Bush: "Sharon is a man of peace"

Moriarty

Originally posted by Lemming
If you don't mind my jumping in here moriarty

Not at all

Originally posted by Lemming
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".

I agree, but i dont think you can say that there is an order going out to all IDF forces to kill palestinians on sight until you have proof that there is. From what i have seen and heard, i do think that there was at least not enough time taken to asses what 'category' people fitted into. This could have been due to the orders of a poor superiour, or any number of other reasons. Again, i wasnt there, so i cant say for cerain exactly what did or did not happen, what the israeli troops orders really were, or were not. It is possible that there were individual troops out with a vendetta against the palestinians in general. It is possible the IDF had very strong orders. I just cant say what did or did not happen. It might very well have been a large number of accidents, we cant say for certain one way or the other for the moment.

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

True, but they feel they have the right to be there, weather its right or wrong. Thats all i was trying to get across, i wasnt necessarly saying they are right to be there.

Either way, once the IDF are there, the same thing stands. At the risk of repeating myself.. 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 Lemming
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.

Gunships werent used to level the camp, bulldozers were. Im presuming the gunships were used to support the troops on the ground, with heavy fire being directed towards any pockets of hostiles. Its a fairly safe assumption, considering that this is the main mission of helicopter gunships in general.

Originally posted by Lemming
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!

True. Im not saying it hasnt happend; Im just saying that for the moment, with what information we have, its far too early to jump to conclusions.

Originally posted by Lemming
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.

I think it would be expected for more palestinians to have died, due to the far superior armament of the IDF. I actually dont think much should be read into the ratio of deaths between the 2 sides. Any gunmen took the same risks as all the IDF troops. They knew they ran the risk of being killed. Its just the IDF were far more efficent in killing the palestinian gunmen, to be brutally honest. Sex & age again cant be interpreted that much. All of the frontline IDF troops will be males in the age range 18-25 most likely. Just because somone is under the age of 18, or female, or both, dont mean they cant use a rifle. The amount of weapons found per body would be useless - weapons could be added or removed from dead palestinian bodys by either side to give the desired effect. Nothing can be proven from those sorts of statistics.

Originally posted by Lemming
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".

I think this reinforces my point. If the IDF really wanted to cover something up, they would not have let journalists or anyone else get within miles of the camps. They have more than enough force to have an exclusion line 10-15 miles out incircling the camp.

<Edit: Fixed brackets>

Moriarty

Originally posted by 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

I have never made any of the above comments, or anything that infers them, with the exclusion of the "Israeli troops took into account civilians", which they did.

Victor

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

No, in all but the most abusive way, it is too many Israelis. My point is it demonstrates who is more violent and the point that Israelis seem to persist in having such 'scorekeeping'. Their violence, response or not, is invariably disproportionate.

Originally posted by Sand
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".

You are sick c*** for thinking that. I know the lads don't like abuse here, but I have to call a spade a spade.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor
My point is it demonstrates who is more violent

I disagree. It demonstates who is more skilled at the art of war. If anything, its yet another reminder to the palestinian terrorists that violence is not the answer to the situation. Israel is simply better at it than they are.

Felix Randel

Originally posted by Moriarty

I have never made any of the above comments, or anything that infers them, with the exclusion of the "Israeli troops took into account civilians", which they did.

If you say so, others can judge what you said themselves

Lemming

Originally posted by Moriarty

I agree, but i dont think you can say that there is an order going out to all IDF forces to kill palestinians on sight until you have proof that there is. From what i have seen and heard, i do think that there was at least not enough time taken to asses what 'category' people fitted into. This could have been due to the orders of a poor superiour, or any number of other reasons. Again, i wasnt there, so i cant say for cerain exactly what did or did not happen, what the israeli troops orders really were, or were not. It is possible that there were individual troops out with a vendetta against the palestinians in general. It is possible the IDF had very strong orders. I just cant say what did or did not happen. It might very well have been a large number of accidents, we cant say for certain one way or the other for the moment.

