terrorism [Archive] - Physics Forums

Raven

Jun10-03, 08:22 PM

The definition of "terrorism" has always been a subjective point of view hence the saying, "one country's terrorist is another country's hero."

I personally do not approve of either the Palestinians' nor the Israelis' violent acts against each other. In my mind they are both guilty of terrorism and the act feeds on itself.

I personally would like peace to be possible in this region, but unfortunately factions in both countries have strong feelings and are consciously or unconsciously subotaging the possibilities for peace. I for one tend to empathize with the Palestinians who have had their land taken away from them, and who have had their freedom taken away from them as well. When cornered by an untrustworthy neighbor, you may find yourself fighting for your rights as well. The Palestinians see this battle as a war but they have no army (not a conventional one anyway) and they have no conventional weapons. Their rogue and unconventional use of violence is seen as terrorism and a response by an organized army such as the Israelis is seen as self-defense. In reality, both are simply defending their own rights to live freely. In one sense, the conventional methods are seen as okay and unconventional methods are seen as terrorist acts. But in my mind they are simply at war and war is a form of terrorism by both parties in my own subjective view.

maximus

Jun10-03, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by MSI

going back to what you read can you define "terrorism"?

the term 'terrorism' is a propigandic tool to inflate a sence of fear and evil for your people. if terrorism is, as some in here have posted, the taking of an innocent civillian's life than america has been a very active terrorist. we have (in a single bomb) destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians. we did that twice, actually. and if one does a little more research, they'll find many more acts of the same sort.

russ_watters

Jun10-03, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by MSI
he is a leader of politician group not military group he is like any other innocent and they wanted to kill him Wrong on several levels. He is a leader of Hamas, which is strictly a terrorist organization, not a political group. And if he WERE a member of a political group (like Abaas's defense minister) then he WOULD be a legitimate military target.

Either way you slice it, he's a legitimate target.
onther thing ...... when an israeli vichle enter a city and destroy some houses .. is that for terrorist? Non sequitor - you can't justify one act of terrorism by claiming others are comitting acts of terrorism.

Also, you picked an interesting time to bring this up. I'm sure you know that Abaas has renounced terrorism and in response, Sharon has started to dismantle Jewish settlements in disputed territories (and other concessions). BOTH of these men are making a good-faith effort to negotiate and work out a peace. The terrorist organizations cannot survive if peace breaks out and as such they took the unprecidented step of working together for the purpose of sabbotaging the peace process. That Hamaas leader (understandably upset) restated the Hamaas goal of the complete annihilation of Israel when he said (among other things) "I swear we will not leave one Jew in Palestine."

Be clear here: the enemy of Hamaas isn't just Israel - its peace itself. Abaas should fear for his life. He is an enemy to Hamaas.

This all being said, the attack by Israel was poor judgement because it could further fuel the terrorists.Originally posted by maximus
the term 'terrorism' is a propigandic tool to inflate a sence of fear and evil for your people. if terrorism is, as some in here have posted, the taking of an innocent civillian's life than america has been a very active terrorist. we have (in a single bomb) destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians. we did that twice, actually. and if one does a little more research, they'll find many more acts of the same sort. You misread drag's definition. He said an attack AIMED at innocent civilians. Under that definition, Hiroshima and Nagasaki could certainly be considered terrorism. But its important to note that the international treaties that govern warfare (yes, there are laws of war - this isn't propaganda) added the targeting of civilians AFTER WWII. Since WWII, the US has bent over backwards to avoid civilian casualties, often causing MORE American soldiers to die to protect other countries civilians.

MSI

Jun10-03, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
[B]Wrong on several levels. He is a leader of Hamas, which is strictly a terrorist organization, not a political group. And if he WERE a member of a political group (like Abaas's defense minister) then he WOULD be a legitimate military target.

ohhhh not at allll!!!
hamas is not the terrorist org. QASSAM is the "terrorist" org and they are a part of hammas and that makes a big difference

Also, you picked an interesting time to bring this up. I'm sure you know that Abaas has renounced terrorism

israel did that not abaas...
before what happened hammas was going to seise fire and there were no any innocencts killing but when israel knew that she tried to make hammas continue terrorism by what it did and also to show that palestinians doesn't want peace they also killed 6 palestinians today...... why today ?
isn't that to creat more terrorism ?

and in response, Sharon has started to dismantle Jewish settlements in disputed territories (and other concessions).

did you see the settelment that sharoon removed??
i think you should see it it is just some carvans that jew lives in and i know that caravans 'cause my grand father live in a simmiler one and they can move with it every where ...
sharoon destroyed it ..... the jew take it and go onther place to settle it

the Hamaas goal of the complete annihilation of Israel when he said (among other things) "I swear we will not leave one Jew in Palestine."
thats not hammas goal it is all palestinians goal they want their land back and that is them right..

if someone come and took your house and get you out of it and when you went to the law-court they said we can't do any thing and after a a long time they gave you 1 room from the house and the man who took your house still bothers you all the time and the court is on his side what will you do?
if you do nothing palestinians will not they will kill him ...
and that what is really happening now

Dissident Dan

Jun10-03, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Wrong on several levels. He is a leader of Hamas, which is strictly a terrorist organization, not a political group. And if he WERE a member of a political group (like Abaas's defense minister) then he WOULD be a legitimate military target.

Either way you slice it, he's a legitimate target.
Non sequitor - you can't justify one act of terrorism by claiming others are comitting acts of terrorism.

