View Full Version : Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict,
I find the analysis of the deaths of children about 3/4's of the way down, interesting, as well as tragic.
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439
More on the deaths of children
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=16&x_article=346
It would have been better if CAMERA wasn't such a pro-Israel site...
schwarzchildradius
May4-03, 06:12 AM
Oh I'm sure that Israel is very surgical when it comes to killing palestinians. The issue has more to do with geopolitical trade alliances than casualty statistics skewed for shock value however. The grossly uncivilized trade policies formulated by israel and america have caused far far more casualties worldwide than any number if suicide bombers. That's why we rule the world.
Anyways, this is apples and oranges. This is like comparing drug dealer shooting cops and innocents, to police gunning down civilians while chacing drug dealers. When looked at that way, NO statistical analysis is going to cover Israels crime against humanity.
Originally posted by Zero
It would have been better if CAMERA wasn't such a pro-Israel site...
All sites and reporters have their own brand of bias, zero. If there's something erroneous about the facts presented, please feel free to offer corrections.
You continuously insinuate that israeli's purposely and unscrupulously target and gun down children on a weekly basis, I thought you might be interested in looking at the some of the various issues involved, factually based.
Originally posted by kat
All sites and reporters have their own brand of bias, zero. If there's something erroneous about the facts presented, please feel free to offer corrections.
You continuously insinuate that israeli's purposely and unscrupulously target and gun down children on a weekly basis, I thought you might be interested in looking at the some of the various issues involved, factually based.
For you, 'factually based' means 'pro-Israel, all the time', at least based on that CAMERA website.
Israelis gun down civilians indiscriminantly...the difference between them and Palestinian terrorists is that 1) they are better at killing Palestinians, 2) any time a Palestinian picks up a gun to defend himself he becomes a combatant, 3) the Israeli troops act in an official manner, supported by US tax dollars, so we have a right to look at it more closely.
Why are the vast makority of israli combatants killed 20 - 24?
Is this to do with conscription?
The majority of combatants anywhere would be in that age group I'd guess.... but yeah, Israel does have mandatory military service, unless you're ultra-Orthodox. [:(]
Originally posted by Zero
For you, 'factually based' means 'pro-Israel, all the time', at least based on that CAMERA website.
Israelis gun down civilians indiscriminantly...the difference between them and Palestinian terrorists is that 1) they are better at killing Palestinians, 2) any time a Palestinian picks up a gun to defend himself he becomes a combatant, 3) the Israeli troops act in an official manner, supported by US tax dollars, so we have a right to look at it more closely.
Well, again your response has fallen to insult and rhetoric, I specificly asked you to provide corrections to anything you disagreed with. Instead it appears that all your capable of is spewing forth hateful anti-israeli rhetoric without any factual or statistical support, apparently I should just shut up, stop posting my israeli loving rhetoric and take your word for it.
Maybe you should stop spewing hatred and support your position with facts and statistics.
Originally posted by plus
Why are the vast makority of israli combatants killed 20 - 24?
Is this to do with conscription?
Conscription starts at 18, according to this article in the 15-19 year old range only 19 year old combatants have been killed, no 18 year old combatants have been killed. That would explain the higher concentration of 20-24 year olds.
Kat:
Leftists can rarely support positions with facts. Demagoguery is their only weapon. Show some pity, please.
Regards
Kat,
One person's facts are another person's opinions. What are facts and statistics without an ideological framework with which to make sense of them?
Hmmmm...if I don't bow down to pro-Israel interpretations of the facts, I am showing hate? If I don't bend over backwards to fit the statistics to put Israel in a positive light, I must be lying, huh?
And, of course, instead f thinking, you just say 'leftist', instead of using your brain.
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...if I don't bow down to pro-Israel interpretations of the facts, I am showing hate? If I don't bend over backwards to fit the statistics to put Israel in a positive light, I must be lying, huh?
And, of course, instead f thinking, you just say 'leftist', instead of using your brain.
Another post devoid of any facts or references (the term red herring comes to mind).
again, where are the facts and references to support your opinion?
Very simply, if you can offer no facts or reference your argument is unsupported opinion. please toss the rhetoric and support your statements, whether pro- or anti-, with facts and references.
Originally posted by kat
Another post devoid of any facts or references (the term red herring comes to mind).
again, where are the facts and references to support your opinion?
Very simply, if you can offer no facts or reference your argument is unsupported opinion. please toss the rhetoric and support your statements, whether pro- or anti-, with facts and references.
I was using your facts and evidence against you...read it again. I simply said that comparing Suicide bombers to troops is like comparing apples and oranges, and stated several reasons why. If you don't like my reasons, argue against them, not at my 'hate'.
