Bush: "Sharon is a man of peace"

Moriarty

Originally posted by Felix Randel

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

It most certainly was not. Before you go trolling any further, read the previous posts carefully.

Victor

Originally posted by Moriarty
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..

One can do:

the right thing (talk) or
the wrong thing (kill people) or
the wrong thing (kill people) in an inappropriate manner (descecration, etc.)

Call me a sentimentalist, but dead poeple should be treated in a humane (ironic isn't it, them being dead) way, there is no need for descecration and triumphalism.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Bateman
So Sharon has stopped suicide bombs. For the moment.

The political leadership in Israel is very, very poor. Sharon should not be in power. Im not about to get into a debate about how badly they are (mis)managing the situation.

Originally posted by Bateman
Interesting to see the swallowing of the booby-trapped building guff. So Palestinian people blew up their own villages and camps did they?

Yes, actually. Go figure. A few of the idf soldiers killed were blown up by boobytraps. I somehow doubt that the IDF themselves set it so they could blow up their own troops, so that only leaves one group left who could have..

Originally posted by Bateman
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"?

I never accepted that it was right or wrong for them to use palestinians as minesweepers. I havent mentioned anything with relation to this. "Ooops?"

Originally posted by Bateman
Having been watching with great interest the Israeli escalations and redeployments, Israeli deaths are dwarved by the other side.

We come back to the "Oh look, the IDF arent suffering enough casualties. I really wish the palestinians could kill more IDF soldiers, just to even it out, loike". The palestinians chose to fight against the IDF. Its their stupidity that got many of them killed. Anyone that values their life does not start shooting at troops when they know the enemy have massive support.

Originally posted by Bateman
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?

Show me one reputable news organisation that has said the israelis are using helicopter gunships on numerous occasions gunning down streets indiscriminatly.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor


One can do:

the right thing (talk) or
the wrong thing (kill people) or
the wrong thing (kill people) in an inappropriate manner (descecration, etc.)

Call me a sentimentalist, but dead poeple should be treated in a humane (ironic isn't it, them being dead) way, there is no need for descecration and triumphalism.

I would much prefer if it didnt happen at all, dont get me wrong. I just feel that there is far too much wrong-doing happening to people who are still living for the issue of how dead bodys are treated to be ranked on the same level. I would prefer to see a dead body being desecrated rather than another person being killed to lie on the street untouched.

Felix Randel

Its their stupidity that got many of them killed. Anyone that values their life does not start shooting at troops when they know the enemy have massive support.

What about people who value freedom, and equality, and hte hope of a better future, are they to stupid.

Were black american civil rights protesters stupid. Was out war of independance stupid. are all war fought against apparently hopeless odds stupid?

I somehow doubt that the IDF themselves set it so they could blow up their own troops

Who said they did, and why would they bother, they have the right to defend their homes as much as the israelis calim they do.

Show me one reputable news organisation that has said the israelis are using helicopter gunships on numerous occasions gunning down streets indiscriminatly.

Therefore it didnt happen? all these orginisations have been blocked, you only have eyewithness which happen to be palestinians so yo udont believe them. It isnt a far to imagine israelis doing this. They have, in the past used helicopter gunships to attack targets in heavly populated areas, often killing several by standards

It most certainly was not.

It most certainly was.

Lemming

Originally posted by Sand
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.

MY apologies. I had not seen said post. But to answer your charge of deciding what your views are to suit your argument, I make the following response:

I've seen many people post Blind-Pro-Palestine views on these boards. On the other hand, I've seen yourself appear, more often than not, to be the other far end of the pole (blind-Pro-israeli). Perhaps you are, perhaps you aren't, but that's just the impression I've recieved from many of your postings.

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

BOTH sides are in this up to their f*cking necks! BOTH have committed terrorist acts, BOTH are guilty of producing some of the most pathetic, servile scum to be called "human". Both have terrorised the other's general populace through force of arms.

As I've said before - the only difference is that one is state-sanctioned, the other is not. Bar that subtle distinction, the result is the same.

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.

Bulldozing a house with the family inside, and blowing up a pizza parlour are the one and same act. Both are breaking the rules to the same end result. So your arguement in that respect is moot.

As for the israelis apologising for accidental killings, its only ever been done after MASSIVE international criticsm, which would lead me to believe that their apologies are rather in-sincere.

A rule broken - someone's life has been snuffed out - there is no difference which way the end of the gun was pointed. Same effect - moot point.

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.

To answer various people's suggestions of the Israeli's dropping chemical weapons or such if they didn't care/insert-appropriate-word ... if the israelis did that, they would be in CLEAR UNDENIABLE proof of attempted genocide/ethnic-cleansing/war-crimes.