How is Abbas's defense minister a legitimate target? Is Israel at war with the Palestinian Authority (that is the name of the Palestinian Gov.'t, right?)? Isn't there some kind of international accord against assassinating leaders?

damgo

Jun10-03, 11:20 PM

I don't want to get into this debate really, but I will say this seems like a counterproductive move from the Israelis. Abbas's Defense Minister -- who russ is ready to declare a military target -- was just a couple days ago threatening military action (by the PA!) on Hamas if they didn't back off their anti-ceasefire position. I wouldn't be surprised if elements in the Israeli government who oppose this roadmap -- and there are many -- were behind this ill-timed and ill-fated assassination attempt. Just as the radicals in Hamas et al will do their best to hinder it....
Since WWII, the US has bent over backwards to avoid civilian casualties, often causing MORE American soldiers to die to protect other countries civilians. Korea? Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos? After the end of the Cold War, is more like it. But given that those wars were all US invasions of small countries, I think it's "bending over backwards" to prevent civilian casualties is damn well America's responsibility, not something we should get extra points for.

schwarzchildradius

Jun11-03, 03:28 AM

There are definitely deep problems with Israel, they don't seem to be able to control their military! RW has a point that military action allegedly against terrorists is in principle different than terrorism itself, however, the Israeli military never shows enough restraint to put that principle into practice.
You got to understand that the propaganda about this situation is quite different than reality. The reason for the attack is just our reason for invading Iraq- we can, and it scares people. Scared people are more obedient.

Zero

Jun11-03, 06:28 AM

One point to think about: In America, you can be convicted of murder if you cause the death of another while showing 'depraved indifference'...and according to Kat's statistics, Israeli troops kill 4 civilians for every 6 combatants.

kat

Jun11-03, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Zero
One point to think about: In America, you can be convicted of murder if you cause the death of another while showing 'depraved indifference'...and according to Kat's statistics, Israeli troops kill 4 civilians for every 6 combatants.

There's several problems with MSI's statements, and well Russ's as well (number 1 being that Hama's is part of the Palestinian government, to the tune of 33% I believe, don't quote me though [;)]). I'm not going to get into that now, as I am in the midst of a deadline but..I did want to point out that using America as a comparision might not be helpful to your argument as the civilian casuality during American conflicts hovers around 70% in the last century.

MSI

Jun11-03, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Zero
and according to Kat's statistics, Israeli troops kill 4 civilians for every 6 combatants. [/B]

i don't know what you really mean here but if it was that every 10 israel kill is (4 civillians and 6 combatants)
thats mean that every child throw a rock on the jew troops is a combatants
in intifada there was 800 (under 18) killed and all are considerd civilians

kat,
i hope you write the problems in my statements

number 8 [:((]

Zero

Jun11-03, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by kat
There's several problems with MSI's statements, and well Russ's as well (number 1 being that Hama's is part of the Palestinian government, to the tune of 33% I believe, don't quote me though [;)]). I'm not going to get into that now, as I am in the midst of a deadline but..I did want to point out that using America as a comparision might not be helpful to your argument as the civilian casuality during American conflicts hovers around 70% in the last century.

Well, that includes Hiroshima, right? And the carpet bombing in Vietnam? What is the US civilian casualty rate during an after-war police action?

And, of course, America has commited enough war crimes, true enough.

russ_watters

Jun11-03, 12:03 PM

who russ is ready to declare a military target
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
How is Abbas's defense minister a legitimate target? Is Israel at war with the Palestinian Authority (that is the name of the Palestinian Gov.'t, right?)? Isn't there some kind of international accord against assassinating leaders? That was a hypothetical example - probably a bad choice. I'm not suggesting they SHOULD kill the defense minister, but the defense minister IS a part of the military command structure as is a large majority of *ANY* government. Our efforts in Baghdad were focused largely on government command structure. And yes, I think PA is what it is currently called. Also, no, there isn't an international treaty on assasinating heads of state, but there IS an executive (presidential) order (it only covers heads of state). However, since a presidential order is written by any president about anything, it is essentially meaningless to a new president. Bush isn't bound by it and doesn't even have to recind it if he doesn't want to.
hamas is not the terrorist org. QASSAM is the "terrorist" org and they are a part of hammas and that makes a big difference Hamaas claims responsibility for terrorist acts. If it is meant as a political organization, they shouldn't taking part in these attacks. israel did that not abaas... Abaas has made a number of public statements renouncing terrorism and has made efforts to bring the terrorists to the negotiating table. He risks his life for peace and that makes him an honorable man. before what happened hammas was going to seise fire and there were no any innocencts killing but when israel knew that she tried to make hammas continue terrorism by what it Before WHAT happened? I think you are confused about the chronology of events these past two weeks. Hamaas REFUSED to enter cease fire talks and refused to stop their terrorism. Then as a joint act, Hamaas and two other terrorist organizations conducted an attack. Both of these were done while Israel was releasing prisoners and dismantling settlements and Abaas was helping set up peace talks. The joint terrorist act was done by the terrorists specifically to sabbotage efforts at peace by both sides.

AFTER Hamaas conducted their attack, Israel retaliated by attacking the a Hamaas leader responsible. Though justified, it was not politically a smart thing to do. thats not hammas goal it is all palestinians goal they want their land back and that is them right.. I'm glad you admit that. So you would agree with Hamaas that negotiation is pointless and that the only acceptable solution is forceably driving the Israelis from Israel? Guess what: its not going to happen. So you'd be better off negotiating a compromise. The blood of all killed in this conflict is on the hands of those who refuse to compromise: YOU. I wouldn't be surprised if elements in the Israeli government who oppose this roadmap -- and there are many -- were behind this ill-timed and ill-fated assassination attempt. Just as the radicals in Hamas et al will do their best to hinder it.... damgo, it sounds like the Israeli attack came from Sharon himself. A bad decision - unless of course he is tyring to sabbotage his own peace talks, which is not out of the realm of possibility.
Korea? Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos? After the end of the Cold War, is more like it. But given that those wars were all US invasions of small countries, I think it's "bending over backwards" to prevent civilian casualties is damn well America's responsibility, not something we should get extra points for. It is certainly the responsibility of America as well as EVERY country to minimize civilian casualties. But the US has gone far beyond that responsibility in putting its own soldiers at risk to protect civilians. And currently only westernized nations are even making an effort. Saddam made a serious effort to MAXIMIZE his own civilian casualties in the war we just fought. You must also understand that TECHNOLOGY plays an important role in what determines what reasonable action to avoid civilian casualties consists of. In Iraq this spring, EVERY bomb dropped on Baghdad was guided. That was simply not an option in Vietnam.