Originally posted by Zero
I was using your facts and evidence against you...read it again. I simply said that comparing Suicide bombers to troops is like comparing apples and oranges, and stated several reasons why. If you don't like my reasons, argue against them, not at my 'hate'.
I'm not sure how you can use "my" facts and evidence against me, as I am not making an argument, only opening it up for discussion. I used the ICT statistics because it is the only one to date that I have found that identifies palestinians as combatants and non-combatants, and identifies deaths caused by palestinian against palestinian as seperate. It's also the only one I see that really addresses the issues facing children on both sides. Including the tragedy of palestinian children, particularly young boys from not only israeli soldiers but the encouragement and recruiting of hezbollah, fatah and government propaganda. If you can find a comparable site for comparision I have no problem at all looking at it.
Also,I'm sorry, I don't quite see how drug dealers and cops are valid comparisions?
Take what you call bare facts, nothing but lists of numbers, now interpret them, but hang on, don't give that job to a Palestinian or an Israeli, give it to an American and not just any American but one without a dog in the fight. Give the job of interpreting data to someone who knows nothing of the conflict, its history, the reasons why 'a' hates 'b' and vice versa.
What happens next? People with a dog in the fight say that their special situation has not been taken into account, that the interpretation has to be weighted to take into account the holocaust or the murder of Palestinian refugees, etc, etc. In other words, there is no such thing as a completely dispassionate interpretation of facts. Your values, your background, your agenda, they all all play in.
Kat isn't offering her own interpretation of facts, nor is she asking an independant to analyze them.
She's asking for you (that's a plural you) to provide facts and analysis.
But I'm too busy complaining to get my hands dirty with facts and analysis.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Kat isn't offering her own interpretation of facts, nor is she asking an independant to analyze them.
She's asking for you (that's a plural you) to provide facts and analysis.
I DID provide analysis...but since it doesn't agree with thegeneral cheerleading for Israel, it is somehow invalid.
My point was, no matter how bad criminals are, the cops aren't allowed to kill children to getthem. In teh same way, I don't care if every single Israeli is killed by a terrorist, the soldiers are NOT ALLOWED TO INDISCRIMINANTLY KILL CIVILIANS.
That is such a hard concept for so many people to understand...but, Israel is 'special', so the rules don't apply to them.
I DID provide analysis
Where is it? You've not provided one shred of evidence that soldiers are indiscriminately killing civilians, and it's fairly daft to make such an unsubstantiated claim given the pretty strong evidence at the ICT site that such a claim is false.
Since both sites are rabidly pro-Israel, their data is assumed to be skewed. Neither site, in all the pages I looked at, ever ONCE showed a single thing that Israel has done wrong....which means that both sites are intentionally incomplete(lying may be too strong of a word)
First off, I have been discussing interpretation of facts...not the facts themselves. The Israelis killed three times as many Palestinians as they lost.
Secondly, who decides who is a non-combatant? Israel, of course...and as pointed out earlier, a Palestinian man who hears shooting and picks up a gun to defend his home could be mistaken for a combatant. If someone comes onto my property, in my land, they are an invader. Israelis in teh occupied territories are easily seen to be invaders.
And again, my point...soldiers are not allowed to kill civilians, especially children. Not a single one. Any other attitude stikes me as being in support of genocide.
Or, let's look at another number provided...617 noncombatants killed by Israel. That is out of 1596 total Palestinian fatalities. That means that 40% of the people that Israeli soldiers killed were noncombatants. That may as well be a dictionary definition of indiscriminant.
*gasp* so you can perform analysis. Since you're capable of such a thing, it makes one wonder what your motivation for waiting this long to do it, and pretending that you were doing an analysis up until this point.
Now that we're actually discussing the facts this may get interesting. Ignoring the "who's worse than who" topic (for now anyways), the thing that struck me most was the statistical distribution of fatalities.
Graphs 1.5, 1.6, 2.16, and 2.18 were particularly interesting, indicating that there have been extremely few Palestinian female fatalities.
The age distribution of Palestinian fatalities listed in graphs 2.21 and 2.22 shows a strong pattern as well.
These 4 graphs strongly indicate that there is a strong pattern in who the Israeli kill.
As for the percentage you state, 40% noncombatant fatality rate, I unfortunately do not know of a baseline against which I can compare (other than the Israeli fatality rate which I said I wouldn't use).
I've gone through the ICT page again, and I don't see the rabid bias of which you speak. The primary thesis, to me, seemed to be to characterize the past two and a half years of conflict into 4 distinct phases. The secondary point, to me, seemed to be to demonstrate the strong evidence that the Israeli are not out there randomly killing people. The article doesn't try to paint a rosy picture of Israeli actions, it mentions events like the "Israeli 'targetted' killing in Gaza", admits possible problems in Israeli field tactics, and explains some data via Israeli incursions into Palestinian Authority territory.
