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5I'll let you make the stereotypical joke yourself.

      Hot + Pun + Traditional Clothing = "__________"
    • thepain353, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3yea with dicks and everything
    • SirGunslinger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You have to be stoned to enjoy them.
  • seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5holy crap - I'm hesitant to digg it up on account of the WRETCHEDNESS that occurs should you actually click on any of those pictures! The content is nice, but LOSE THE PHOTO VIEWING CODE!!!
  • PerfektXj, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3*****
  • fyrehart, on 10/10/2007, -6/+87seriously, wordpress?!
    • bryxal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6because they do not use wordpress caching. you see that page didn't change at all for any of the 1000+ hits it got, and yet everytime php ran the whole script and called the db x amount of times and etc etc. so in a way it is wordpress for being heavy and not using caching by default BUT it is also the responsibility of the admin to stick caching on, and THEN its the servers fault for sucking balls
    • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Actually, more often than not it's a plugin that's poorly written that causes a site to go under. The WP core itself does some pretty impressive internal caching and limits SQL queries as much as possible...
  • Disillusion, on 10/10/2007, -7/+172That's quite a sexy... wordpress error.
  • jimic79, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8aaaaaaaaaaaaaand wordpress error....
  • brainwashed, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2and its down...
  • TheTeenVote, on 10/10/2007, -11/+0*****
    • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Don't waste space, you could have written at least SOMETHING
  • EvanVolm, on 10/10/2007, -14/+103Hey, Word Press users. Stop using Word Press!
  • Clay3521, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Mirror ? Site already hosed.
  • thomasb227, on 10/10/2007, -11/+46Wordpress FAILS AGAIN! Wordpress cannot survive even a little diggage next would be ASP setups.
    • Magadass, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7ASP setups? Classic ASP for sure, .NET can handle an insane load if the developers and architects aren't a bunch of dip ***** which is more than not the case rather than the technology itself. Inexperienced developers and coders that have no real world experience can't grasp the understanding of high load sites and efficient programming.
  • invar9, on 10/10/2007, -12/+63......2.......1........ crash............... it lasted longer than I thought for a wordpress site, anyone get the cache?
    • SuperWinner, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I don't think this guy is hosting himself out of the basement or anything... his hosting company looks reasonably serious. http://www.aplus.net/
  • exspec, on 10/10/2007, -6/+209love wordpress http://pic.bestpicever.com/piles/?s=israeliarmy
    • skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30Digg + Hot Chick Headline + Wordpress = FAIL.

      Thanks for the mirror.
    • SuperWinner, on 10/10/2007, -14/+1Well this story shows me one universal truth, chicks are hot no matter what gay assed religion they happen to be in.
    • sentanta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I love jewish girls
  • EmberJGT, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1word press down
  • agenthamsta, on 10/10/2007, -9/+0link is dead =[
  • Mark7r0n, on 10/10/2007, -16/+8Cached

    http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:m1W7qrDW0G8J:blog.800hightech.com/hot-israeli-armed-forces-military-girls/831/+hot+girls+of+the+israeli+army&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a
  • TomK88, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2http://www.duggmirror.com
  • dajuggernaut, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4boooooooo.... broken link, hurrrrrrray beer....
  • dillydobbs, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3got the google cache

    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:m1W7qrDW0G8J:blog.800hightech.com/hot-israeli-armed-forces-military-girls/831/+http://blog.800hightech.com/hot-israeli-armed-forces-military-girls/831/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
  • dustysquareback, on 10/10/2007, -17/+2Wordpress. Idiots.
    • Lennalf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It is a pretty cool design, but yeah Wordpress FTL.
      Drupal FTW.
  • sailadayaway, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Dead
  • TaZorro, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4Google caught it: http://72.14.209.104/search?hs=sUq&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fblog.800hightech.com%2Fhot-israeli-armed-forces-military-girls%2F831%2F&btnG=Search
  • dragazis, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1Google Cache got it http://tinyurl.com/yptzab
  • bonoti, on 10/10/2007, -11/+0duggmirror.com
  • law1ess, on 10/10/2007, -4/+128Digg should cache every page with the words "hot" + "girls" in the title.
  • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -6/+81I want to Mount Zion.
  • MercedRocks, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3MIRROR: >> http://tinyurl.com/2xksgs
  • devoted, on 10/10/2007, -22/+17Israeli is a model heaven as you can see right here: http://tinyurl.com/2mbz8y . Bar Rafaeli (Leo DiCaprio's girlfriend) is the hottest model in the world, and Israel has produced stunning models such as Moran Atias, Estie Ginsburg and others
    • Laughsatyou, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2israeli nationalism will not be tolerated on digg!

      submit to your islamic owners!
    • jakobahman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Too bad the rest of the population is ugly.
    • jakobahman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3 Double post.
  • osmaker, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5Google got it:
    http://72.14.253.104/search?hs=sUq&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fblog.800hightech.com%2Fhot-israeli-armed-forces-military-girls%2F831%2F&btnG=Search

    Seriously, WP site should be banned. Or automagic caching should be provided for them.
    • KingGorilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Automagic caching? Sounds iffy but it also sounds awesome!
  • morestar, on 10/10/2007, -11/+26im moving to Israel...
    • Scraniel, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Please don't come here. Thanks. :-)
    • zzzmidnight, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7if you couldn't get laid were you are why would moving change anything?
  • tehnews, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1what the hell is wrong with woodpress?
  • TheCosmicFool, on 10/10/2007, -7/+102I have a confession:
    I dont think I've ever seen a working Wordpress site...
    • fotodevil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21I saw one once. It was glorious!

      Not really.
    • skyfire1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Chuck Norris is the only man that ever saw a wordpress site.
      • 3amboo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He is the reason why we've never seen a working one.
    • heysuburbia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Try and crash a Wordpress site on a good server. Mine NEVER crashed and I've gotten on the front page of digg almost a dozen times. Wordpress is free and easy so people use it on 3.99$ a month servers that can't handle ***** that's why it crashes. I have my wordpress site on mediatemple's gridserver and has never even slowed down when it's gotten 1000's of diggs.
  • tradwolley, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10Wordpress error page. I see you on the front page more than any other.
    • perral1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3OMG I AM TEH COPYING AND TEH PAESTING MY CRAP ABOUT HOW WORDPRESS ISNT BAD HEAR!!! OMG WTF WORDPRESS WTF IM ANGRY DUDE WORDPRESS FTW!!!!
  • einstevo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29well dudes that's what happens when the entire youth population has to join the military. the hot girls put on the uniforms too.
    • azxplorer, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Maybe it would be better if we had that same system.
      • Laughsatyou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10then diggers would never get laid, they all flee to canada.
  • phantomgrave, on 10/10/2007, -6/+74"WordPress
    Error establishing a database connection"

    bow chicka bow wow
  • t1m0j5, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2G.I. JANE WHOOO HAAAA!!!!!
  • itseffinkasey, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Man the chick in the 7th picture from the bottom is banging.
  • dboy3587, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6girl plus guns cant get much better
    • blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Well, there's gun without guns. You should try it. It's awesome.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 201 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.