Bush: "Sharon is a man of peace"

Felix Randel

no battle, no casualties, no homes destroyed. Relatively simple concept you know

thats like me saying to you, if israelis dont want to be bombed by suicide bombers they wouldnt go outside there home.

please the arguement is stupid

Actually Im making the point that between withdrawing and turning Paris into another Stalingrad, making the whole city into a fortress they chose to withdraw

That was a tactical decision, and you can possible compare it to this siuation. If you cant see the difference between an army and someone defending their home then your simply being tick.

They=Terrorists , you know, the ones the Israelis were looking for

And back we are to the start, i dont except that israel was solely looking for terrorists they were looking to destroy both the spirit of the palestinian people and their ability to make war.

Whats a terrorist, i do not except that anybody killed in the west bank is a terrorist by the israelis. Merely people resisting occupation which is there right, even you have to agree, And as you ahve said so many times before they were attacking soldiers this time not civilians, so you calling them terorists is groundless.

I believe that for as long as Arafat rejects negotiation in favour of terrorism milatary action is the only option remaining- not the best but the only practical one left. If the Israelis were to answer in the palestinians acts in kind the "war" that would result would most probably "solve" the conflict.

When in doubt, blame arafat, because the israelis god bless them have done everythign to support peace:rolleyes:

Btw do you know how much you sounded like a nazi there, with your final solution.

Yes, you did

No i didnt, i think you will find that was Shinji

Yes, Im aware that by your understanding (derived from JPF propaganda no doubt) a massacre occurs whenever the Israelis shoot a Palestinian regardless of context its a "massacre". Give me a break.

No, my understanding of a massacre is when hugely superior deliberately and without mercy wipe out an un armed or severely ill equipted opposition. This is why i dont bleive SB'ing are massacres, simple because palestinian forces will never be that superior to israel force, also because most israelis, including weman are armed. Few die in cold blood, This is a fact you dont often hear.

Wars have been fought in civillian areas before

Im talking Un law, so your nazi comments dont matter. Of course they have been, but there are certain fules for fighting these battles to minimise civilian deaths, which the israelis ignored.
Like X amount of tiem to evacas well as help in evacuating the area

Mind you I wouldnt be hanging around in a battlezone anyway

Unfortunate for the people who live there then, isn't it.

The Israelis werent interested where they fought as they only wanted the terrorists.

Sorry but you dont know what the israelis wanted.

Another stupidly evil statement.

You have said that israels only option is military action, am i to take it that this to is "stupidly evil"

As for questions, i am unaware of any question put to me by you i have not answered

Felix Randel

Id actually like to stop this before it enters its fifth level of semantics

Lemming

It takes two to tango .....

A definition of terrorism could read as follows:

The terrorising and/or killing of a civilian populace through force of arms for political goals


the Palestinians are certainly guilty of using terrorism on more than one occasion.

The Israelis are also very much guilty of using terrorism on more than one occasion.

The only difference is that one is state-sanctioned, the other is not.

bonkey

How can I be bigoted when I expect the palestinians to keep to the same standards of warfare as civillised nations do?

Because you dont spend half as much effort trying to tell the world that the Israeli's should also keep the same standards of warfare as civilised nations, despite admitting that they dont :

Originally posted by Sand
The israelis have used palestinians as human shields, to knock on doors and walk infront of tanks.

Yes they did and I dont agree with that. Its wrong.

You are frequently coming out on the "Israelis are not terrorists, because their actions are justified military action", and yet every so often you actually admit that their actions are not justified, and are wrong.

So, here's the question : why do these acts which you disagree with and call wrong not constitute terrorism?

jc

Moriarty

Originally posted by Felix Randel
No, my understanding of a massacre is when hugely superior deliberately and without mercy wipe out an un armed or severely ill equipted opposition. This is why i dont bleive SB'ing are massacres, simple because palestinian forces will never be that superior to israel force, also because most israelis, including weman are armed. Few die in cold blood, This is a fact you dont often hear.

Sorry, but that just does not sit right with me. Would you prefer for the IDF send in a company of troops on its own each time, so that its more likely that the palestinians will be able to inflict a higher casuallty rate on the IDF?

Ill put the question to you in a more direct way. If you were living in Israel you would have been drafted like many of the soldiers that are fighting for the IDF right now. Would you want your superiors to send you into a town held by hostile forces without the full backing of the rest of the forces in the area, knowing that there are boobytraps, snipers and many other dangers ahead? Of course you wouldnt. Why are the soldiers currently in the IDF any different from you? Do they not deserve the same protection?