Sending in tanks and flattening a refugee camp doesn't look as bad on paper. But again, rather a moot point since it had the same effect. To take a point - they didn't just go into jenin and fight gunmen. They FLATTENED jenin. Unless they were fighting a regiment or something in there, that kind of scale damage is indicitave of, at the best, gross negligence in adhering to the rules of war, or more likely, the Israelis looking to make an example but getting too trigger happy.

In keeping with that example I will say this:

Sharon precided over two massacres. Had it been left at that I'd have been dubious as to his innocence, but not damnable. Now with a third having appeared to occur, I find this to be beyond coincidence.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Felix Randel
What about people who value freedom, and equality, and hte hope of a better future, are they to stupid.

Palestinian gunmen are not shooting at the IDF for freedom, they are shooting at the IDF to inflict casualties. The same people are not intrested in peace. They will only accept the complete annihilation of the state of Israel, as stated by many of the terrorist groups on numerous occasions.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Were black american civil rights protesters stupid.

Intresting that you bring this up. The black civil rights movement practiced peaceful protest. It did not take up arms and start shooting state symbols. In fact, they were subjected to terrible brutality by just about everyone for a while, they stuck with the idea of peaceful protest, and they changed their society (and the world) for the better because of it.

I now paste the conversation over this next topic in full, bear with me..

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Interesting to see the swallowing of the booby-trapped building guff. So Palestinian people blew up their own villages and camps did they?

Originally posted by Moriarty
Yes, actually. Go figure. A few of the idf soldiers killed were blown up by boobytraps. I somehow doubt that the IDF themselves set it so they could blow up their own troops, so that only leaves one group left who could have..

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Who said they did, and why would they bother, they have the right to defend their homes as much as the israelis calim they do. [

This answer makes absolutly no sense. Would you mind if i asked you exactly what you are on?

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Therefore it didnt happen? all these orginisations have been blocked, you only have eyewithness which happen to be palestinians so yo udont believe them. It isnt a far to imagine israelis doing this. They have, in the past used helicopter gunships to attack targets in heavly populated areas, often killing several by standards

Im just going to stand back and let everyone have a good read of that. Check it out everyone! First of all, he sites no sources. Secondly, he says there are eyewitness reports of something (presumably gunships firing indiscriminatly down streets..). Thirdly, oh wow, look! Its the second time he has done the same thing in the space of a few hours. I quote from an earlier post of mine further back ..

Originally posted by Moriarty
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.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
It most certainly was.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Felix Randel

Palestinian gunmen are not shooting at the IDF for freedom, they are shooting at the IDF to inflict casualties. The same people are not intrested in peace. They will only accept the complete annihilation of the state of Israel, as stated by many of the terrorist groups on numerous occasions.

No the only thing these people are interested in is not getting shot.

Intresting that you bring this up. The black civil rights movement practiced peaceful protest. It did not take up arms and start shooting state symbols. In fact, they were subjected to terrible brutality by just about everyone for a while, they stuck with the idea of peaceful protest, and they changed their society (and the world) for the better because of it.

I mentioned this, because there are several of these "peacefull" palestinian groups, some are actually quiet large, whos are subjected to israeli abuse, imprisonment, death. In the first weeks of the jihad their offices in Jerusalem were taken by the israelis. When israeli troops bomb an area how to they know which freefighters are "peacefull" and which are not? This tells me that israel dont want a peacefull conflict, they just want victory at any cost.

as the figures quoted here state, 19% of israelis are arab, i wonder how many arabs sit on the israeli goveremnt?

This answer makes absolutly no sense.

You were making at comment, that somehow someone here was suggesting that israelis planted the traps, and then killed themselves on them. While im sure they left several behind after they withdrew, no one was suggesting what you claim.

First of all, he sites no sources.

For what, that israelis uses helicopter gunships to attack targets in heavly populated areas, this is an excepted fact, and i wouldnt have thought id have to provide a "source" as they are numerious.

Secondly, he says there are eyewitness reports of something (presumably gunships firing indiscriminatly down streets..).

No, i said any eyewithness to said butchering of innocents would be palestinians. Thats a far cry from sayign there are withness. Though your right, i do belive there are withnesss, but since no offical investigation how been alllowed, i cant provide sources. The refusal to allow a team in only suggests israeli guilt.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
You misread the post- Im saying the Israelis are quite selective and restrained compared to the Palestinians in their actions

I disagree, the death toll indicates otherwise. And while targetting busy night spots and the like creates a large number of civilian casualties, this is in the context of a militarised nation where 80% of the population have been, are or will be in the military (see below). Generally Palestinian attacks have been in public places and town centres, Israeli attacks have generally been on private residences and neighbourhoods.