Also, your examples are bad ones: Korea and Vietnam were just like Kuait - the US coming to the defense of a country that was invaded by a greedy neighbor. Cambodia and Laos were part of Vietnam, but they are really a different issue from civilian casualties.
I did want to point out that using America as a comparision might not be helpful to your argument as the civilian casuality during American conflicts hovers around 70% in the last century. Kat, I realize that, but timeframe is important and comparisons to others are important. During WWII EVERYONE attacked civilians (no, that does not make it right). Today, only SOME countries or groups specifically target civilians. number 1 being that Hama's is part of the Palestinian government, to the tune of 33% I believe That may be true, but when they claim responsibility for a terrorist act and the focus of their efforts is terrorism, that makes them a terrorist organization. One point to think about: In America, you can be convicted of murder if you cause the death of another while showing 'depraved indifference'... I would certainly agree with that Zero, and as I pointed out, the US takes POSITIVE steps to avoid civilian casualties.

MSI

Jun11-03, 02:32 PM

Hamaas claims responsibility for terrorist acts. If it is meant as a political organization, they shouldn't taking part in these attacks. Abaas has made a number of public statements renouncing terrorism and has made efforts to bring the terrorists to the negotiating table. He risks his life for peace and that makes him an honorable man.
hamas never renouncing terrorism except israel did something wrong .....
and they did't reannounce terrorism because of what happend to "abd el-3azeez" it was because of the killed citizens .... (there was a mother and her son and a man killed) and in the westbank there was onther three killed persons and "abd al-3azeez" son was seriously injured .....
((do you want to keep negotiat with who kill you ? i don't think soooo.... )) that is what palestinians always say ,,,, more than 95% of palestinians doesn't agree with what abaas said in "aqaba" so hamas is just a groub that shows what the palestinians really want ...

Before WHAT happened? I think you are confused about the chronology of events these past two weeks. Hamaas REFUSED to enter cease fire talks and refused to stop their terrorism. Then as a joint act, Hamaas and two other terrorist organizations conducted an attack. Both of these were done while Israel was releasing prisoners and dismantling settlements and Abaas was helping set up peace talks. The joint terrorist act was done by the terrorists specifically to sabbotage efforts at peace by both sides.

yeah before tow days of what happend hammas agreed to talk to abaas to cease fire but when israel knew that it immidiatly tried to destroy that by killing some palestinians ....
israel released presoners.....
you make me laugh .... did you hear in the news how much? ,,, lets say 100 prisoners .....
do you know how many does israel got? they got more than 8000 prisoners

i said before that the settlement that israel "dismantle" was just a groub of moving carvans they can easly rebuild it any where...

abaas doesn't represent the palestinians because america choosed him not the palestinians and he do what ever america want ...
but after all hammas agreed to speak with him to cease fire but israel destroyed that ..

AFTER Hamaas conducted their attack, Israel retaliated by attacking the a Hamaas leader responsible. Though justified, it was not politically a smart thing to do. I'm glad you admit that.

you are may be right but when you get your family killed do you will stay and do nothing and continue talking to whom killed them?
if so then you doesn't deserve to live .....
israel killed palestinians that day so the oprations was just a reaction for what israel did

So you would agree with Hamaas that negotiation is pointless and that the only acceptable solution is forceably driving the Israelis from Israel? Guess what: its not going to happen.

if it didn't happen now (and it will not happen now) it will happen after 100 year or more or less ..

palestinians now want a peace that gives them a country and build them self and believe me they will fight israel after that so israel always trying to stop peace and prevent palestinians from making and building their country

drag

Jun11-03, 04:49 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm... I wouldn't be so hasty to say that failure to prevent a crime is equivalent to a crime itself. In that case, Sharon certainly deserves to die for failing to stop the violence. Bush is a prime target for failing to stop 9/11. The Israeli civilians are valid targets for failing to prevent various particular cases of murder. The list is endless... It's a wonder why we don't simply blow up Texas for failing to prevent the execution of innocent men. Hell, the whole earth could have stopped them. Let's just kill everyone, right?
What are you talking about ?!
No offense, but I think you should seek help, man. [;)]
Originally posted by MSI
he is a leader of politician group not military group he
is like any other innocent and they wanted to kill him
onther thing ......
Yeah, and Hitler was a ballet dancer...[:D]
Do you have any idea of what you're talking about ? [g)]

Also, nobody took their land. Some left and some stayed.
If they left then they left (btw, hoping that the
armies of many arab countries outnumbering the newly
formed Israel a hundred to one would kill the jews and
give them everything, tough luck I guess [;)]).

Of course 95% of Palestinians do not agree with Abaas.
Since they were born they were taught to hate. To change
what the Palestinians have become and indeed what all the
Muslim world has become will take a lot of educational effort for many years to come. The Muslim cultures were once amongst
the most advanced in the world until the west emerged as
the main power, for various reasons they just failed to
cope with it. (Don't take my word for it [;)], I recommend the book
"What Went Wrong ?" by Bernard Lewis a proffesor that is
the leading expert on the history of Islam and Muslim nations.)

Maximus, purhaps you failed to notice the word "aimed"
as in "intentional" damage. [;)] The definition's quite
precise, really.

Peace and long life.