The point of showing such strong overt force, as the IDF has been doing, is to intimidate hostiles and as a result reduce their own casualtys.

Now, lets look at what www.dictionary.com has to say about what the word 'massacre' means..

mas·sa·cre Pronunciation Key (ms-kr)
n.

-The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.

-The slaughter of a large number of animals.

The IDF are not killing people indiscriminately and cruelly. They are targetting terrorist cells. In fact, palestinian suicide bombers seem to fit into that discription perfectly. Go figure, eh?

Originally posted by Felix Randel

Im talking Un law, so your nazi comments dont matter. Of course they have been, but there are certain fules for fighting these battles to minimise civilian deaths, which the israelis ignored.
Like X amount of tiem to evacas well as help in evacuating the area

The IDF have not ignored these rules. If the IDF didnt care about civilian casualties, they would get the airforce to carpet bomb the entire settlement with napalm. Instead, the IDF sent in troops. They could have done many things far more destructive than what they did.

<Edit: Fixed brackets>

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
The IDF are not killing people indiscriminately and cruelly. They are targetting terrorist cells.

Actually, there hasnt been a shred of proof offered that any, let alone all of the casualties in recent Israeli incursions were terrorists.

The only reason you can say that they were targetting terrorist cells is because you choose to believe the Israeli statements on the issue.

Now, I'm not going to try and claim that every single Palestinian killed in the recent activities was innocent, but imagine what the reaction in an American town would be if (say) the Mexicans came over the border, and said "we're here for some criminals - co-operate and you wont be hurt". Assume that for some reason, the military and police werent around to help these people out. What do you think would happen?

I think you'd find that every single American in the region who had a gun would exercise their constitutional right to bear arms, and would mount resistance against the attacker - much like what we have seen in these refugee camps recently.

Israel has offered no proof, just statements of condemnation. Every single man who raised a gun to defend his home against an incoming army was branded a terrorist. Every single one. I find that amazing - that possession of a gun and fighting against an army who are invading your home again makes you a terrorist.

I'm not sure I like this new world - where the branding of someone as a terrorist in the media is all the due process you seem to need any more to kill them or detain them indefinitely.

In our increasingly media-driven world, I find it slightly worrying that we are increasingly willing to base our opinions on the media's presentation of two sides, or our choice to believe the statements of one side over the other.

The Israelis are the only people reporting that they were careful, went door to door as cleanly as possible, and that all the dead were those who put up armed resistance. The Palestinians, and any other eye-witnesses who happened to be there are telling a very different story.

I'm not saying that this different story is any more of less correct, but what I am saying is that we shouldnt be so quick to just believe the story of one side and dismiss the other. Unless, of course, you've already decided who is right and wrong, in which case, the actual events dont mean anything to you.

jc

Moriarty

Bonkey - I certainly take on board everything you say, and i agree with it. I have noticed though, that there seems to be very pro-palestinian camp (which isnt bad in and of itself) in Ireland in general that thinks they can do no wrong. "They are the downtrodden, and as such all Israelis and the IDF deserve everything that comes to them." I find that sort of thinking very disturbing. Israel and the IDF are no saints - i just detect a distinct bias towards palestinians and suicide bombings from many people here.

The IDF, and hence everyone serving in it, are also being branded as monsters and nazis. I dont believe they are either, they are just an army following very poor and misguided political leadership as best they can. I dont believe any other army in the world would stand up to the scruitiny the IDF is under, in such a tense situation, and come out the other side any better than the IDF are.

<Edited to make sense >

Felix Randel

The IDF have not ignored these rules. If the IDF didnt care about civilian casualties, they would get the airforce to carpet bomb the entire settlement with napalm. Instead, the IDF sent in troops. They could have done many things far more destructive than what they did

Because they only carpet bombed afew square blocks, you think that is evidence that they care about civilians. So it i shot you in the leg instead of the face, that means i care about your well being?

The IDF are not killing people indiscriminately and cruelly.

I disagree, they are, its fact and very soon the UN will say its fact.
But ive not doubt that i havent a chance of getting you to believe that. It some peoples eyes a state can do no wrong.