Originally posted by Sand
If the Israelis were to answer Palestinians in kind .... theyd just .... execute 10 palestinains for every Israeli killed and so on and so forth).

Are you suggesting a ratio of 5:1 isn't enough dead Palestinians?

Originally posted by Sand
The Palestinians on the other hand have been anything but restrained or selective in their targets.

Apparently an (off duty) Israeli army general and at least 2 other soldiers (all from one family) were killed in the bombing of the hotel at Passover (source CBS news). The deaths of several civilians would have been ignored had this been Afghanistan, Iraq or any other 'rogue state' - "we bagged a General".

swiss

I can't believe I actually read (well, most) of the four pages - most of which is people repeating their points of view ad nauseum. I'm sorry if that seems unfair, but that is just how it seems to me.

Anyway, I'm just going to respond to a few points made

Originally posted by Moriarty:

Palestinian gunmen are not shooting at the IDF for freedom, they are shooting at the IDF to inflict casualties. The same people are not intrested in peace. They will only accept the complete annihilation of the state of Israel, as stated by many of the terrorist groups on numerous occasions.

Hmmm, perhaps my view can be summed up here.

Of course I condemn the terrorist actions of the suicide bombers. No matter what the circumstances may be, taking innocent civillian life should be repulsive and an affront to humanity.

Sand, you are fond of saying that civillian casualties in legitimate military operations, though regrettable, are excusable. While I can see your point of view (to a certain respect) I would also say that it is therefore morally incumbant upon any military force that seeks to undertake a military operation that could endanger civillian life to take all reasonable precautions to minimise the threat to civillian life.

From your previous posts, unless I have interpreted them incorrectly, you do cede that in not all cases have the Israeli army conformed to that moral ethos. If you do not agree, then I'm afraid I believe you are either unaware of the full facts of the conflict, or are unwilling to acknowledge them.

In my opinion, this makes the Israeli army just as guilty as palestinian terrorists of carrying out terrorist activities. Just because their actions have taken place under the auspices of the Israeli state does not make them any less 'terrorist' in nature, IMO. In fact, given that these incursions are state sponsored, a greater body of critisism should be levelled at the way the Israeli state has handled the crisis, communsurate with the level of responsibility they wield.

Of course Israel have a right to defend themselves against suicide bombers. I do not dispute that. What I do take issue with is the massive retaliation the Israeli army has undertaken against a largely innocent palestinian population that has exacerbated the very situation that they claim they want to avoid (an escalation in suicide bomb attacks).

Sand - I know that you hold a similar view of the IRA as you do the palestinian suicide bombers. While I do not feel they are one and the same, I can see the parallels. With that in mind, consider what would happen if there was a spate of bombings in England, for which the IRA took responsibility. Suppose the English took the same line as the Israelis. We would watch as civillian areas in Belfast are levelled, as no doubt the terrorists are in there somewhere - and it of course would be their fault for staying there (according to England media sources).

You see where I'm going with this. Taking revenge on attacks by launching massive attacks against one's enemy, a fight which you cannot hope to actually win but undertake anyway, will only perpetuate the problem, and escalate it even furthur (if possible). It is only by taking your finger off the trigger that progress can be acheived. Given that the terrorist forces have no state mandate and no formal structure I would call upon the Israeli forces to take the brave and pioneering step to observe international accords and stop their illegal incursions into areas that do not belong to them.

Bear in mind that if the Palestinians did have an army comparable to the Israeli one, few dispute that they would become embroiled in a full scale war, and I believe we would also see less belligerence on the part of the Israelis.

Felix Randel

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.

Ha, everytime you get challenged you turn around and say this. its allmost as if you dont bleive both sides can carry out terrorism. Northern ireland proves this view to be false.

Im not askign you about suicide bombing, to me your definition, loose as it is (define murder, is it cold blooded murder?) that israeli actions fall under this as well as suicide bombings.

The problem is every attack against israeli targets is on the tv and pictures, and we know exactly what happened. often is the case were israel targets palestinians that they are not on the tv, and we only have the word of the palestinians to base it on.

I think i know why your so slow to call this action(human mine swippers) as terrorism, because if you do, and taken the point i just made into account, you would also have to except that there has been israeli terrorist attacks that will never be proven.

Terrorism, to strike terrror into the hearts of the general civilian population by armed or other means.

Hobbes

I don't know how someone can define a suicide bomber in a public place and a helicopter firing a missile into a public place as two totally different things.

I guess the bomber targets the public, where as the other just treats the public as collateral damage.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Felix Randel
No the only thing these people are interested in is not getting shot.