I'm not accusing the IDF of killing palestinians on sight for the sake of killing, but rather that either their attitude is chillingly racist, ie. "all of this ethnic group are terrorists, etc, so who gives a f*ck?! type thing, OR there's some sort of variant on what the British had during the troubles. The infamous, and oft-denied "Shoot to Kill" policy - shoot first, ask questions later.

Granted, the Palestinians aren't much better, but this coming from what is supposed to be a democratic nation, and what is supposed to be a western nuclear power, I find a little un-nerving. They are supposed to be responsible, yet they behave in the same petty manner. It's school-yard politics only with guns, explosives and heavy artillery.

True, but they feel they have the right to be there, weather its right or wrong. Thats all i was trying to get across, i wasnt necessarly saying they are right to be there.

Fair enough. I'll just say that I'm sure that the germans felt they had a right to be in France, Poland, etc, etc during the Nazi era too. Or that the British felt they had a right to be in Delhi, Cork and Dubl'in all those years too. But I'll leave it at that and say no more.

Either way, once the IDF are there, the same thing stands. At the risk of repeating myself.. 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.

So many nations (our own included) would possibly still be under foreign rule/occupation if this attitude were the accepted norm.

You're absolutely right about firing on someone as defining yourself as hostile though.

I think this reinforces my point. If the IDF really wanted to cover something up, they would not have let journalists or anyone else get within miles of the camps. They have more than enough force to have an exclusion line 10-15 miles out incircling the camp.

Well .. not really. According to said mentioned-reporter the Israelis had obstructed themselves, the red-cross, and the red-crescent from getting inside the camp for several hours, but that they couldn't hide the damage from them once inside the camp since it was so wide-spread. My apologies, I should have made that clearer.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
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.

You could, except that we have no-ones word except the Israeli's that it was indeed for a military purpose.

CNN interviewed a 50-something year old Palestinian woman shortly before this path-clearance happened. Whilst the responsible Israeli soldiers were conducting their civil door-to-door search, her windows had somehow been smashed, as had her TV, half her furniture, and the place generally looked ransacked.

The same piece also included showing tanks rolling down straight, reasonably wide streets, and unfortunately being unable to avoid the occasional car - despite there being room to pass, and despite the cars being on opposite sides of the road.

So - before the full-on battle, the Israeli's "military" action included the pretty-much wanton destruction of private property in a town they were invading and subjugating.

Once the "real" military action started...only then were all the streets suddenly booby-trapped, requiring that the door-to-door searches be abandoned in favour of putting a bulldozer through the wall. What an unfortunate co-incidence that this also happened just after all the external eye-witnesses with cameras were also removed.

Said bulldozer was sent in regardless of who may or may not have been in the house. After all - the inhabitants were given a ten-minute warning. Thats all you need to do, apparently, to not be guilty of an atrocity - give a warning. I mean - IRA warnings for their bombings made the bombings alright, didnt they. Oh - no - wait - they didnt.

But were operating under different understandings of the term terrorism so I dont imagine youd agree

Yeah - last time you clarified it, you mentioned that it had to be in pursuit of a military target. There hasnt been a shred of proof that there was a valid military target for the Israelis in their recent operations barring their own claims. There were gunmen, but as I pointed out....you send a similar foreign force into an American town taking similar actions, and see how many locals suddenly become "terrorists" because they pick up their guns to fight the insurgents.

How people were killed does matter imo- theres a difference between someone being hit by a driver accidentally and the driver running them down

Yes - and the bulldozer deaths were accidental because the Israelis shouted "get out of the way" and the stupid people didnt, so its their fault.

My strongest opinion on the matter is that terrorism of the civillians should cease

No - your strongest opinion seems to be that the terrorism of Israeli citizens should cease, because you continue to insist that there have been no acts of terrorism against the Palestinian people.

Sure - its down to semantics, but I'm not sure what else to call the wanton destruction of property and innocent lives, covered by the thinnest of excuses by relating it to a military exercise.