MSI

Jun11-03, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by drag

Yeah, and Hitler was a ballet dancer...[:D]
Do you have any idea of what you're talking about ? [g)]

why when palestinian killed one of israeli minsters in 2001 isrrael occupyed all the west bank and killed a lot of people .....
and hamas did less than what israel did

Also, nobody took their land. Some left and some stayed.
If they left then they left (btw, hoping that the
armies of many arab countries outnumbering the newly
formed Israel a hundred to one would kill the jews and
give them everything, tough luck I guess [;)]).

i think you need to read some history books ,....
didn't you hear abotu the mascars that israel did in palestine ., in kofor qasem "as example" israel killed 172 at the same day in 1947 and destroyed a lot of houses and devorse palestinians to leave it and that what happend in most of the other villiges and cities...

the arab army ... they are all the time [zz)] they are for just protecting the president and the american embasy [;)]

in 1967 the iraqi army was able to do a lot of things they freed jenin from israel "it was occupyed in 1948 but iraqis freed it" but after a week of waiting for orders they orderd them to withdraw they were treated ...... and that why palestinians like iraqis

Of course 95% of Palestinians do not agree with Abaas.
Since they were born they were taught to hate. To change
what the Palestinians have become and indeed what all the
Muslim world has become will take a lot of educational effort for many years to come. The Muslim cultures were once amongst
the most advanced in the world until the west emerged as
the main power, for various reasons they just failed to
cope with it. (Don't take my word for it [;)], I recommend the book
"What Went Wrong ?" by Bernard Lewis a proffesor that is
the leading expert on the history of Islam and Muslim nations.)

going back to 1995 95% of palestinians wanted peace but what happend in 1996 changed every thing and palestinians started their intifada after 5 years....
in 1996 israel started digging under the dom of the rock .. and that made palestinians so angry
see they were not born and raisd with hating ..... what they were seeing made them hate israel
and you are 100% right about the muslims

btw, this is my last post here because i know that this thread will not change any thing and it will end by (**click**) this topic was closed by zero [6)]

drag

Jun11-03, 07:36 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by MSI
i think you need to read some history books ,....
didn't you hear abotu the mascars that israel did in palestine ., in kofor qasem "as example" israel killed 172 at the same day in 1947 and destroyed a lot of houses and devorse palestinians to leave it and that what happend in most of the other villiges and cities...

Hmm... Indeed ! [:D] This SINGLE major event which
happened as a result of a horrible misunderstanding
by the soldiers of the orders given by their supperiors -
to maintain a curfue, not to mention that they
weren't supposed to legaly do it since this is forbbiden
by law in the IDF - an illegal order (and it was a guiding
principle back then, as well), is reflective of what
happened to hundreds of phousands of Palestinians, right...[g)] [:D]

I don't know how much history you know but I think
you're interpretations of it are a BIT strange...[;)]
Originally posted by MSI
the arab army ... they are all the time [zz)] they are for just protecting the president and the american embasy [;)]
What are you talking about now (it's really hard to
follow your "reasoning" [;)]) ?
Originally posted by MSI
and that why palestinians like iraqis
Oh... And I thought it was because Saddam gave money
to Palestinian terrorist organizations and to
families of suicide bombers. Silly me... [;)] [:D]
Originally posted by MSI
in 1996 israel started digging under the dom of the rock ..
and that made palestinians so angry
see they were not born and raised with hating ..... what they were seeing made them hate israel
Oh... I see... They were saints before that... [:D]
Not to mention - you mean someone except the propoganda
brainwashed Palestinians and Muslim countries' populations
actually fell for that classical Araffat trick to turn
religeous propoganda into violence to add to his "weight"
in the nagotiations with Israel ?! [:D]
(btw, that approach never worked so far, but those
fools still keep using it. Won't they ever learn ?! [g)])

Peace and long life.

russ_watters

Jun11-03, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by MSI
hamas never renouncing terrorism except israel did something wrong .....
and they did't reannounce terrorism because of what happend to "abd el-3azeez" it was because of the killed citizens .... (there was a mother and her son and a man killed) and in the westbank there was onther three killed persons and "abd al-3azeez" son was seriously injured .....
((do you want to keep negotiat with who kill you ? i don't think soooo.... )) that is what palestinians always say ,,,, more than 95% of palestinians doesn't agree with what abaas said in "aqaba" so hamas is just a groub that shows what the palestinians really want ...
Again, you have your timeline wrong. The Israeli chopper attack happened AFTER Hamaas rejected the peace talks and AFTER Hamaas conducted a joint attack with 2 other terrorist organizations. Cause and effet.palestinians now want a peace that gives them a country and build them self and believe me they will fight israel after that so israel always trying to stop peace and prevent palestinians from making and building their country Israel *IS* offering a peace that will give them a country - something I must remind you they have never had before - but could have had if they and the rest of the arabs had wanted it.

After WWII, the Palestinians were GIVEN a country and they and the neighboring Arab countries chose war instead. There has never been a country called Palestine. In fact the disputed territories were part of Egypt and Syria. Why didn't either country create a Palestine on that land rather than attack israel? Of course 95% of Palestinians do not agree with Abaas.
Since they were born they were taught to hate. To change
what the Palestinians have become and indeed what all the
Muslim world has become will take a lot of educational effort for many years to come. Completely agreed, Drag. see they were not born and raisd with hating MSI, have you SEEN the pictures of babies dressed as suicide bombers? How can you say they are NOT raised from birth to be terrorists?

kat

Jun11-03, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, that includes Hiroshima, right? And the carpet bombing in Vietnam? What is the US civilian casualty rate during an after-war police action?

And, of course, America has commited enough war crimes, true enough.

Yes, I think Hiroshima did occur in the last century, vietnam as well..[;)] It's difficult to find any reports that cover armed conflicts with the united states in the last say, couple of decades that really cover non-combatant percentages. There is a number floating around with a rise in non-combatant death percentages floating above 90% worldwide. I dn't know US civilian casuality rate for an after war police action, but during peace time U.S. (the last year of the most recent study) showed that a comparision of armed conflicts IN the U.S. resulted in 59 police deaths and 368 civilian deaths.
I'm not sure why you would be interested in U.S. after war casuality rates to compare with Israeli casuality statistics as in order for it to be relevent Israel would have to be in a post conflict state.

russ_watters

Jun11-03, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by kat
I'm not sure why you would be interested in U.S. after war casuality rates to compare with Israeli casuality statistics as in order for it to be relevent Israel would have to be in a post conflict state. What I would be interested in seeing is a graph of civilian vs military casualty ratio over time for different countries. The US ratio has been quickly decreasing since WWII and is asymtotically (sp?) approaching zero today. I would expect that since WWII, the US ratios have been consistently among the lowest in the world. There is a lot of variability though depending on the type of conflict, Ie. Iraq in this war didn't have any American civilians to kill (though they did kill plenty of their own).

kat

Jun11-03, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters

Kat, I realize that, but timeframe is important and comparisons to others are important. During WWII EVERYONE attacked civilians (no, that does not make it right). Today, only SOME countries or groups specifically target civilians.
Russ-I believe it would be difficult to find any army that has less then a 40% noncombatant death rate for armed conflicts and if anyone can come up with dependable numbers that show otherwise I'd be grateful. The IDF goes to great lengths to avoid massive noncombatant deaths, beyond those of the U.S.. And before anyone starts spouting the sanctimonious smelly stuff, that doesn't make them perfect, but they can certainly be compared favorably with other western armed forces.