If they were only intrested in not being shot, they would not make themselves targets by shooting at Israeli troops.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
I mentioned this, because there are several of these "peacefull" palestinian groups, some are actually quiet large, whos are subjected to israeli abuse, imprisonment, death. In the first weeks of the jihad their offices in Jerusalem were taken by the israelis. When israeli troops bomb an area how to they know which freefighters are "peacefull" and which are not? This tells me that israel dont want a peacefull conflict, they just want victory at any cost.

I presume this is another one of your facts that you telepathically know about, since no other news organisation does..? Offices were raided by the Israelis, but only those of terrorist organisations, and organisations linked with the former.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
You were making at comment, that somehow someone here was suggesting that israelis planted the traps, and then killed themselves on them. While im sure they left several behind after they withdrew, no one was suggesting what you claim.

Its called a rhetorical question. Of course the Israelis didnt kill their own people. Palestinians boobytraped streets & buildings, with the only purpose of killing & maiming IDF troops.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
For what, that israelis uses helicopter gunships to attack targets in heavly populated areas, this is an excepted fact, and i wouldnt have thought id have to provide a "source" as they are numerious.

Yes, the Israelis use helicopter gunships to launch missiles at pre-designated targets.. They have never gone into palestinian areas with the express purpose of shooting anyone they can find on streets in the refugee camps. They are used to support the ground troops with heavy, directed fire, which is the primary roll of helicopter gunships the world over.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
No, i said any eyewithness to said butchering of innocents would be palestinians. Thats a far cry from sayign there are withness. Though your right, i do belive there are withnesss, but since no offical investigation how been alllowed, i cant provide sources. The refusal to allow a team in only suggests israeli guilt.

Where have you seen these eye witness reports? Why would you believe them any more than press releases that the IDF make? This only emphasies your bias towards the palestinians, believing everything that comes from any palestinian organisation, and yet claiming everything the IDF or the Israeli government say is total lies.

Victor

Originally posted by Moriarty
Offices were raided by the Israelis, but only those of terrorist organisations, and organisations linked with the former.

Are you suggesting the destruction of education and health records in their respective ministries is acceptable or that it didn't happen? And the destruction of health care products and sewage systems?

Felix Randel

they would not make themselves targets by shooting at Israeli troops.

You work under the assumption that only those who shoot as israelis are shot by them, this is totaly false.

I presume this is another one of your facts that you telepathically know about, since no other news organisation does..? Offices were raided by the Israelis, but only those of terrorist organisations, and organisations linked with the former.

Actually all this happened 18 motnhs - 2 eyears ago, i doubt it was mentioned more then once or twice on main western news back then, but it was and i saw it. If you doubt that these groups are real, then i suggest you do some research before throwing opionions around.

Offices were raided by the Israelis, but only those of terrorist organisations, and organisations linked with the former.

And you know this because you inpected the israeli operation, right big mouth post a list of places raided in jerusalam by israeli troops. I can tell you that the palestinian conciliate in Jerusalem was taken over by israeli troops right as all this started 2 years or so ago. which in its self (afaik) is a war crime. The un were very pissed.

Palestinians boobytraped streets & buildings, with the only purpose of killing & maiming IDF troops.

And what? you desagree their right to repell any foreign force entering an there land?

They have never gone into palestinian areas with the express purpose of shooting

Your so wrong it hurts my head. Several leading hamas figures have been killed by these attacks, were no ground troops were envolved. When israelis attack police statiosn they use these gunships.

but since no offical investigation how been alllowed, i cant provide sources

Where have you seen these eye witness reports

Im going to persume you can read, Who has been allowed to collect these reports for me to see? all i can base it on are the hundreads of dead, some common sense and the few people talking to news reporters.

You never saw the holocaust yea you believe it happened. You base this on what was left behind afterwards.
Some on man, they hide bodies, denied access to the outside world, leveled a large part of the camp, all to cover their tracks, why would they do it if they had done everything above board.

Even you have to admitt, any other country this wouldnt have been allowed

Bateman

Moriarty, the BBC recently interviewed UN representatives and assorted other reliable individuals (well they are Palestinians, that would probably make them unreliable to you) , who on more than one occassion asserted that helicopter gunships had in fact been firing from realtively high in the air. If you heard it yourself you would probably still deny it.
When the UN report comes out it cannot possibly decide anything other than that warcrimes were carried out against the Palestinian people.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Moriarty

If they were only intrested in not being shot, they would not make themselves targets by shooting at Israeli troops.

Ok take a step back. Remember in school how they teach you about A does not equal B, but A can be a subset of B.

Not all the people in palistine feel the same way as the terrorists. If they did there would be all out war. Likewise not every person in Israel should be brought up on war crimes as there are quite a few people who don't agree with what is going on.

I presume this is another one of your facts that you telepathically know about, since no other news organisation does..?