Ill put the question to you in a more direct way. If you were living in Israel you would have been drafted like many of the soldiers that are fighting for the IDF right now. Would you want your superiors to send you into a town held by hostile forces without the full backing of the rest of the forces in the area, knowing that there are boobytraps, snipers and many other dangers ahead? Of course you wouldnt. Why are the soldiers currently in the IDF any different from you? Do they not deserve the same protection?

Jesus your right, if i was raping, killing and thiefing my way through a city, id want all the protection i could get.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Because they only carpet bombed afew square blocks, you think that is evidence that they care about civilians. So it i shot you in the leg instead of the face, that means i care about your well being?

They didnt carpet bomb at all. You cant carpet bomb a few square blocks. Carpet bombing infers bombing of a very widespread area with high-yield munitions. This has not happened. Your making less and less sense as you continue to post.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
I disagree, they are, its fact and very soon the UN will say its fact.
But ive not doubt that i havent a chance of getting you to believe that. It some peoples eyes a state can do no wrong.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Jesus your right, if i was raping, killing and thief my way through a city, id want all the protection i could get.

Wow. Look at that. I entirely pre-empted your post. I refer you to my previous post..

I have noticed though, that there seems to be very pro-palestinian camp (which isnt bad in and of itself) in Ireland in general that thinks they can do no wrong. "They are the downtrodden, and as such all Israelis and the IDF deserve everything that comes to them." I find that sort of thinking very disturbing. Israel and the IDF are no saints - i just detect a distinct bias towards palestinians and suicide bombings from many people here.

Welcome to the Hear-no-evil, See-no-evil club. I presume you paid your yearly sub already?

I also notice you failed to respond to the facts pointing towards palestinian suicide bombing as being a perfect example of a massacre. Im sure it just slipped your mind. Or, maybe, perhaps, i spoke the truth!? (Fancy that eh?)

<Edit: Typos>

Felix Randel

Originally posted by Moriarty
Bonkey - I certainly take on board everything you say, and i agree with it. I have noticed though, that there seems to be very pro-palestinian camp (which isnt bad in and of itself) in Ireland in general that thinks they can do no wrong. "They are the downtrodden, and as such all Israelis and the IDF deserve everything that comes to them." I find that sort of thinking very disturbing. Israel and the IDF are no saints - i just detect a distinct bias towards palestinians and suicide bombings from many people here.

Its like this, Israel represents brutal logic to allot of people. If someone threatens you and you have a gun, shoot him. Its not hard to go from that to if someone might be threatening you shoot him. If one particular group of people are threatening you, well then arrest them, later you might shoot them aswell. Eventually you blame everything on these people. We all have this tiny part at the back of our mind, lets call it "sands" saying "yea this makes sense" but it is our humanity that stops us in our tracks, its out inability to do these things to other humans. Unfortunately due to all the years of war, when an Israeli looks at a Palestinian, all they see is a man that's going to kill them and their family.

Also its not that long ago that we were in the same boat. If the Palestinians in jenin are terrorist then im the grand son of terrorist.

Felix Randel

They didnt carpet bomb at all. You cant even carpet bomb a few square blocks. Carpeting bombing infers bombing of a very widespread area with high-yield munitions. This has not happened. Your making less and less sense as you continue to post.

Dont be anal, you brought up carpet bombing so i continued. IT is safe to say that they flatened in a very short period several square blocks of jenin refugee camp, using one means or the other.

I also notice you failed to respond to the facts pointing towards palestinian suicide bombing as being a perfect example of a massacre. Im sure it just slipped your mind. Or, maybe, perhaps, i spoke the truth!?

I disagree with you observations on that matter.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Dont be anal, you brought up carpet bombing so i continued. IT is safe to say that they flatened in a very short period several square blocks of jenin refugee camp, using one means or the other.

Its not anal. This is something i really detest. People will say one thing - (carpet bombing; that infers enourmous wanton destruction) - and when challenged about it they will respond "Oh, well it wasnt really carpet bombing, it was infact closer to no bombing, but i decided to say it anyway". This is used to garner even more support for the cause due to totally false allegations. When you debate something like this you dont make broad, sweeping statements - certainly not when theyre innacurate or plain false.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
I disagree with you observations on that matter.

What exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with the interpretation of the word by a dictionary? Can you somehow explain to me why suicide bombing cannot be classified as a massacre, aka killing indiscriminatly and cruely?