As I said before, Palestinians can claim that any bomb targets people who were, are, or will be in the military, and such is a legitimate target. You yourself took major objection to such a farcical excuse.

Personally, I think the military explanation of the Israeli actions which killed hundred of civilians, as well as destroying vast amounts of personal property is just about as farcical.

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.

As I described in this post already, the actions of the Israeli military would appear to be far beyond indifference, and heading into "anti-Palestinian". If this is the case, then you have military-backed oppression of a people through subjugation, destruction of property, and wanton loss of innocent life. Sounds suspiciously close to terrorism to me, but hey - if you want a different term, then fine....simply include that term alongside terrorism when you say you want something to stop and we'll all be happy.

This is where I think the problem arises from. You keep calling for the terrorism to stop, and say that the Israelis arent engaged in acts of terrorism. Fine, but the Israelis are engaged in acts of something which you sometimes agree are not acceptable.

So - why not call for both sides to stop their respective atrocities, rather than just one of them?

As such the Uk govt could find the terrorists with a few police raids. [

Thats why they had such ease in eradicating them then? Funny - I can remember it being slightly different.

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.

Actually, no. In Israels case, its more like the British Army invading Dundalk to root out the terrorists who live there, because the Irish army, government and police were clearly not doing enough to stop them.

Oh - and lets not forget, that should any Irish person try and oppose this incursion, they too are terrorists who's deaths shouldnt be of concern to us. And should the Brits have decided to bulldoze their way through housing estates to get at their objective, well that would be fine too, as would any resulting loss of life, as long as some warning was given.

As a matter of interest - what has Israel offered to pay for the destruction of personal property?

jc

Von

Originally posted by bonkey
The same piece also included showing tanks rolling down straight, reasonably wide streets, and unfortunately being unable to avoid the occasional car - despite there being room to pass, and despite the cars being on opposite sides of the road.

The IDF is made up of conscripts (who are learning on the job) and reservists (whose tank driving skills might be a bit rusty) so we can forgive them for being occasionally accidently reckless. Same goes for that bulldozer guy filmed banging repeatedly into a building. Probably having trouble changing gear or something. A bulldozer ain't exactly a moped.

Originally posted by Moriarty
I disagree. It demonstates who is more skilled at the art of war.

Ah yes...the art of war and the sheer poetry of sniping...

At midday there was a single shot at the back of the house. To the side of the balcony we saw about five Israeli Defence Force members with guns seemingly aimed directly at us.

People started screaming - it went on for ever and ever. We later learned that an ambulance took out a dead woman, shot while hanging out the washing in the garden. There was only one shot fired. Clearly no Palestinian sniper.

In the evening a neighbour says the woman was shot having breakfast on her front terrace. Whichever, she was within her own property and not violating the curfew.

From a palestinian terrorist helping Brit's BBC diary.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
The same piece also included showing tanks rolling down straight, reasonably wide streets, and unfortunately being unable to avoid the occasional car - despite there being room to pass, and despite the cars being on opposite sides of the road.

This was allegedly to counter car bombs. However, this would appear to be a fallacy as the weakest points on a tank are the undersides and the tracks. As has been shown, even a Merkava isn't impervious to 100kg of explosives (easily concealed in a car).

Moriarty

Originally posted by Von
Ah yes...the art of war and the sheer poetry of sniping...

You misunderstand. The term 'art of war' refers to the skill of unleashing military action in a way exactly as desired, with great effect. It has nothing to do with glamerising war. In this context, the art of war refers to the IDF's knowledge of war in general, useful tactics that are employed correctly to complete their objectives, the good use of its available equipment, its well trained forces etc etc etc.. The IDF are much better at all of the above than the palestinian gunmen are. This leads to the IDF being far more 'efficent' with their kill:death ratio than the palestinians.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Felix Randel


So at the height of the troubles, when the irish goveremnt openly supported the IRA

Forgive me... but when exactly was this? 1916?