Actually he's quite correct, I'm afraid your not. There a quite a few peaceful palistinian groups and they do have rallies (one massive one in lebanon just recently. Ref: EuroNews RTE). Same in Israel, and it should still be there on yahoo a picture of a peace protester in Israel getting beaten up by the military. Or prehaps you missed the news report just recently on RTE where the military in Israel fired live rounds into a peaceful peace protest.

Palestinians boobytraped streets & buildings, with the only purpose of killing & maiming IDF troops.

While that might be true, to suggest that as to what happened at Jenin is laughable.

Yes, the Israelis use helicopter gunships to launch missiles at pre-designated targets..

As I said this is no different then suicide bombers. These targets have been cars in public streets with normal people nearby. In one case they wounded the target when the missile hit the car and killed four civilians. In other cases they have purposely missile attacked palistine jails in the hopes of killing the people who have been imprisoned on terrorist charges. In those instances it has been palistine police who have been killed.

There is no way you can justify this as a valid response.

Where have you seen these eye witness reports?

Try prehaps, reading papers, watching the news.

Why would you believe them any more than press releases that the IDF make?

Well that's the other guy. I know from reading both sides, they are as both messed up as each other. It is naive to think there one side is the good guy and the other is bad.

Victor

Originally posted by Hobbes
Actually he's quite correct, I'm afraid your not. There a quite a few peaceful palistinian groups and they do have rallies (one massive one in lebanon just recently. Ref: EuroNews RTE). Same in Israel, and it should still be there on yahoo a picture of a peace protester in Israel getting beaten up by the military. Or prehaps you missed the news report just recently on RTE where the military in Israel fired live rounds into a peaceful peace protest.

I saw a follow up piece (on Sky News or BBC, not sure) of an English woman hit by shrapnel from a bullet when the IDF fired intoa peaceful crowd (they showed the footage) - 'nice' 8 inch scar from her ribs down past her navel.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor

Are you suggesting the destruction of education and health records in their respective ministries is acceptable or that it didn't happen? And the destruction of health care products and sewage systems?

I wasnt aware they did this. I was under the impression of what i said above being true, but i was very preoccupied with something in RL over the period of a few months around the begining of the current interfada so didnt have near enough any time to watch the news about it.. My appoligies

Victor

Originally posted by Moriarty
I wasnt aware they did this. I was under the impression of what i said above being true, but i was very preoccupied with something in RL over the period of a few months around the begining of the current interfada so didnt have near enough any time to watch the news about it.

This was in the last 3 weeks.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Felix Randel
You work under the assumption that only those who shoot as israelis are shot by them

No i dont. Anyone who shoots at them is a valid target - the gunmen have accepted the risks attached to what they are doing, and if their killed it really dosent bother me. There will also be people who are not attacking the IDF directly at the moment in time that they are found by the IDF. Many will have done nothing against the IDF or Israel and should be left alone. Some will have participated in terrorist activities to varying degrees; weather handling explosives, feeding & sheltering terrorists, or support in any other periphery way. I believe that anyone who supports terrorists in such a way forfits their rights to be treated as unarmed civilians. They certainly should not be shot out of hand; they are no immediate threat to the troops. Instead, they should be interrogated for information, and then imprisoned.

Now, the IDF have a very tough job trying to find out what group each person fits into. Mistakes will be made, as they are in everything, espically during a combat situation where everyone is already very tense and high-strung.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
If you doubt that these groups are real,

I dont doubt their existance or the large support base they have.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
then i suggest you do some research before throwing opionions around.

How ironic. Perhaps you should listen to your own advice sometime.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
And what? you desagree their right to repell any foreign force entering an there land?

Its debateable weather its their land at the moment. It has been anexed by Israel for years, and so it is actually Israeli territory at the moment. So the IDF arent foreign invaders, and its not the palestinians land - legally. I dont mind if the palestinians feel the need to try to repel the IDF, their welcome to try, but its a lost cause from my point of view. Anyone who fires at troops has defined themselves as hostile to the IDF. As such, the IDF imo have free reign to respond in kind and kill anyone that shoots at them.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Your so wrong it hurts my head. Several leading hamas figures have been killed by these attacks, were no ground troops were envolved. When israelis attack police statiosn they use these gunships.

The case in jenin was that gunships were used to support the infantry on the ground with heavy, directed fire. They have also been used in seperate operations, as you point out, to kill hamas leaders etc. I dont see how i am wrong wrt any point i have made.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Im going to persume you can read, Who has been allowed to collect these reports for me to see? all i can base it on are the hundreads of dead, some common sense and the few people talking to news reporters.

How can you say something has definetly happened when, as you say yourself, you have seen no reports to back up your supisition?