Lemming

Originally posted by Moriarty

They didnt carpet bomb at all. You cant carpet bomb a few square blocks. Carpet bombing infers bombing of a very widespread area with high-yield munitions. This has not happened. Your making less and less sense as you continue to post.

Not taking sides on this particular post but .....

To "carpet bomb" means covering an area (doesn't matter how big/small) with ordnance (to detremental effect obviously of said area and its occupants)

Hence the word "carpet" - to cover. At no point is the word "widespread area" or "aircraft" or "naplam" or whatever come into said phrase. You could carpet bomb a pavement with a tank unit if you so choose to do so. It's still carpetting a target area with ordnance of some sort.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Lemming


Not taking sides on this particular post but .....

To "carpet bomb" means covering an area (doesn't matter how big/small) with ordnance (to detremental effect obviously of said area and its occupants)

Hence the word "carpet" - to cover. At no point is the word "widespread area" or "aircraft" or "naplam" or whatever come into said phrase. You could carpet bomb a pavement with a tank unit if you so choose to do so. It's still carpetting a target area with ordnance of some sort.

Fair enough, but when you mention carpet bombing to somone, they usually take it to mean something similar to what happened to dresden - eg the complete and utter destruction of vast swaths of city via bombing. Either way, i think its disingenuous to say that the IDF carpet bombed refugee camps. It implies something that did not happen.

Sand

Because you dont spend half as much effort trying to tell the world that the Israeli's should also keep the same standards of warfare as civilised nations,despite admitting that they dont :

I think Felix, Boston, Type, and a large majority of the other board users do enough arguing/ranting for the Palestinian view of things already - The fact that Im one of the few that dare to criticise the Palestinians is why my views seem so extreme- because compared to the standard Israelis= Stormstroopers, Palestinians = Rebel Alliance viewpoint exspressed by many, it is extreme. Quite simply while the Israelis may not keep to all the rules they dont break them in such wanton fashion as the Palestinians do. If the Palestinians even managed to restrain themselves to the Israelis standard of not deliberately targeting civillians the conflict would be a hell of a lot less bitter.

So, here's the question : why do these acts which you disagree with and call wrong not constitute terrorism?

The act you refer to (Using Palestinians as "minesweepers" ) is wrong (practical maybe but still wrong) but it hardly constitutes terrorism. Stealing is wrong too but it hardly constitutes terrorism. The fact that those who wish to say the Israelis employ a state santioned policy of terrorism against the Palestinians have a harder time looking for examples that indicate the above is because compared to the Palestinians the Israelis are quite selective and restrained.

Felix:

Btw do you know how much you sounded like a nazi there, with your final solution

Ummm, thats not my solution - thats the solution of the Israeli right wing parties who Sharon is drawing into his government more and more. Hence the " "s to indicate disbelief. Muppet.

You have said that israels only option is military action, am i to take it that this

Oh youre right , of course- terrorism is morally equivalent to milatary action, obvious now. I actually cant see why you have a problem with IDF "massacres" in the West Bank, surely using your logic the Israelis are merely using the only weapon they have left? Or is it simply in the end you believe a Palestinian life is worth more than an Israeli life?

As for questions, i am unaware of any question put to me by you i have not answered

Then youve not been reading my posts.

In our increasingly media-driven world, I find it slightly worrying that we are increasingly willing to base our opinions on the media's presentation of two sides or our choice to believe the statements of one side over the other.

I definitly agree.

Eventually you blame everything on these people. We all have this tiny part at the back of our mind, lets call it "sands" saying "yea this makes sense" but it is our humanity that stops us in our tracks, its out inability to do these things to other humans.

Youre talking about the Palestinians here? Theyre murdering Israelis daily and you shrug and go "Its the only weapon they have left". Meanwhile Palestinian gunmen die in a battle and you call it a massacre. Welcome to JPF logic, common sense has left the building.

What exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with the interpretation of the word by a dictionary? Can you somehow explain to me why suicide bombing cannot be classified as a massacre, aka killing indiscriminatly and cruely?

Yeah Im wondering that too. I guess its because "it will teach the Israelis a lesson".

Lemming

Originally posted by Moriarty

Fair enough, but when you mention carpet bombing to somone, they usually take it to mean something similar to what happened to dresden - eg the complete and utter destruction of vast swaths of city via bombing. Either way, i think its disingenuous to say that the IDF carpet bombed refugee camps. It implies something that did not happen.

Oh, I agree Moriarty. The phrase is atrributed to mass air bombardment most often.