And even if the site is rabidly pro-Israel, numbers don't lie. If the presentations are wrong, then you can reinterpret the numbers to show that. Simply dismissing the entire article as being biased isn't sufficient.
I'm not an Israel fanboy; it just happens that on the one side I've seen in-depth throrough analysis that demonstrates that the Israeli's aren't so bad, and on the other hand the arguments I see on Israeli being "evil" are oversimplified appeal mostly to emotion and not reason. What I see is essentially (to greatly simplify things):
"Israel is bad: see fact A!"
"Israel isn't so bad, sure there's fact A, but fact B mitigates that."
"Israel is bad: see fact A!"
without a "fact C" supporting the "Israel is bad" camp, or at least a sound debunking of the fact B explanation, the only rational conclusion I can make is that the "Israel is bad" camp doesn't have a sound argument.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
As for the percentage you state, 40% noncombatant fatality rate, I unfortunately do not know of a baseline against which I can compare (other than the Israeli fatality rate which I said I wouldn't use).
You don't need a baseline. A professional military organization is killing almost as many noncombatants as combatants,. That is at LEAST severe incompetence.
russ_watters
May4-03, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Zero
You don't need a baseline. A professional military organization is killing almost as many noncombatants as combatants,. That is at LEAST severe incompetence. Not incompetence, terrorism - by the Arabs. The Arabs use human shields to MAXIMIZE their own civilian casualties just like Saddam did. Thats a war crime under the Geneva Convention.
Also, incompetece is one thing, but it can't be argued that the Arabs even TRY to target combatants. They specifically target civilians.
Zero, just to clarify, do you believe the numbers or not? And if not how far off do you think they are? And do you have any source for better numbers?
I frankly didn't read much of that site, but I just looked at the graphs. Unless the numbers are fabrications, graphs cannot be biased.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Not incompetence, terrorism - by the Arabs. The Arabs use human shields to MAXIMIZE their own civilian casualties just like Saddam did. Thats a war crime under the Geneva Convention.
Also, incompetece is one thing, but it can't be argued that the Arabs even TRY to target combatants. They specifically target civilians.
Zero, just to clarify, do you believe the numbers or not? And if not how far off do you think they are? And do you have any source for better numbers?
I frankly didn't read much of that site, but I just looked at the graphs. Unless the numbers are fabrications, graphs cannot be biased.
That human shield thing...show me numbers, does that explain away a large percentage of the INNOCENTS GUNNED DOWN?(I have to use caps, no one here listens...)
And what about reports of Israeli soldiers shooting from behind Palestinian prosoners, using them as human shields?
What if your baseline, albeit an extreme one, is that Israel shouldn't be killing any Palestinians? It should be withdrawing from occupied areas and negotiating to set up a Palestinian state.
russ_watters
May5-03, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Zero
That human shield thing...show me numbers, does that explain away a large percentage of the INNOCENTS GUNNED DOWN?(I have to use caps, no one here listens...) Another interesting point: innocents. Its tough to distinguish the combatants from the non-combatants in this fight (on one side, anyway). So if anything the numbers we get show HIGHER than actual non-combatant casualties. They don't for example, take into account that a willing human shield is a combatant or that a 12 year old with an AK-47 is a combatant. After the dust settles all you see is a dead woman and child - so they are counted as civilian casualties since its tough to prove they are not.
And what about reports of Israeli soldiers shooting from behind Palestinian prosoners, using them as human shields? I can't comment on reports I haven't seen.
In any case, I'm hearing the same thing as always from you, Zero - murder is justified (oxymoron) if its Israelis that are killed and facts that don't show the Israelis as the bad guys must be biased (or lies). What if your baseline, albeit an extreme one, is that Israel shouldn't be killing any Palestinians? It should be withdrawing from occupied areas and negotiating to set up a Palestinian state. I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly most people believe those are things the Israelis should be doing.
I had another thought last night (thats two this month already!!). The peace proposals are generally termed "land for peace" deals. Ie, Israel gives up land and in return the Arabs stop being terrorists. Doesn't that imply that the Arabs are the agressors? Wouldn't signing such an agreement be tantamount to an admission by the Arabs that they are the agressors? They like to say they are "retaliating" though. Hmm....
Originally posted by russ_watters
In any case, I'm hearing the same thing as always from you, Zero - murder is justified (oxymoron) if its Israelis that are killed and facts that don't show the Israelis as the bad guys must be biased (or lies).