Originally posted by Felix Randel
You never saw the holocaust yea you believe it happened. You base this on what was left behind afterwards.
Some on man, they hide bodies, denied access to the outside world, leveled a large part of the camp, all to cover their tracks, why would they do it if they had done everything above board.

I believe the holocaust happened because it has been well documented and proven to have taken place. On the other hand, i dont believe in the tooth fairy for similar reasons - it has never been documented, never proven to have existed.

They denied access for a short time to outside agencies. It could well be argued that people were denied simply to stop them being hurt/killed by stray fire. Many died on both sides, which hints at how dangerous it was to be in the refugee camp. It would have been far worse for the Israelis to have allowed anyone in, only for them to have been shot. News agencies have been allowed to roam the camp for over a week now iirc. If the IDF were intent on covering up something, surely they would have kept it off-limits for longer? They had no pressing need to let anyone go in.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Even you have to admitt, any other country this wouldnt have been allowed

What wouldnt have been allowed? Honest question, im not sure what exactly you are referring to.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Bateman
Moriarty, the BBC recently interviewed UN representatives and assorted other reliable individuals (well they are Palestinians, that would probably make them unreliable to you) ,

Not any more unreliable than an israeli spokesman would be. I listen to what each have to say, but i would take neither as the gospel truth. Only impartial people that have seen what happened, in the main, can actually give a true account of it.

Originally posted by Bateman
who on more than one occassion asserted that helicopter gunships had in fact been firing from realtively high in the air.

What on earth does that have to do with anything? You do know that the gunships which the Isralis use have very good optics? They can spot a man kilometres away, nevermind a few hundred metres up. You hardly expect them to fly 10m above the rooftops, to let gunmen have potshots at them?

Originally posted by Bateman
When the UN report comes out it cannot possibly decide anything other than that warcrimes were carried out against the Palestinian people.

Of course it can. It can say whatever is the truth. This may be that war crimes were commited. It may be that the IDF kept within the rules throughout. Neither you nor I can make that judgement, only the people who are in the area finding out the facts for themselves.

Sand

On the other hand, I've seen yourself appear, more often than not, to be the other far end of the pole (blind-Pro-israeli). Perhaps you are, perhaps you aren't, but that's just the impression I've recieved from many of your postings.

If my views seem extreme you have to remember they are *in comparison* to many views exspressed here.

As I've said before - the only difference is that one is state-sanctioned, the other is not. Bar that subtle distinction, the result is the same.

Were operating under different understandings of the term terrorism. So we could be here all night. As for the state sanctioned part, Arafat is suspected of supporting the terrorist attacks and the Israelis calim they found evidence (documents listing exsplosives, weapons, donations to familyes etc) in Arafats compund. - Im not going to argue though that the Israelis wouldnt have a motive for "inventing" this evidence but Im one of those who reckons Arafat is far from a pacifist.

A rule broken - someone's life has been snuffed out - there is no difference which way the end of the gun was pointed. Same effect - moot point.

I could argue that the Israelis were levelling the house to clear a path for their troops- milatary purpose. whilst the palestinians were levelling the pizza parlour to kill the civillians in it -terrorism. But were operating under different understandings of the term terrorism so I dont imagine youd agree

How people were killed does matter imo- theres a difference between someone being hit by a driver accidentally and the driver running them down- same end result : one dead guy but the driver may or may not go to jail.

I can't believe I actually read (well, most) of the four pages - most of which is people repeating their points of view ad nauseum. I'm sorry if that seems unfair, but that is just how it seems to me.

Yeah I agree.

you do cede that in not all cases have the Israeli army conformed to that moral ethos.

Yes, I do. I dont view the IDF as good guys at all (There are *no* good guys- My strongest opinion on the matter is that terrorism of the civillians should cease - if it were to, negotiation would be a lot easier to resolve). Theyre just not quite as bad as the Palestinian terrorists for targeting civillians.

In my opinion, this makes the Israeli army just as guilty as palestinian terrorists of carrying out terrorist activities.

Again we seem to be operating under different understandings of the term terrorism. As I said the Israelis dont seem to care much about Palestinian civillians but neither do they care so much about targeting them, as terrorists do.

With that in mind, consider what would happen if there was a spate of bombings in England, for which the IRA took responsibility. Suppose the English took the same line as the Israelis. We would watch as civillian areas in Belfast are levelled, as no doubt the terrorists are in there somewhere - and it of course would be their fault for staying there (according to England media sources).

Ive seen this point (variations of it) argued many times Swiss- its a poor comparison because the UK police services and security forces already control Belfast, whereas Israel doesnt control the West Bank (Well not the palestinian areas anyway). As such the Uk govt could find the terrorists with a few police raids. Whereas in Israels case the situtation is one where no law enforcement agency curbs the terrorists, and an actual pitched battle between soldiers and gunmen was required to achieve the same prisoner arrests and weapon seizures as the RUC/PSNI would undertake in Belfast.