But in the case of Jenin, it would appear that the IDF went in and simply blanketed the place in HE rounds

Lemming

Originally posted by Sand


I think Felix, Boston, Type, and a large majority of the other board users do enough arguing/ranting for the Palestinian view of things already

You'd be right.

- The fact that Im one of the few that dare to criticise the Palestinians is why my views seem so extreme- because compared to the standard Israelis= Stormstroopers, Palestinians = Rebel Alliance viewpoint exspressed by many, it is extreme.

You'd be wrong. You don't just criticise the Palestinians ... you place the Israeli's up on a pedestal of "righteousness", and quite blindly too. They're as bad as the Palestinians, possibly worse from the point of view that they are supposed to be signed up to various conventions, etc , etc.

Both sides are, for want of more eloquent language, behaving like thugs and bullies.

Quite simply while the Israelis may not keep to all the rules they dont break them in such wanton fashion as the Palestinians do. If the Palestinians even managed to restrain themselves to the Israelis standard of not deliberately targeting civillians the conflict would be a hell of a lot less bitter.

The act you refer to (Using Palestinians as "minesweepers" ) is wrong (practical maybe but still wrong) but it hardly constitutes terrorism.

Now to what I really wanted to say .....

You're contradicting yourself here. The israelis ARE breaking rules, by your own admission. Therefore they are breaking them in the same wanton fashion as the Palestinians. As I said earlier. The only difference is that they have state-sanction to do so.

As for the Israelis restraining themselves, that statement can be answered by the election of Sharon by the people (of whom the military recruit from).

Regards teh "minesweepers". If those men were captured in armed conflict, and under the rules of engagement, ceased to be civilian upon taking up arms. They are, imho, entitled to the same rules and regulations governing POWs. In that case, the Israeli's are blatantly violating various conventions and treaties on warfare and conduct whilst trying to claim the moral highground.

As for your final words:

The fact that those who wish to say the Israelis employ a state santioned policy of terrorism against the Palestinians have a harder time looking for examples that indicate the above is because compared to the Palestinians the Israelis are quite selective and restrained.

So in your own admission, the Israelis ARE committing acts of terrorism. Being selective and restrained whilst carrying out such an act is STILL carring out said act.

gurramok

Re: Sand

The numbers dont matter- the fashion in which they died do

What a despicable thing to say, thousands have died in this conflict, do you value life at all ?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Oh youre right , of course- terrorism is morally equivalent to milatary action, obvious now.
[/B]

Israel's military action included the mass destruction of people's homes, which allegedly included massive loss of civilian life.

It included using human shields and human mine-sweepers.

It included branding anyone who tried to protect their homes from said invasion as terrorists.

In this case, I would say that the military action in question is morally equivalent to terrorism - even if you refuse to accept that it is terrorism.

The Israelis have a right to defend themselves. However, they do not have a right to tread roughshod over the rights and lives of innocent Palestinians, in the name of "justice".

Can you imagine the outcry if instead of dropping "kick out the Taliban" messages, the US had instead dropped "we will level this town in 3 days" messages over Afghanistan, and then carried out the threat?

They would have given fore-warning to all. It would have been the Taliban who chose the battleground by holing up in the town in the first place. Anyone who fought back would obviously be a terrorist, and any innocent death would not be America's fault because they did give warning.

Does anyone believe that this would have been met with international approval? Somehow I doubt it.

Yet, with the israeli actions, we have a virtually identical situation where people are honestly saying "it is a legitimate military exercise, and every effort was made to avoid innocent deaths".

The question was never whether or not terrorism is equivalent to military action. The question is whether or not this particular military action is any different from terrorism. Personally, I cant see that it is.


jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
Regards teh "minesweepers". If those men were captured in armed conflict, and under the rules of engagement, ceased to be civilian upon taking up arms. They are, imho, entitled to the same rules and regulations governing POWs.

Dont be silly. They took arms against someone who is opposing terrorism. They must be terrorists. What more proof is needed? If we needed proof, they might have to be set free, and wouldnt that be dangerous.

They should be sent to Camp X-Ray or some equivalent, detained indefinitely without legal advice and no guarantee of trial.

Damn - they're lucky they werent just shot on sight, so we shouldnt really complain.