In any case, you show your inability to read what I actually post, Russ...do you need me to call you and read my posts to you slowly? Would it help if I dressed like Barney the Purple %@$#& Dinosaur? I've never said that Israeli losses are good...NEVER. Your subconscious fills that in so you can dismiss facts that conflict with your worldview, apparently. What I have said, repeatedly, is that the standards are different, because soldiers are professional, and terrorists are criminals. We don't let cops act like crooks, do we? Unless they are Israeli, I guess?
I used the stats Kat provided to prove my point that Israeli troops indiscriminantly kill noncombatants. Her stats came from a pro-Israel website...what more do you want?
Another interesting point: innocents. Its tough to distinguish the combatants from the non-combatants in this fight (on one side, anyway). So if anything the numbers we get show HIGHER than actual non-combatant casualties. They don't for example, take into account that a willing human shield is a combatant or that a 12 year old with an AK-47 is a combatant. After the dust settles all you see is a dead woman and child - so they are counted as civilian casualties since its tough to prove they are not.
Simple test. How many guns have they recovered? How many grenades/suicide bomb belts. Compare that to the number of people killed, both combatant and non-combatant. Of course, some guns may be shared, but when you have 10 dead bodies to 1 AK47, that says something, doesn't it? In general, bodies are counted with bias towards them being combatants. Because if you don't, you can end up with a court martial.
And now apparently the Israelis are expelling members of peace activist and human rights groups, after an activist got shot with some palestinian kids.
Repeat after me:
We cannot justify the killing of civilians. But we must strive to understand them. Understand does not equal Justify.
Sigh, Zero, I notice that you are continuing to assert that Israelis are indiscriminately killing noncombatants without addressing evidence to the contrary. Broken records don't convince anyone of anything.
You don't need a baseline. A professional military organization is killing almost as many noncombatants as combatants,. That is at LEAST severe incompetence.
I do if I want to form my opinions based on fact. I would certainly agree that 40% sounds high, but I'm not deluded enough to think that I have enough knowledge of military conflict for that to be an informed thought. I'm not gonna fall for your sensationalist junk.
What if your baseline, albeit an extreme one, is that Israel shouldn't be killing any Palestinians? It should be withdrawing from occupied areas and negotiating to set up a Palestinian state.
If that's your baseline, then that is what you should be arguing.
*sigh*
Thise stats were good enough for you when they supported Israel. When something in them doesn't support Israel, there must be more to it? When are you going to admit that Israel is guilty of ANY wrongdoing in this situation?
Something sort of peripheral...
This is what happens when soldiers are doing what is basically police work. The strategies of a military action do not function well in a peacekeeping situation. A similar situation is occuring in America, where police who are adopting military tactics against drug dealers are causing civilian casualties. Therefore, this is more a tactics issue than it is a specific condenmation of teh existance of Israel, or anything like that.
Thise stats were good enough for you when they supported Israel.
Correct, but merely corrolative.
The stats were good enough for me because I know do enough about population demographics to be reasonably confident that more than 5% of the Palestinian people are female and that the age distribution is nowhere near a "textbook" skewed bell curve.
I don't know enough about military conflict to have anything to which I can compare a 40% noncombatant fatality rate.
When are you going to admit that Israel is guilty of ANY wrongdoing in this situation?
I'm sure Israel is guilty of some wrongdoing. I've never suggested otherwise.
However, I see no evidence they're guilty of the particular wrongdoing of which you accuse them, and plenty of evidence they are not guilty of that wrongdoing, thus I believe that they are not guilty of indiscriminately killing Palestinians.
The problem, of course, is that this isn't a military situation, simply because the Palestinians have no army. It is a police action, and there is no way to justify a %40 civilian fatality in a police action.
Or, put another way...would you put trust in a doctor who killed 40% of his patients? Would you buy a car which had a brake faliure rate of 40%?
Or, put another way...would you put trust in a doctor who killed 40% of his patients?
If the doctor was a specialist in treating a condition with a 60% fatality rate, then most definitely. [:D]
Originally posted by Hurkyl
If the doctor was a specialist in treating a condition with a 60% fatality rate, then most definitely. [:D]
Nice rationalization, great way to dodge the question. Would you think it is reasonable for police to shoot down 2 bystanders for every 3 criminals, no matter how dangerous those criminals are?
I'd like to point out you still haven't addressed the evidence that opposes your assertions that the Israeli are indiscriminately killing Palestinians. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is your main point, isn't it? Maybe you should spend some effort defending it.
Nice rationalization, great way to dodge the question.
Dodging the question[?] I don't think I could have asked for a better set-up line to demonstrate the fallacy one makes when one makes conclusions from figures without the necessary context to lend validity to those conclusions. Face it, you tried defending poor logic and you got burned.