Taking revenge on attacks by launching massive attacks against one's enemy, a fight which you cannot hope to actually win but undertake anyway, will only perpetuate the problem, and escalate it even furthur (if possible). It is only by taking your finger off the trigger that progress can be acheived.

I feel the Israelis had the problem of either going into the camps or just turning the other cheek as attacks continued to occur. Its a tough decision and I wouldnt envy having to make it. I agree though that the Israelis should withdraw out of Palestinian areas and simply concentrate on preventing terrorists from reaching their targets in the West Bank and Israel proper - If a stalemate can be achieved then perhaps negotiation will become achievable again. Im deeply cynical though as Sharon tends to favour military action (He wasnt elected as a dove) and I dont belive Arafat is brave enough to make the sort of peace with Israel that will realistically not be all the Palestinians dream of - probably not even close if were honest, at least not initially.

Terrorism, to strike terrror into the hearts of the general civilian population by armed or other means.

Your definition, a definition suitably vague enough so one can condemn any action that makes a small child cry as terrorism.

I disagree, the death toll indicates otherwise. And while targetting busy night spots and the like creates a large number of civilian casualties, this is in the context of a militarised nation where 80% of the population have been, are or will be in the military (see below).

Yeah Ive heard it before. I dont see it as being justification for killing people. I assume using your logic the murder of *any* Israeli (or at least 80% of them) can be justified? Youd allow then that given as many Palestinians become suicide bombers , from all walks of life any murder of Palestinians is justified? Why then are you worried about Palestinian deaths in the first place? You should examine any rules of thumb that can be abused in such a fashion.

Actually Hobbes does a nice number on the relevance of 80%:

Ok take a step back. Remember in school how they teach you about A does not equal B, but A can be a subset of B.

Not all the people in palistine feel the same way as the terrorists. If they did there would be all out war. Likewise not every person in Israel should be brought up on war crimes as there are quite a few people who don't agree with what is going on.

Are you suggesting a ratio of 5:1 isn't enough dead Palestinians?

I take it youre suggesting that a ratio of 1:5 isnt enough dead Israelis?

Apparently an (off duty) Israeli army general and at least 2 other soldiers (all from one family) were killed in the bombing of the hotel at Passover (source CBS news). The deaths of several civilians would have been ignored had this been Afghanistan, Iraq or any other 'rogue state' - "we bagged a General".

You can bet the Palestinians would be as surprised as anyone. "What we got a military target? **** - Well guess you get unlucky once in a while".

Felix Randel

Originally posted by Moriarty

I wasnt aware they did this. I was under the impression of what i said above being true, but i was very preoccupied with something in RL over the period of a few months around the begining of the current interfada so didnt have near enough any time to watch the news about it.. My appoligies

If you havent been following whats been happening then how can you comment? You havent a clue whats been going on, read some papers, look at some reports, listen to a few lenghty debates, and then come back and challenge me to an arguement, talking to you can no serve and purpase untill you do this.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Hobbes
While that might be true, to suggest that as to what happened at Jenin is laughable.

I never said that all the destruction was caused by this. Of course it wasnt. It was caused by the IDF bulldozing the houses. Why they bulldozed the houses is debateable. They could have been clearing a path for their troops since the streets were so dangerous, or they could have been doing it in retaliation for any number of things, or they could have been trying to root out snipers etc.. There are almost limitless posibilitys.

Originally posted by Bateman
As I said this is no different then suicide bombers. These targets have been cars in public streets with normal people nearby. In one case they wounded the target when the missile hit the car and killed four civilians. In other cases they have purposely missile attacked palistine jails in the hopes of killing the people who have been imprisoned on terrorist charges. In those instances it has been palistine police who have been killed.

I disagree. It is very different to suicide bombings. With gunship attacks, their are targetting specific individuals. Its highly unlikely they would ever be able to kill these people without killing innocent bystanders. Weather we like that or not, it happens all the time during military operations.

Suicide bombings, on the other hand, are the indiscriminint killing of civilans for no other purpose than to strike fear into the minds of the Israeli population. If these bombers targeted IDF posts, it would be a very different matter. Then they would be doing what the IDF are doing. There is a massive difference between the two.

Originally posted by Bateman
It is naive to think there one side is the good guy and the other is bad.

Entirely true. I freely admit that the IDF, and particularly the Isralei policital leadership have made some very poor judgements, some of which have had the result of needless acts of violence against palestinians. On the other hand, many people here believe the Palestinian political leadership, such as it is, aswell as the terrorist groups, can do no wrong.