That may be true, but when they claim responsibility for a terrorist act and the focus of their efforts is terrorism, that makes them a terrorist organization. I would certainly agree with that Zero, and as I pointed out, the US takes POSITIVE steps to avoid civilian casualties. Actully, when they claim not only responsibility for purposely murdering young children teens and old men and women and also claim that they will not give up their arms, that although they may give in to a short term ceasefire..they will never stop fighting until ALL of Palestine (meaning isreal as well) AND hold 33% of the government positions within the PA..That Russ, Habibi, would make the PA government a terrorist organization.

Abbas 1st step as mandated by the road map is to DISARM Hamas and Co., temporary ceasefire is not disarment. So, I wonder if Abbas cannot disarm an entity that has openly and repeatedly declared that it will not quit killing jews until Israel is no longer existant., who will?

Zero

Jun12-03, 04:59 AM

Let's get back to basics here...when a terrorist is a suicide bomber, how do you retaliate? How can you? HE IS DEAD, REMEMBER?!? How does Israel respond? Rocket attacks, of course, like in any police action. Remember, Israel is occupying Palestinian land, and at best should act as a policing force. Instead, they treat thios land of civilians, woman and children and old people included, in the same manner as they would treat a battlefield. Treating someone's home, their farms, their backyards as nothing but a battlefield, is to disregard human life.

kat

Jun12-03, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Let's get back to basics here...when a terrorist is a suicide bomber, how do you retaliate? How can you? HE IS DEAD, REMEMBER?!? How does Israel respond? Rocket attacks, of course, like in any police action. Remember, Israel is occupying Palestinian land, and at best should act as a policing force. Instead, they treat thios land of civilians, woman and children and old people included, in the same manner as they would treat a battlefield. Treating someone's home, their farms, their backyards as nothing but a battlefield, is to disregard human life.

Your basics have a funny way of glossing over the details and ignoring the israeli reality. But, yes, let's get to the basics. Maybe you can tell me what the acceptable number of Jews going about their day to day business and dying due to being directly targetted and purposely murdered should be before they should go into the territories, and if you don't see it as correct military protocal for the IDF to use the air to directly target the leadership of the organization that quite literally cultivates young men and women for suicide missions, exactly, in as much detail as possible do you see them "policing" the situation?

Considering abu mazen himself has stated that the PA is in no position to fight the terrorists, and given that abu mazen has also stated that he has no intention of fighting the terrorists, and given that rantissi has said that he was going to do everything he can to ruin any chance for the road map to work,indeed that he would not stop until Israel is no longer an entity, what is israel suppose to do? (and now for the sarcasm)
besides handing out tee-shirts with bullseyes and "sacrifice for peace" written on them?

Can you answer these basics?

Zero

Jun12-03, 09:36 AM

I am not for a moment suggesting that Israel do nothing. Again, though...the guilty party is already dead, so who do you blame? And what is the appropriate response level to punish someone for a crime in which the criminal dies in the act?

You say that israel has the right to target terrorists. I say that bercause terrorists wear no uniform, have little centralized organization, and live among the civilian noncombatant population...I cannot support the concept that a 'targeted' strike can be made with a missile.

kat

Jun12-03, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I am not for a moment suggesting that Israel do nothing. If you are not suggesting doing nothing, then maybe you will answer my previous questions... Again, though...the guilty party is already dead, so who do you blame? There is such a thing as complicity in a crime, particularly in military matters. Inducing young men and women from the early ages of childhood to become suicidal martyrs for Allah, seducing children by promises of glorification if they strap bombs upon themselves, but even more then this DIRECTLY coordinating attacks, training these children to carry out attacks, funding them and arranging for transportation and elaborate plans to enable them to carry out attacks is criminal, the crime is not singular when their is a multitude of participants in an organized manner. And what is the appropriate response level to punish someone for a crime in which the criminal dies in the act?This is for the PA to answer as it is their duty to police this area. A duty that as I have previously pointed out they have stated they were not willing, and/or able to carry out.

You say that israel has the right to target terrorists. I say that bercause terrorists wear no uniform, have little centralized organization, and live among the civilian noncombatant population...I cannot support the concept that a 'targeted' strike can be made with a missile. actually, what I said is this "if you don't see it as correct military protocal for the IDF to use the air to directly target the leadership of the organization that quite literally cultivates young men and women for suicide missions, exactly, in as much detail as possible do you see them "policing" the situation?" A question you repeatedly refuse to answer.

Zero

Jun12-03, 12:36 PM

I keep answering it in every thread we do this in...you treat the apprehension of criminals as a police matter...and police don't use missiles!

Zero

Jun12-03, 12:40 PM

If you want more detail..you go into houses to pull out supposed terrorists, you arrest them, you try them publicly, and then you dole out punishment. You do not fire a missle into a building to get a suspected terrorist, especially if his family also lives in the building.

kat

Jun12-03, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I keep answering it in every thread we do this in...you treat the apprehension of criminals as a police matter...and police don't use missiles!

This is not an area that Israel is supposed to be policing, it has been turned over to the Palestinians to police. As I mentioned before, abu mazen has stated that the PA is in no position to fight the terrorists, and abu mazen has also stated that he has no intention of fighting or disarming the terrorists, and if this is not bad enough rantissi has said that he will not stop until every one of the zionists is dead and no longer occupying greater palestine, this of course as I said means Israel.