The reason I don't wholeheartedly accept your assertion that 40% noncombatant killing is unreasonably high, as I mentioned in previous posts, is because I don't have anything to which I can compare it.
All other things being typical, I would refuse to go to a doctor who killed 40% of his patients because I know that doctors kill a very small percentage of their patients in virtually every circumstance.
I would refuse to buy a car that had a brake failure rate of 40% because I know that cars in general have brake failure rates much lower than 40%, and beyond that I know how often I use my brakes and how bad of a problem that would be.
However, I don't know that 40% noncombatant fatalities is an unreasonable rate for military occupation of a state with a large, actively resisting terrorist organization.
Would you think it is reasonable for police to shoot down 2 bystanders for every 3 criminals, no matter how dangerous those criminals are?
Again, it's all about the context. For an extremely obvious counterexample, suppose 3 criminals are standing in the middle of a large dense crowd and start randomly firing AK-47s. Can you argue that the accidental killing of 2 bystanders in a hasty effort to eliminate the criminals, thus minimizing casualties, would be unreasonable?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
However, I don't know that 40% noncombatant fatalities is an unreasonable rate for military occupation of a state with a large, actively resisting terrorist organization.
Again, it's all about the context. For an extremely obvious counterexample, suppose 3 criminals are standing in the middle of a large dense crowd and start randomly firing AK-47s. Can you argue that the accidental killing of 2 bystanders in a hasty effort to eliminate the criminals, thus minimizing casualties, would be unreasonable?
Well, to me it means that they need to change tactics...and as far as aiming into a crowd, they should be willing to DIE before gunning down children and other innocents. Wouldn't you rather run and maybe shot, rather than empty an assault rifle into a group of people? My personal military training suggested that you don't even put your finger on the trigger unless you are sure of your target. A moving target amongst moving civilians is not a sure target.
At the very least, it should make you question their presence and tactics. If this happened in America, there would be outrage, not all these attempts to justify Israelis shooting chldren.
Let me make sure my example was clear; the criminals are killing the civilians in the crowd. Every second the military waits while waiting for that perfect shot is another few civilians who get killed. Okay to take the fast shot and kill 2 civilians in the process, or should you wait until you have a clean shot (and the criminals have killed 6 or 8 more civilians)
At the very least, it should make you question their presence and tactics. If this happened in America, there would be outrage, not all these attempts to justify Israelis shooting chldren.
I presume their tactics are neither good nor bad; I don't have sufficient information to make such a decision. If it happened in America, there probably would be outrage, but I would still refrain from forming an opinion until I thought I had enough information to do so.
russ_watters
May5-03, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Would it help if I dressed like Barney the Purple %@$#& Dinosaur? Yes. That would explain a LOT. [:D]
Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes. That would explain a LOT. [:D]
Well, it would explain why your political opinions are on such a low level....but being a Repubilcan explains it too!!
(OK< you get one more dig at me, and we're even, ok?)
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Let me make sure my example was clear; the criminals are killing the civilians in the crowd. Every second the military waits while waiting for that perfect shot is another few civilians who get killed. Okay to take the fast shot and kill 2 civilians in the process, or should you wait until you have a clean shot (and the criminals have killed 6 or 8 more civilians)
I presume their tactics are neither good nor bad; I don't have sufficient information to make such a decision. If it happened in America, there probably would be outrage, but I would still refrain from forming an opinion until I thought I had enough information to do so.
Your example is so wrong as to be laughable. The Palestinian bombers are dead...so who are the Israeli troops after? And, the Palestinians are firing on invaders into their land...if the Israeli troops weren't in Palestinian land, they wouldn't be fired on. And, since the crowds are in danger ONLY from Israeli fire, what would be wrong with simply withdrawing?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I presume their tactics are neither good nor bad; I don't have sufficient information to make such a decision. If it happened in America, there probably would be outrage, but I would still refrain from forming an opinion until I thought I had enough information to do so.
This has bothered me all night, and I just figured out why...
You have 'sufficient information', based on the graphs, to support Israel...and yet my very simple '40%' stumps you, coincidentally something that paints Israel in a bad light. Well, I am supposed to believe it is coincidence, right?
Greetings !
Since making direct attacks at members is
prohibited I'd just like to advise the
following: If you see a member who posts
racist and hatefull messages all the time
full of many lies and ussualy also empty
of any real information except provocative
statements confirming the above extreme views,
why even read or answer this pathetic BS ?
It's a free forum - let that person throw
out the grabage until even he becomes sick
of himself and in the meantime discuss
the subject in a civilized manner with
people who are willing to do just that.
Just a suggestion... [;)]
Live long and prosper.
Shall I assume by your repeated neglect of the evidence against it that your main point is not that Israel is indiscriminately killing Palestinians?