Lemming

Originally posted by Moriarty
Now, the IDF have a very tough job trying to find out what group each person fits into. Mistakes will be made, as they are in everything, espically during a combat situation where everyone is already very tense and high-strung.

If you don't mind my jumping in here moriarty

Whilst you are right that mistakes can and indeed DO happen as with all things in life, I can't help but feel exceptionally cynical about the IDF in this context. There seems to be an awful lot of "mistakes" made my their troops, which never seem to be addressed, only to be repeated time and again. The following phrase could apply:

"Once is an accident. Twice is co-incidence. Three times is affirmative, delibrate action".

Its debateable weather its their land at the moment. It has been anexed by Israel for years, and so it is actually Israeli territory at the moment. So the IDF arent foreign invaders, and its not the palestinians land - legally. I dont mind if the palestinians feel the need to try to repel the IDF, their welcome to try, but its a lost cause from my point of view. Anyone who fires at troops has defined themselves as hostile to the IDF. As such, the IDF imo have free reign to respond in kind and kill anyone that shoots at them.

Not meaning to be offensive or anything here, but that has to be one of the most ill-thought out/ignorant statements I've ever read on boards (that includes some of my own).

Most of Europe was under German occupation during WW2 for several years, if I recall?

HELL, Ireland was occupied for a few hundred years. It was STILL a british occupation.

Same applies to the Israelis and said annexed land. The IDF is a foreign occupation force. Nothing more.

The case in jenin was that gunships were used to support the infantry on the ground with heavy, directed fire.

Fair enough. I'll just disagree with your use of the wording "directed fire" in there. The extent of damage in Jenin wasn't directed. It was total, ie. "Don't stop firing until all that's left is dust". That's not directed, that's just brute, messy, careless force.

On the other hand, i dont believe in the tooth fairy for similar reasons - it has never been documented, never proven to have existed.

Well .. I'm on a roll now .. so what the hell

As much as the tooth fairy hasn't been proven, its never been DIS-proven either!

Many died on both sides, which hints at how dangerous it was to be in the refugee camp.

I would be VERY interested to see the ratio of deaths .. more importantly, I'd be VERY interested to see the statistics regarding sex, age, and the amount of weapons found per body.

News agencies have been allowed to roam the camp for over a week now iirc. If the IDF were intent on covering up something, surely they would have kept it off-limits for longer? They had no pressing need to let anyone go in.

I recall watching the news the day the Jenin incident was released. A british crew onsight were asked by a reporter back in-studio if they were being hampered or if the IDF were obstructing them from damage. The reoporter is quoted as saying something along the lines of "The extent of the damage is so widespread and obvious that I dion't think the Israeli forces could prevent us from seeing it".

For the life of me I can't remember which station it was. I think it was the Beeb (lunch-time news)

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor

This was in the last 3 weeks.

Really? Hmph. Never heard it. Im sure it did happen if you say so, i just havent been keeping up to speed on the happenings as much as id like to.

Felix Randel

I feel the Israelis had the problem of either going into the camps or just turning the other cheek as attacks continued to occur. Its a tough decision and I wouldnt envy having to make it.

So at the height of the troubles, when the irish goveremnt openly supported the IRA, you would have agreed with the british invadtion of dublin? how do you feel about the bublin bombings by the british goverment? actually dont answer that.

Your definition, a definition suitably vague enough so one can condemn any action that makes a small child cry as terrorism.

It was ment to be, just to highlight have vague out definiton of terrorism would be.

You can bet the Palestinians would be as surprised as anyone. "What we got a military target? **** - Well guess you get unlucky once in a while

First, dont be a muppet, that comment is stupid.

second, Most israeli men and weman carry a gun, many will shoot any arab on sight, as evident by the number of arabs people killed by israeli civilians, a minior number i hear you say, but then take into account that these two peoples dont normally mix at all.


You still havent answered my question btw.

How many arabs representing the 19% (or so) of arab israelis, are in goverement, or is it that these peopel have no rights in israel

Moriarty

Originally posted by Felix Randel


If you havent been following whats been happening then how can you comment? You havent a clue whats been going on, read some papers, like at some reports, listen to a few lenghty debates, and then come back and challenge me to an arguement, talkign to you can no serve and purpase untill you do this.

I comment on things i know about in the main. I dont make a habbit of arguing about things i dont know about. I understand the situation. I dont have to read every news report on every small new development to be able to discuss the overall actions. Im sure you dont know every single thing that has happened in the region for the past 65 odd years, either.

Felix Randel

Ture, but i dont make comments like

"israeli never did this"
"israeli troops took into account civilians"
"No part of jenin was levied"
"There only shot people who shot at them"
"no massacres took palce"

or things to that meaning