If you want more detail..you go into houses to pull out supposed terrorists, you arrest them, you try them publicly, and then you dole out punishment. You do not fire a missle into a building to get a suspected terrorist, especially if his family also lives in the building.

Actually, I am looking for even more detail then this. When you use words as "policing" "arresting" I envision a number of police cruisers incircling the criminals house and charging in to remove him while the neighbors do not interfere and stand back out of the way watching. I don't see this as a reality in the midst of the HAMAS stronghold in enemy territory. So maybe, if you don't mind a bit more detail and we can end this portion of our debates once and for all.

russ_watters

Jun12-03, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Remember, Israel is occupying Palestinian land... Since there has never been a country called "Palestine" Israel can't be occupying its land. Israel is occupying Syrian and Egyptian land.Russ-I believe it would be difficult to find any army that has less then a 40% noncombatant death rate for armed conflicts and if anyone can come up with dependable numbers that show otherwise I'd be grateful. The numbers are difficult, but I agree with your estimate. However, I was thinking ratios, not percentages. 40% (.4) is a GOOD ratio historically speaking. If you accept at face value the 3,300 or so civilian deaths estimated in Iraq and guess at 33,000 military deaths (sound ok?) that gives a .1 ratio for this war I think that if you go back to WWII and before, the ratios go well above 1 - maybe even 10. Hell, to some civilizaions, the natural conclusion to a victory in war was genocide. Oh wait - we still have a few of those around today.they will never stop fighting until ALL of Palestine (meaning isreal as well) AND hold 33% of the government positions within the PA..That Russ, Habibi, would make the PA government a terrorist organization Where Arafat went wrong is he (appeared to anyway) want to bring Hamaas into the fold and work with them. That made Arafat's governement a terrorist organization. Abaas on the other hand is taking the opposite stand: he's trying to drive a wedge between Hamaas and the government - forcing them to moderate BEFORE gaining legitimacy. No, certainly that will never happen. But what could happen is that Hamaas will gradually become so isolated and alienated that they will be irrelevant. I hope that they go the way of the KKK - when the KKK holds a rally these days they get a dozen members and a thousand people protesting against them. Let's get back to basics here...when a terrorist is a suicide bomber, how do you retaliate? How can you? HE IS DEAD, REMEMBER?!? So you are suggesting that all terrorist bombings are unconnected acts of individuals with no supporting organization behind them? He, hehe, heheheheheheh, bwahahahahahahahah!!!! Zero, you crack me up sometimes.

Zero, you are using police and military terminology very loosely when it suits you. Terrorists and terrorist organizations have a very specific (albeit complex) international standing. Terrorists and their organizations are illegal combatants. They get NEITHER the rights of criminals NOR the rights of soldiers. You would suggest they get the rights of both.

Zero

Jun13-03, 01:26 AM

I am not using terms loosely, exactly...this is a complex situation, and straight millitary tactics are frankly inappropriate. On a battlefield, EVERYONE is a combatant. When we talk about terrorists, we are talking about un-uniformed combatants mixed in with teh general populace. Bombs and missiles are not the proper tools for the job.

schwarzchildradius

Jun13-03, 01:54 AM

I was watching Christian Broadcasting the other day, the only news on at the time, and there was a story that Christians are angry with Bush-Sharon road-map because it gave away too much of the Gaza strip, which the Bible clearly states in Ezekiel belongs to the Jews.

So I have a question here: does Sharon's government truly control the Israeli military, or is the military engaged in an eye-for-an-eye tribal war simply licensed by the government?

Ganshauk

Jun13-03, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
So I have a question here: does Sharon's government truly control the Israeli military, or is the military engaged in an eye-for-an-eye tribal war simply licensed by the government? [/B]

Round and round and round.

What does it matter.

The harsh truth is, as long as anyone remains alive, they just wont let it go. In the meantime, they will embroil us all in thier brutality. Fry the lot. Period.

We can't afford such BS anymore.

schwarzchildradius

Jun13-03, 04:22 AM

"Nuke Them All" --written in the dust at ground zero.

kat

Jun13-03, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I am not using terms loosely, exactly...this is a complex situation, and straight millitary tactics are frankly inappropriate. On a battlefield, EVERYONE is a combatant. When we talk about terrorists, we are talking about un-uniformed combatants mixed in with teh general populace. Bombs and missiles are not the proper tools for the job.

Well, I, for one, am still waiting for your reply detailing the proper tools and methods for the job.

Originally posted by Kat
I am looking for even more detail then this. When you use words as "policing" "arresting" I envision a number of police cruisers incircling the criminals house and charging in to remove him while the neighbors do not interfere and stand back out of the way watching. I don't see this as a reality in the midst of the HAMAS stronghold in enemy territory. So maybe, if you don't mind a bit more detail and we can end this portion of our debates once and for all.

Zero

Jun13-03, 01:07 PM

First off, there is a difference between 'enemy territory' and the homes of civilians.

Secondly, if they have identified a Hamas leader, they can send troops in to get him. Launching a missle or dropping a bomb is safer for the Israelis, of course, but it isn't teh proper thing to do. You go get the PA police, you go in together, grab the guy you are looking for, and deal with him. It would take a reworking of the Israeli soldiers and Palestinian police...