Your example is so wrong as to be laughable.
How can a hypothetical question be wrong[?] I'm beginning to think you don't want to discuss anything, you just want to be contrary.
The purpose of my example was to try to extract your meaning behind saying
Would you think it is reasonable for police to shoot down 2 bystanders for every 3 criminals, no matter how dangerous those criminals are?
Interpreting the phrasing pedantically, I would to answer no. Because it does indeed matter how dangerous the criminals are, it is literally not reasonable to shoot bystanders no matter how dangerous the criminals are.
If that's the answer for which you were fishing, then great; I'm fishing for that as well.
I presumed that was not the answer for which you were looking, because that type of construct is usually used to press for a different response. I choose an extreme hypothetical example to ascertain if criminals could possibly be dangerous enough for you to agree it is reasonable for the police to accidentally kill innocent bystanders while trying to get the bad guys.
You have 'sufficient information', based on the graphs, to support Israel
I have sufficient information, based on the graphs and prior knowledge about population distributions, to support Israel against the allegation that they are indiscriminately killing Palestinians.
I have neither asserted nor denied any other statements regarding any other issues about Israeli actions, though I have refused to accept half of a comparison as a complete fact.
and yet my very simple '40%' stumps you, coincidentally something that paints Israel in a bad light. Well, I am supposed to believe it is coincidence, right?
No, you're supposed to believe it's because '40%' is half of a fact.
I've even been refraining from connecting the '40%' to another statistic which I do have to allow you greater freedom in making your case. I've even admitted 40% sounds bad, hoping you would follow up to give some real proof. However, I'm simply not gonna be convinced by your sensationalist junk.
(incidentally, the other statistic is the 80% Israeli noncombatant fatality rate)
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !
Since making direct attacks at members is
prohibited I'd just like to advise the
following: If you see a member who posts
racist and hatefull messages all the time
full of many lies and ussualy also empty
of any real information except provocative
statements confirming the above extreme views,
why even read or answer this pathetic BS ?
It's a free forum - let that person throw
out the grabage until even he becomes sick
of himself and in the meantime discuss
the subject in a civilized manner with
people who are willing to do just that.
Just a suggestion... [;)]
Live long and prosper.
Hmmm...pointing out that Israelis aren't showing proper restraint in the use of force is racism?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
(incidentally, the other statistic is the 80% Israeli noncombatant fatality rate)
Now I say 'apples and oranges' again, because you simply cannot compare terrorist actions to police actions...unless you are calling the Israeli troops terrorists as well? Wow, not even I was willingto go there!
You have a better figure to compare it to? [;)]
why even read or answer this pathetic BS ?
Whether or not I expect the other side to argue their point intelligently, I find this type of discussion helps me develop greater precision in my arguments and thought processes. While I don't expect to change the other person's mind, the practice is still useful for other domains, it helps me be honest with myself about how much I know and don't know, and allows me to better recognize more sophisticated propaganda.
Maybe we should take it on its own merits?
Let's just say that 100% of the Israeli fatalities are not justified, ok? Because it is a criminal act performed by criminals. You cannot compare it to trained, professional soldiers, who may or may not be acting legally. If they are only doing right 60% of the time, we need to examine them more closely. No one else, it seems, wants to examine, just rationalize.
I'm done here...
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !
Since making direct attacks at members is
prohibited I'd just like to advise the
following: If you see a member who posts
racist and hatefull messages all the time
full of many lies and ussualy also empty
of any real information except provocative
statements confirming the above extreme views,
why even read or answer this pathetic BS ?
It's a free forum - let that person throw
out the grabage until even he becomes sick
of himself and in the meantime discuss
the subject in a civilized manner with
people who are willing to do just that.
Just a suggestion...
Live long and prosper.
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...pointing out that Israelis aren't
showing proper restraint in the use of
force is racism?
It was a general statement as you can see,
so what made you think I was talking about you ? [;)]
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Whether or not I expect the other side to argue
their point intelligently, I find this type
of discussion helps me develop greater
precision in my arguments and thought
processes. While I don't expect to change the
other person's mind, the practice is still
useful for other domains, it helps me be honest
with myself about how much I know and don't
know, and allows me to better recognize more
sophisticated propaganda.
O.K. , if it's worth you time.
Live long and prosper.
If they are only doing right 60% of the time, we need to examine them more closely. No one else, it seems, wants to examine, just rationalize.
In order to rationalize, I'd have to argue that was acceptable. Have I done that?
schwarzchildradius
May7-03, 08:55 PM
If I may, what if the non-combatant fatality rate were zero on the Palestinian side, so that only terrorist groups and leaders were eliminated in any case. Would the Israeli 80% figure change? I dont believe that it would. The two governments have not had anything productive to say to each other for a long time. The terrorism will not end unless 1 of 2 things happen - 1 most Palestinian are killed, or 2 Israel grants them basic human rights. I think that the situation has gone far past the latter being realistic.