Well - its not a million miles away from the logic used in another recent anti-terrorist campaign

jc

Bateman

- Palestinian terrorists as I say dont have a problem with killing *any* Israeli

---

Flying helicopter gunships above streets and shooting indiscriminately (without curfew) is quite a good match.
The Israeli soldiers wave for the cameras, and laugh and joke as dead bodies litter the streets. Do you see celebrations on the street after every suicide bombing?

Moriarty

Originally posted by Bateman
The Israeli soldiers wave for the cameras, and laugh and joke as dead bodies litter the streets.

Maybe you still have a noble view of war, Bateman, but i can tell that you clearly dont understand the situation. Soldiers do this. The majority of soldiers would do this at one time or another. Soldiers from any army, not just the IDF. Exactly the same thing has happened in nearly every long-term conflict in history. Its happened many, many times.. vietnam, korea, during ww2... you get the picture? Soldiers quickly learn to become desensitised to death when their in a situation like the IDF soldiers are. They treat it cavilearly, joke about it, dont take it seriously. Its a way of dealing with the amount of crap they have to put up with. Im pretty sure if i left you in the same situation, youd find yourself doing, or at least having the same ideas, as many of the IDF troops.

Originally posted by Bateman
Do you see celebrations on the street after every suicide bombing?

Yes, actually. I presume you just missed those too? I presume you also miss that the community actively congratulates the family of a suicide bomber like they have just got their degree. I presume you miss the 'rallys' in many palestinian areas which is filled with hate towards israel, the US, and the west in general. Im sure you didnt notice that many there have automatic rifles, handguns, etc etc......? Those guns arent for show.

Bateman

>>Soldiers quickly learn to become desensitised to death when their in a situation like the IDF soldiers are. They treat it cavilearly, joke about it, dont take it seriously.

---

Sounds like a good recruitment ad for an Israeli soldier. "Nothing in particular required escept a tendency to shoot ad unarmed civilians, and ability to laugh after committing massacres.

>>Its a way of dealing with the amount of crap they have to put up with.

---

Yeah, sat in a tank shooting at whoever you like, trying to dodge plastic bottles and stones, must be a tough life, with nothing but a tank to defend yourself against an aggressor with a slingshot.


>>Yes, actually. I presume you just missed those too? I presume you also miss that the community actively congratulates the family of a suicide bomber like they have just got their degree.

---

Funny, I did actually miss all that. After absorbing hours of coverage. What I didn't miss was reliable reports that families of suicide bombers are summarily executed. Short lived "celebrations", eh?

>> I presume you miss the 'rallys' in many palestinian areas which is filled with hate towards israel, the US, and the west in general.

---

Oh God. Hate filled rallies. Ok so if that is part of the justification for massacres...

Felix Randel

Yes, actually. I presume you just missed those too? I presume you also miss that the community actively congratulates the family of a suicide bomber like they have just got their degree. I presume you miss the 'rallys' in many palestinian areas which is filled with hate towards israel, the US, and the west in general. Im sure you didnt notice that many there have automatic rifles, handguns, etc etc......? Those guns arent for show.

That was his point. If your not going to think before you post, then dont do it.

Ummm, thats not my solution - thats the solution of the Israeli right wing parties who Sharon is drawing into his government more and more. Hence the " "s to indicate disbelief. Muppet.

And who you, despite your claims support fully. Therefore people will draw their own conclusions.

The act you refer to (Using Palestinians as "minesweepers" ) is wrong (practical maybe but still wrong) but it hardly constitutes terrorism

You make it sound so innocent, any time israel might fall under the brand of a terrorist state, you choose to change the meaning.

This is but one example of what israel has done to terrorize innocent palestinians. If this isnt terrorism then what is?

Victor

Originally posted by Moriarty
Maybe you still have a noble view of war, Bateman, but i can tell that you clearly dont understand the situation. Soldiers do this. The majority of soldiers would do this at one time or another. Soldiers from any army, not just the IDF. Exactly the same thing has happened in nearly every long-term conflict in history. Its happened many, many times.. vietnam, korea, during ww2... you get the picture? Soldiers quickly learn to become desensitised to death when their in a situation like the IDF soldiers are. They treat it cavilearly, joke about it, dont take it seriously. Its a way of dealing with the amount of crap they have to put up with. Im pretty sure if i left you in the same situation, youd find yourself doing, or at least having the same ideas, as many of the IDF troops.