Plus, the idea that Israel 'retaliates' tro a terrorist bombing is simply insane to me. It gives teh appearance of 'eye for an eye' instead of justice.

russ_watters

Jun13-03, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Zero
It would take a reworking of the Israeli soldiers and Palestinian police... If the PA police don't cooperate, can the Israeli soldiers go in alone? They have done so in the past - it usually results in MORE civilian and military deaths than a chopper attack because the mere presence of the Israeli troops incites violence against the troops.

drag

Jun13-03, 06:21 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by Zero
Secondly, if they have identified a Hamas leader, they can send troops in to get him. Launching a missle or dropping a bomb is safer for the Israelis, of course, but it isn't teh proper thing to do. You go get the PA police, you go in together, grab the guy you are looking for, and deal with him. It would take a reworking of the Israeli soldiers and Palestinian police...
HA ! HA ! HA ! [:D]
That's one of the funniest things I ever read in this
forum. You have no idea of what kind of forces you need
to go into a Palestinian city with any degree of safety
and what the casualty rate on both sides would be. Aspecialy
in the Gaza strip where the main Hamass strongholds are.
Not to mention that arrests are being carried out all the
time, but this happens in the villages and the smaller
towns where it is reasonably possible. Even then each such
opeartion is carried out by tanks and the most heavilly
armed transports during the nights and practicly each such
operation encounters fire from light weapons and the
occasional rocket or mines. And, not to further mention
that it is not difficult for these people to escape
once they know the IDF forces are close and coming to get
them.

The same way I don't venture into physics discussions when
I get to a level that my actual knowledge doesn't reach, I do
not see why people who have no real idea of what they're
talking should pollute this forum with BS. [;)]
Originally posted by Zero
Plus, the idea that Israel 'retaliates' tro a terrorist bombing is simply insane to me. It gives teh appearance of 'eye for an eye' instead of justice.
If there were suicide bombings and victims of shooting gangs
every once in a couple of days in the US, I'm pretty certain
that the ones responsible and the whole area they live in would
be "off the map" - literally, very fast.

Targeted assasinations are the best solution for dealing
with terrorists. The actions take out the important people
who manage the organizations. These actions make such
"jobs" less lucritive and make these people hide and waste
resources and time they would've otherwise used to plan
and carry out terrorist attacks.

As for Abu Mazen, never mind his limmited authority, one
of the important factors that he DOES has full control of is
the Palestinian TV stations. Nevertheless, these TV stations
keep showing the same propoganda as always and directly calling
for people to kill Israelis and destroy Israel, aspecialy in
an increasing manner after the last few days of escalating
violence.

Live long and prosper.

kat

Jun13-03, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Zero
First off, there is a difference between 'enemy territory' and the homes of civilians.

Secondly, if they have identified a Hamas leader, they can send troops in to get him. Launching a missle or dropping a bomb is safer for the Israelis, of course, but it isn't teh proper thing to do. You go get the PA police, you go in together, grab the guy you are looking for, and deal with him. It would take a reworking of the Israeli soldiers and Palestinian police...

Plus, the idea that Israel 'retaliates' tro a terrorist bombing is simply insane to me. It gives teh appearance of 'eye for an eye' instead of justice.

Zero-When the enemy hides within, prepares and stores their weapons, trains their members and even tunnels under IDF security points from within civilian homes that area very quickly becomes enemy territory, and if your planning to "extract" and "arrest" an enemy who would very much like to see you dead, or better yet if you are like someone like you and are planning to send young men and women in that area for this job they darn well better realize they are entering enemy territory.
As for joint security maneuvers, it's been done, it ended tragicly. In fact the IDF even helped arm Palestinian security forces, as the joint maneuvers proceeded the violence increased considerably and then at some point they began to realize their own weapons were being used against them, finally during a joint patrol the palestinian police officer turned, fired upon his israeli partner killing him. That was the end of joint maneuvers and shortly after the bloody 2nd intifada started.
As for entering the area and attempting to arrest the Hama's member, that was attempted earlier this week, remember? they ended up having a huge shoot out, killed 2 hamas and finally arrested 1. Since Israel has started using helicopters and targeting missiles, believe it or not, civilian injuries,deaths and damage to properties have been reduced considerably. Everything that was mentioned above is very true and you should perhaps study the security issue a bit more.
As for the tit for tat bit, that's not really the situation. The Israeli's and yes, probably Arafat and Abu also realize that as during the Oslo accords, the HAMAS will escalate violence by increasing the suicide attacks. Earlier this week, the day before the horrible bus suicide bombing that killed so many, Israeli attacked in order to prevent a planned suicide attack. Evidently they were right on the money as these suicide attacks are not planned a day in advance, they are very carefully planned, using a number of people to get the suicide bomber there seperate from the belt/bomb and then setting up the drop off etc.
The only way there will be peace in this area is if the HAMAS is stopped, they will not reason with Israeli's ever. They do not want it to exist, in any part. Period. They've said this repeatedly, publicly.

Zero

Jun13-03, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by kat
Zero-When the enemy hides within, prepares and stores their weapons, trains their members and even tunnels under IDF security points from within civilian homes that area very quickly becomes enemy territory, and if your planning to "extract" and "arrest" an enemy who would very much like to see you dead, or better yet if you are like someone like you and are planning to send young men and women in that area for this job they darn well better realize they are entering enemy territory.
As for joint security maneuvers, it's been done, it ended tragicly. In fact the IDF even helped arm Palestinian security forces, as the joint maneuvers proceeded the violence increased considerably and then at some point they began to realize their own weapons were being used against them, finally during a joint patrol the palestinian police officer turned, fired upon his israeli partner killing him. That was the end of joint maneuvers and shortly after the bloody 2nd intifada started.
As for entering the area and attempting to arrest the Hama's member, that was attempted earlier this week, remember? they ended up having a huge shoot out, killed 2 hamas and finally arrested 1. Since Israel has started using helicopters and targeting missiles, believe it or not, civilian injuries,deaths and damage to properties have been reduced considerably. Everything that was mentioned above is very true and you should perhaps study the security issue a bit more.
As for the tit for tat bit, that's not really the situation. The Israeli's and yes, probably Arafat and Abu also realize that as during the Oslo accords, the HAMAS will escalate violence by increasing the suicide attacks. Earlier this week, the day before the horrible bus suicide bombing that killed so many, Israeli attacked in order to prevent a planned suicide attack. Evidently they were right on the money as these suicide attacks are not planned a day in advance, they are very carefully planned, using a number of people to get the suicide bomber there seperate from the belt/bomb and then setting up the drop off etc.
The only way there will be peace in this area is if the HAMAS is stopped, they will not reason with Israeli's ever. They do not want it to exist, in any part. Period. They've said this repeatedly, publicly.