Greetings !
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
2 Israel grants them basic human rights.
Yeras ago Israel gave them all their rights,
it gave them money and arms, it supported its
government and offered them a country. But, the
ex-terrorists - the leaders with whom there
were negotiations decided they don't want that -
they want everything. If the palestinians were
to promise peace and it was known ahead that
they will really keep their word, not just for
a few hours after the promise, they'd have a
country in a couple of days with all the
general benefits and additions involved. They
just don't get it, never did so far.
Live long and prosper.
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !
Yeras ago Israel gave them all their rights,
it gave them money and arms, it supported its
government and offered them a country. But, the
ex-terrorists - the leaders with whom there
were negotiations decided they don't want that -
they want everything. If the palestinians were
to promise peace and it was known ahead that
they will really keep their word, not just for
a few hours after the promise, they'd have a
country in a couple of days with all the
general benefits and additions involved. They
just don't get it, never did so far.
Live long and prosper.
Something here...the idea that ALL Palestinians should pay for the actions of a small group of radical criminal killers...maybe that is the most unfair aspect of it all.
Greetings !
Originally posted by Zero
Something here...the idea that ALL
Palestinians should pay for the
actions of a small group of radical
criminal killers...maybe that is the
most unfair aspect of it all.
A small group ?
A couple of years ago two Israeli reservists
made a wrong turn and found themselves in
a palestinian city. (An Italian reporter
filmed the lynch and was then threatened
to destroy the film but it was too late
and they just didn't show it in Italy because
they feared for their lives, it was shown
on the major news channels.)
They were arrested and taken to a
police station by the palestinians which
was then stormed by phousands of people
and the two reservists were practicly
torn apart. Their agressive street demonstrations
ussualy include the majority of the population.
You simply don't get it, do you...
You just can't, because you weren't raized
to hate, you weren't told by your parents,
teachers and everybody else that to kill
is good, to kill and get killed and thus
become a shahid is the best fate possible
and you'll go to heaven. You haven't seen
the great happiness on the faces of mothers
when their children exploded killing innocent
civilians as those mothers shout that they
have many more sons to sacrifice.
Such things happened before many times
in history, but that was a long time ago -
not today, not in the modern age.
Live long and prosper.
russ_watters
May8-03, 06:37 PM
There are two facts here that I think most people agree with and to me show unequivocably why one side is morally above the other:
1. The Arabs target civilians as their primary mode of attack.
2. The Israelis do not target civilians.
Until the Arabs realize that this is the reason the world community doesn't have any sympathy for them, their problem will never be resolved.
Has anyone read "The Sum of All Fears"? Arabs begin practicing non-violent resistance which instantly changes world opinion and forces the Israelis to deal. They should try it.
drag, to me the number of terrorists is irrelevant. The terrorists are the problem and everyone else isn't doing anything to counter the terrorists. The "peaceful" arabs may as well not exist if they are going to remain silent while people murder in their name.
Russ:
I agree with that. I’m also sure that an individual Israeli soldier may seek his own vengeance, despite having orders to minimize civilian casualties. If the terrorist stopped using shields, there would be few civilian deaths other then the targeted Israeli youth.
Regards
schwarzchildradius
May9-03, 12:04 AM
Terrorism doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is a desparate response to the desparate situation of having no voice in one's scociety. Obviously this happens during an occupation by a more powerful government. It's a horrifying stalemate, when the more powerful government will not concede its occupying territory (and legitimize terrorism for the oppressed). Religious fundamentalism is like a force of nature - it exists and it can not be stopped.
Hmmmm...does declaring one side 'morally superior' make it perfect? Or can we safely deplore the actions of several different sides, for different reasons. The Pal;estinians live under military occupation, so have a legitimate beef against Israel. The current generation has grown up in horrible conditions not of their own making...seen friends and families, and sometimes their homes, destroyed by Israeli troops. Should they just accept their fate as the losers in some international struggle to fulfill Biblical prophesy? Let's not forget that, ok?