This only makes it understandable, not excusable.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Bateman
Sounds like a good recruitment ad for an Israeli soldier. "Nothing in particular required escept a tendency to shoot ad unarmed civilians, and ability to laugh after committing massacres.

LOL, what sort of warped mind have you? If thats what would get you to sign up, off you go, you wont be missed im sure :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Bateman
Yeah, sat in a tank shooting at whoever you like, trying to dodge plastic bottles and stones, must be a tough life, with nothing but a tank to defend yourself against an aggressor with a slingshot.

For an accurate discription of what is happening, that should have read..

Yeah, the odd few IDF sat in tanks, the rest on foot walking through boobytrapped buildings trying not to get themselves and their friends blown to bits, trying to dodge sniper fire from high-power rifles. Attempting to spot where the next hostile is going to fire at you from with his automatic rifle so you can take cover, with nothing to protect yourself from getting shot other than finding the hostiles and shooting them first. Hey, wait a minute, it isnt so one-sided after all..

Originally posted by Bateman
Do you see celebrations on the street after every suicide bombing?

Originally posted by Moriarty
Yes, actually. I presume you just missed those too?

Originally posted by Bateman
Oh God. Hate filled rallies. Ok so if that is part of the justification for massacres...

So i presume that rallies etc dont qualify as a celebration in your point of view? Do tell, what exactly would?

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Shinji


I'm sorry, but as an Irish person I can't come down in favour of anyone but the Palestinians.

Ah but. That's because you're a 21st century boy, Shinji. Had you lived in the late nineteenth or early 20th centuries, you might have been a Zionist, as some leading Irish nationalists were out of sympathy with the Jewish people whom they saw as a similarly oppressed stateless nation to ourselves. (at the time)

Michael Davitt, for example - yes the Land League leader - toured Kishinev in Russia, scene of a famous pogrom and in 1903 published a report of his findings in a book entitled 'Within the Pale.'

In it, he described the atrocities that were inflicted on the Jews by the locals with the blessing of the church, and recommended the Zionist cause as a solution.

In point of fact, Davitt is now credited by Israeli historians as being one of the first commentators to foresee that Jewish immigration to Palestine would inevitably lead to strife with the Arabs. Zionist theorists had hitherto naively affirmed that the Jewish colonists would be welcomed to their ancient homeland by their Semitic neighbours and that all peoples would get along swimmingly.

Davitt pointed out that anything the Arabs would do could be no worse that what the Eastern Europeans did and that anyway the Jews would be supported by their Hebrew brethern and all 'civilised' nations throughout the world and would ultimately prevail.

Prescient or what?

Perhaps we should track down a copy of Davitt's book and send it as a suppository to the likes of Eoghan Horsesh1t and Kevin Myarse who are currently arguing in the press that Ireland's history of Antisemitism precludes us from being too critical of the Israelis. There have been prominent Irish antisemites (Arthur Griffith Oliver J Flanagan) etc. But they have been countered by committed Zionists like Davitt and friends of Israel like Conor Cruise O'Brien down through the years.

Sand

You'd be wrong. You don't just criticise the Palestinians ... you place the Israeli's up on a pedestal of "righteousness", and quite blindly too. They're as bad as the Palestinians, possibly worse from the point of view that they are supposed to be signed up to various conventions, etc , etc.

If you go back a bit in the thread youll find a link to an old post of mine where I provide my own view on the Israelis. If you dont want to read it then dont attempt to decide what my views are for me just to suit your argument. Suffice to say I dont put them up on a pedestal blindly.

Im personally saddened by the fact that its not enough to oppose the terrorist action, support the creation of a Palestinian state through negotiation and support the defeat of terrorist organisations. Unless you arrive in on a debate going "dem israelys are eevil bastards - dem poor palestinians, me dont like terrorim but me not gonna cry for racist Israelys" then youre pro-Israeli and support the wholesale gassing of Palestinians or something.

Both sides are, for want of more eloquent language, behaving like thugs and bullies.

Youre right. One side is also doing a nice sideline in terrorism. Without the " "s.

You're contradicting yourself here. The israelis ARE breaking rules, by your own admission. Therefore they are breaking them in the same wanton fashion as the Palestinians. As I said earlier. The only difference is that they have state-sanction to do so.

Hardly. The Israelis break the rules in relatively minor ways to suicide bombings. Whenever the Israelis accidentally shot the wrong person they apologised. How many apologies have you heard from the Palestinians over Israeli civillians being targeted? Sure, a rule broken is a rule broken - but theres a bit of a difference between breaking the rule where you dont punch someone and where you dont kill someone. Been the basis of crime and punishment for centuries. Condemn them both but dont confuse them.