Hobbes

Originally posted by bonkey

CNN interviewed a 50-something year old Palestinian woman shortly before this path-clearance happened. Whilst the responsible Israeli soldiers were conducting their civil door-to-door search, her windows had somehow been smashed, as had her TV, half her furniture, and the place generally looked ransacked.

Hey she's from Palistine, she obviously smashed the TV and windows herself and blamed it on Israel! So that the UN would buy her double glazing and a brand new 27" TV. (Note for the stupid... that is sarcasm).

Sand

No, in all but the most abusive way, it is too many Israelis. My point is it demonstrates who is more violent and the point that Israelis seem to persist in having such 'scorekeeping'. Their violence, response or not, is invariably disproportionate.

As mentioned already it has more to do with the Israelis being better trained and equipped than your average Palestinian gunman.

You are sick c*** for thinking that. I know the lads don't like abuse here, but I have to call a spade a spade.

Dont worry about that Victor, Its okay to call me what you like.

(Oh yeah Felix you can take this as a reply to your post also.)

As for your point you seem to have a problem with the word unlucky in that quote- you highlighted it with italics? So I assume you believe this would be more accurate....

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

By exstension you must believe that when the Palestinians hear that civillians died in their bombing of children party they say...

---->"What, we killed children bombing a childrens party? **** - Well I guess you get unlucky once in a while - Hold me Mo whilst I cry"

I.E you think the Palestinians are looking for milatary targets when they suicide bomb (surely the "smartest" smart bomb around) shops and resteraunts? If they wanted to do that why travel all the way to Israel when the IDF is in the West Bank massacaring their families, raping their women and torturing their kids? Give me a break.

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.

Since im not sure who or what an "invadtion" is or where or who "bublin" is Im not sure I could even if I wanted to.

You still havent answered my question btw.

I wont either till you answer the questions Ive put to you.

As for the Arabs politicians in Israel do your own research. There are some though. Now heres something for you to think on, France, with a 10% Arab population (5 million) and a strident critic of Israels treatment of the Palestinians, home of the European human rights PC crowd, has how many Arab politicians? Hint- Its less than Israel.

You could, except that we have no-ones word except the Israeli's that it was indeed for a military purpose.

Once the "real" military action started...only then were all the streets suddenly booby-trapped, requiring that the door-to-door searches be abandoned in favour of putting a bulldozer through the wall. What an unfortunate co-incidence that this also happened just after all the external eye-witnesses with cameras were also removed.

Arab papers have carried stories where Palestinians talk about the streets being booby trapped. If the Arab press admits it then there has to be a certain amount of truth to the claims that the streets were booby trapped, that the Israelis found it safer to clear paths rather than get ambushed in the streets attempting to clear them?

There hasnt been a shred of proof that there was a valid military target for the Israelis in their recent operations barring their own claims. There were gunmen, but as I pointed out....you send a similar foreign force into an American town taking similar actions, and see how many locals suddenly become "terrorists" because they pick up their guns to fight the insurgents.

Youre dealing in the branding of terrorists. The Americans youre referring to would be militia, paramilitaries and so on - they dont commit terrorism and theyre not terrorists- Calling someone names doesnt make it true. As for the Israeli claims there has been proof - they seized wepons, exsplosives, attacked and fought gunmen (Ill refer to them as gunmen - some were terrorists, some were merely taking potshots at the IDF), and captured many prisoners including those wanted by Israel for involvement in terrorism - the people they came into the camp to get. So there is some evidence...if you choose to look.

No - your strongest opinion seems to be that the terrorism of Israeli citizens should cease, because you continue to insist that there have been no acts of terrorism against the Palestinian people.

Yeah, Ive yet to notice the Israelis suicide bombing childrens parties.

Personally, I think the military explanation of the Israeli actions which killed hundred of civilians, as well as destroying vast amounts of personal property is just about as farcical.