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...does declaring one side 'morally superior' make it perfect? I think the term "morally superior" is so fundamentally flawed in it's typical usage that it really can have no realistic place in the majority of debates of the palestine and Israel issue. Or can we safely deplore the actions of several different sides, for different reasons. We should be able to, however, even in such a multi-faceted issue there are certainly certain actions that can and should be deplored but who's responsibility must be sqaurely layed at the feet of those who have the capability of ending them. There are, of course, issues of this nature on all sides of the matter The Pal;estinians live under military occupation, so have a legitimate beef against Israel.This military occupation is the result of specific actions of people other then the IDF, Israeli's didn't just wake up one morning and say "oh, gee whiz, I think we should occupy the palestinian mandated land" Israeli's certainly have not eased the situation over time, but the security risk involved must also be considered, particularly when you consider the other very culpable party...those who's entire lifetime have been devoted to organized terrorism at the cost of the lives of those very people they proclaim to have an interest in benefitting. As long as the PLO, Hizbollah, Fatah and the other various groups who are not only answering to Arafat but in fact have positions within his government are active in palestine there will be no peace for the Palestinian people. Why you are so adamant in ignoring this issue, Zero, I do not understand. The current generation has grown up in horrible conditions not of their own makingNor is it of Israeli making, it is however very much a result of surrounding countries own particular interest, their willingness to sacrifice the palestinian people for those interests and it is also the making of the PLO and their own particular interest including Arafats big fat bank roll. Your blaming the other set of victims, when you should be blaming the instigators. ...seen friends and families, and sometimes their homes, destroyed by Israeli troops. You seem to forget the purposeful strategy of using civilians and their homes as military installations, placing armed men and weaponry, and firing from civilian homes, crowds of civilians as a strategy, is horrific. These factions, the palestinian "government" are very much responsible for the deaths and the destruction of the Palstinian people and their homes. Should they just accept their fate as the losers in some international struggle to fulfill Biblical prophesy? Biblical prophesy? I think a large part of the jewish Anti-Israel population are against the existance of Israel because it interferes with biblical prophesy. So maybe it also has to do with the HISTORIC past, you know history OUTSIDE of the bible? or maybe they should accept their fate as losers because a large portion of the Middle East has used them as political pawns for their own benefit? Let's not forget that, ok? mmm yeah ok.
russ_watters
May9-03, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...does declaring one side 'morally superior' make it perfect? Nope. Does it need to? Nope. It just means one side is BETTER than the other. And that's why one side gets our (the world community's) support and the other doesn't.
And until the Arabs deal with this simple reality, Zero, the rest of your post (which certainly does include legitimate concerns) is irrelevant.I agree with that. I’m also sure that an individual Israeli soldier may seek his own vengeance, despite having orders to minimize civilian casualties. Geniere, that is also part of the scenario in "The Sum of All Fears." It really is a great book.
Kat, you make good points, but is the pink really necessary? I almost didn't read your post because of it.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Kat, you make good points, but is the pink really necessary? I almost didn't read your post because of it. But...but...but...I Like PINK![*(] [o)] [s(] [b(] [o)] [*(]
Originally posted by russ_watters
Nope. Does it need to? Nope. It just means one side is BETTER than the other. And that's why one side gets our (the world community's) support and the other doesn't.
And until the Arabs deal with this simple reality, Zero, the rest of your post (which certainly does include legitimate concerns) is irrelevant.
By your logic(and I admit to using an extreme case to illustrate my point) you are saying that if Fidel Castro is the worst, than actions 10% less-bad than his, applied to his supporters, should be 'irrelevant', until he cleans up his act? Israel can do whatever it wants to Palestinians, so long as it isn't 'worse' than suicide bombings?
Isn't this the sort of 'moral relativism' so often blasted by teh right-wing?
Greetings !
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Terrorism doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is a
desparate response to the desparate situation
of having no voice in one's scociety.
Indeed. But, that is not the case here.
The Palestinians are a different and separate
society. Also, Israel doesn't actually
hold most Palestinian territories, it
defends its own territories for the most part.
However, there are also illegal settlements as
well as some legal settlements that exist
in the middle of Palestinian populated territory.
These setllements must be removed.
Further more, the Israelis did occupy and even
currently occupy some Palestinian cities, but
the purpose of this occupation is self-defence,
since there are no borders the Palestinians cross
into Israel any time they want and kill people
so the only way to stop them is to destroy
the factories producing the armament and
explosives and prevent them from being sent
from the cities at least. Of course, this method
is limmited and practicly results in occupation,
even if it's pupose is not control of land.
This too should be stopped and it will be too
if and when the separation fence, or border if you
wish, that is currently being built will be
complete. The alternative solution of negotiating
with some kind of Palestinian leadership has
been adopted more than a decade ago, but
the terrorists who formed this leadership (who
were and still do appear to be the only ones
availible to organize and control the people)
continously keep sabotaging any nagotiation attempts
which eventually mean they'll get their own country
with official borders - they just want everything.
Live long and prosper.
schwarzchildradius
May13-03, 05:50 AM
Funny thing I read the other day:
"Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum"
--Donald Rumsfeld
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.