So in your own admission, the Israelis ARE committing acts of terrorism. Being selective and restrained whilst carrying out such an act is STILL carring out said act.

You misread the post- Im saying the Israelis are quite selective and restrained compared to the Palestinians in their actions - If the Israelis were to answer Palestinians in kind (i.e. utuilise terrorism as the Palestinians have done then theyd just drop chemical weapons on the West Bank - or execute 10 palestinains for every Israeli killed and so on and so forth). The Palestinians on the other hand have been anything but restrained or selective in their targets.

Gurra:

What a despicable thing to say, thousands have died in this conflict, do you value life at all ?

Millions will die from cancer this year. Will they be victims of terrorism? Are they victims of murderers? No- well maybe cigarette companies but they know the risks. Its a whole different ball game when people are being deliberately killed. Another example for you - two people get hit by a car while attempting to "beat the traffic", and someone gets hit by a madman who comes up onto the kerb to run him down. You see my point? To answer your stupid/rhetorical question yes I value life, a lot more than some it seems.

Bonkey:

Yet, with the israeli actions, we have a virtually identical situation where people are honestly saying "it is a legitimate military exercise, and every effort was made to avoid innocent deaths".

As I said before If the Israelis werent interested in whether the Palestinians survived or not theyd just bomb the camp from the air. Far cheaper and less soldiers go home in body bags. The fact they went in with ground troops indicates they werent prepared to go that route,despite the costs in the casualties. Combat has occured in urban areas before, widespread destruction of property and a larger number of civillian deaths than would be the case in a non - urban battlefield are the norm, sad but true. The Israelis face a tough choice- either sit outside the camp and watch the Palestinian terrorists thumb their noses at them whilst carrying out attacks in Israel- or go in and break up their organisation in the camp. The choice is a no brainer for a warlord like Sharon who was elected because of the failure of negotiation and his promises he could solve the problems more aggressively.

Felix:

And who you, despite your claims support fully. Therefore people will draw their own conclusions.

Find me the quote where I say what a brilliant idea this is. Personally Id find this the worst solution - it reminds of a quote that went along the lines of they make a wasteland and call it peace (anyone got the full quote?). Given some of the absolute evil youve come out with you shouldnt try to take a high moral ground.

You make it sound so innocent, any time israel might fall under the brand of a terrorist state, you choose to change the meaning. This is but one example of what israel has done to terrorize innocent palestinians. If this isnt terrorism then what is?

My definition has always been clear- the deliberate targeting and murder of civillians. If you want an example of terrorism you could try those suicide bombings against women and children you think will teach the Israelis a lesson.

Personally Felix I dont understand how you can howl with indignation over the deaths of Palestinians killed in combat against the IDF or caught in the crossfire of same combat - and yet come out with chilling dismissals of the victims of suicide bombers, claiming its part of some lesson.
Are you sure youre not Boston? He had a similar slanted view of the victims in the conflict.

I hear theres going to be a U.N. fact finding misson into Jenin with which Israel says it will co-operate with fully. I hope it will shed some light on the matter for all concerned. Though to be honest if Felix, Von, Type or Boston were on the misson the conclusion would be reached before the investigation began.

Bateman

Rallies called soon after suicide bombings may indeed be celebrations. There won't be many now, will there? So Sharon has stopped suicide bombs. For the moment. Interesting to see the swallowing of the booby-trapped building guff. So Palestinian people blew up their own villages and camps did they?

And the poor Israeli soldiers walking through booby-trapped buildings. I thought you had accepted that it was wrong for them to use Palestinians as "minesweepers"? Having been watching with great interest the Israeli escalations and redeployments, Israeli deaths are dwarved by the other side. There have been numerous reports of helicopters gunning streets indiscriminately, how can you tell who is a terrorist and who is not? Is every armed civilian a terrorist, or as soon as he bears arms in teh face of the occupier is he a terrorist, even if he is only defending his home?

Israeli teenagers can't even go to a cafè for a coffee without wondering if they will be the next victims. Boo-hoo. Palestinians have no running water.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor
This only makes it understandable, not excusable.

True. However, i dont see it as the worst thing that has been done be either side by a long shot. If the worst that was happening was the above, we could all rest easier..