Its a ground war Bonkey - I know you argued that the Americans should have sent in ground troops to Afghanistan to reduce civillian casualties but ground wars are just as bloody if not more so. Every village can contain 100 civillians and 10 gunmen - Soldiers on the ground cant fly away and if theyre pinned down by an enemy in buildings they call in air support, artillery, mortars, and kitchen sinks if theyre in a particularly bad way. Plenty of civillians *will* die in ground wars, as the fighting in the West Bank shows. Its actually even harder for a soldier on the ground to distinguish friend from foe sometimes- example of the same Palestinian interviewed by the Arab papers saying that they used Palestinian women to trick the Israeli troops into thinking they were safe and leading them into the ambush where 13 of them were killed. He also said they apparently told the Israelis theyd let them recover their dead, then when they went into get the bodies shot them up again.

So - why not call for both sides to stop their respective atrocities, rather than just one of them?

I believe that was covered under saying the Israelis should withdraw from the Palestinian areas and concentrate on defending Israeli areas?

Thats why they had such ease in eradicating them then? Funny - I can remember it being slightly different.

Yep they identified the terrorists, where they were hiding and arrested them. The ID part was the hardest- hence the building up of a network of informers. Thing is for Israel, once theyve got the ID done theyve then got to arrest them- a tad bit harder in the West Bank.

As a matter of interest - what has Israel offered to pay for the destruction of personal property?

Probably something the lines of what the Palestinians are paying to the families of victims of suicide bombers.

Moriarty btw, Felix telling you that you shouldnt comment without having the proper information is hilariously ironic as Felix assumed Barak was murdered by his own population - As opposed to Rabin in 1995.

Barak was the coward, he offered to little to late. How was arafat an idiot, which one of the two men is still alive today, if he had signed the agreement it would have been his people murdering him instead of the israelis murdering barak.

Felix Randel

Originally posted by Hobbes


Forgive me... but when exactly was this? 1916?

in the 1970's Ira men, wanted by the brits, walked freely on the streets of dublin,

Victor

Originally posted by Felix Randel
in the 1970's Ira men, wanted by the brits, walked freely on the streets of dublin,

this does not constitute "openly supported". There is also the matter of separation of powers (the government doesn't prosecute cases).

Felix Randel

This thread isnt about the IRA, but i doubt that A) the goverment didnt know about it, and pre the bombing didnt support it.

swiss

Originally posted by Von:

Ah yes...the art of war and the sheer poetry of sniping...

While I realise you are being sarcastic here in relation to a point made by Moriarty, I would like to point out that anyone who has researched the art of war will realise that the Israeli forces are conducting an inefficient and ultimately ineffectual method of warfare against the Palestines.

This entire thread is ultimately about semantic issues. How does one define a terrorist, based on their actions? Does their allegiance to an armed organisation (legal or not) have an impact on how they can be classed a terrorist?

We've had definition after definition of what defines a terrorist. I like these ones.
From www.dictionary.com

terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon

terrorism

n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments


If Israeli troops fires indiscriminately into a crowd of peaceful protesters, if they undertake courses of actions which they know will result in a greater civillian casualty rate than that which can result if another military means were employed to achieve the same objective, then this, to me, is as much 'terrorist' as strapping explosive to yourself and walking into a crowded restaurant.

There are some pretty strong opinions here, and some namecalling. I don't have the time or energy right now to carry on for another six pages argueing my point (soz guys ). However, as much as I like to think that I am open minded about other peoples point of views, I'm committed to believing that a military mandate does not always excuse the actions of a military, and although one may not call it terrorism, the end result is the same. Does the end justify the means, or in this case, does the means justify the end?

Von

Originally posted by Hobbes
Hey she's from Palistine, she obviously smashed the TV and windows herself and blamed it on Israel! So that the UN would buy her double glazing and a brand new 27" TV. (Note for the stupid... that is sarcasm).

My favourite black and tans atrocity was the one where they burned down Balbriggan then said the locals did it themselves. Them boys rocked.