You know I love you like a brother...

Nevrtheless, when Israel, in the name of fighting terrorism, kills a 2 year old, there needs to be a serious investigation of the tactics involved, this isn't, after all, an isolated incident, but a trend within the Israeli military.

kat

Jun13-03, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Zero
You know I love you like a brother...Zero, hon, I have 7 brothers and I do remember how they liked to beat on me when I did not agree with them [;)] but even then, they loved me..but as a sister....*cough*

Nevrtheless, when Israel, in the name of fighting terrorism, kills a 2 year old, there needs to be a serious investigation of the tactics involved, this isn't, after all, an isolated incident, but a trend within the Israeli military.

Yes, deaths of civilians should always be investigated, whether it be Isreali or Palestinian. Innocent victims in Gaza are no less tragic than innocent victims in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv or anywhere else. War sucks, Zero, and as much as you want to use the word "policing" it wont' change that this is very much a war, one which I would very much like to see stop. Immediately. Now. Forever.

But, it seems to me you very much want to ignore the reality of the on ground situation for both sides. What safe, non-civilian threatening method do you have in mind? A decisive locking of arms with Rantisi around a campfire and an aggressive verse of Kumbaya? Maybe the assertion of American power a la Monica Lewinsky, on both knees? Do you think perhaps that whoever confronts the radical hardliners who object violently and react murderously to any peace iniative including the Roadmap may have to use some counter-violence?

Earlier this week, Rantisi vowed a jihad in which every single Jew in all of "occupied Palestine", and that includes of course all of Israel, is killed. Not a single one of them is to survive. I realize that Israel attacking Hamas is far from ideal. It would be much better if the recognized, legitimate Palestinian government of Abu Mazen took the reins of power, as is its obligation, and controlled and policed its own people. But many Palestinians say they will not "do the dirty work" of Israel, as if the disarming and dismantling of groups like Hamas were not, first and foremost, Palestinian obligations and interests, but rather Israeli ones. Abu Mazen wants to be the government but doesn't want to be the police. He doesn't want to enforce a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence in Palestinian territory, which is perhaps the most basic obligation of any government, because he fears this will lead to civil war.

If a Palestinian government willing to live in peace with its neighbors is in itself sufficiently provocative and offensive to enough Palestinians that civil war is threatened, then perhaps the best alternative is a sort of temporary "mandate" or trusteeship, occupation by some outside power until they are ready for sovereignty and independence in peaceful coexistence with Israel. But of course the occupation force will itself need to disarm the terrorists and militias together with a cooperative PA government, or will have to disarm both the opposition groups like Hamas AND the PA. Someone is going to have to do it, and personally, I would be very pleased if it were not Israel, but I see noone else capable stepping up to bat, do you?

Zero

Jun13-03, 11:01 PM

Kat...besides the brotherly noogie I always send your way, I have to say that we cannot let the perfec5t be the enemy of the good. I don't have a perf3ect solution; that doesn't make current Israeli tactics correct of fair or just. Honestly, I think the idiot American millionaires who support Israel for religious regiions should buy the whole population of Israel an island to live on. After all, they don't seem to be able to live in peace with neighbors...

kat

Jun13-03, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Kat...besides the brotherly noogie I always send your way, I have to say that we cannot let the perfec5t be the enemy of the good. I don't have a perf3ect solution; that doesn't make current Israeli tactics correct of fair or just. Honestly, I think the idiot American millionaires who support Israel for religious regiions should buy the whole population of Israel an island to live on. After all, they don't seem to be able to live in peace with neighbors...

Zero, if you really were my li'l brother right now, I would take away your desert! Shame on you for ignoring history. After all, the population of israel escaped to israel because it's neighbors thought they should be hunted down and exterminated, 100's of thousands of them refugees from palestine, transjordan, syria, iraq, lebanon, many murdered before they could escape..all leaving their homes and belongings behind. It also seems, apparently that the Arab population within Israel, members of which belong to the Israeli government aren't being slaughtered, nor are the thousands upon thousands of palestinians refugees who returned to israel and live and work there as israeli citizens. Funny, I see no jews taking part in the Palestinian government, in fact even isreali's who are on the side of the Palestinians, wanting to work with them and for them are chased out of palestine, or asked to leave for their own safety. Why should Israeli families, both Arab and Jewish many of who's families have lived in greater palestine for generation, upon generation, upon generation, unbroken, have to leave because islamic fundamentalist can't accept jews who refuse to live under dhimmi? you do know the history of dhimmi don't you? Sorry, but the time for islamic fundamentalist, racist, murderous, actions should be ended. today. forever.

russ_watters

Jun13-03, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Zero
I don't have a perf3ect solution; that doesn't make current Israeli tactics correct of fair or just. Zero, there are a LOT of people who think exactly as you do here. And even the people in this thread who disagreed with you understand that the Israeli responses aren't perfect (clearly). Its one thing to criticize someone's actions, but a valid criticism MUST include a viable alternative to the current course of action.

I laugh every time I see a sign or a t-shirt that says "War is not the answer." Do you know why? You never ever see on the back of the sign or t-shirt "_________ is the answer." Criticism is easy. Finding real solutions is not easy nor is it ever perfect.

Incidentally, I stated a few days ago that I though the Israeli rocket attack was a mistake because of the political implications - ie it would undermine the peace process. I changed my mind and I agree with kat - with Hamaas the way it is, there can be no peace process. I think the world saw the events of the past week and understands that Hamaas will do anything they can to prevent peace from ever occurring and that gives Israel a rare opportunity to take the gloves off and try to actively take down Hamaas.

If the Israelis can do enough damage to Hamaas over the next few weeks or months months and if the new PA leadership isn't murdered by Hamaas for trying to achieve peace, there could be a real chance for peace.

Though I am still hopeful, I was naive a week ago to think that the PA leadership sitting down at the negotiation table would be enough. They gave Hamaas the opportunity to join them in a search for peace and now they must make the tough decision and cut Hamaas off completely. Only by destroying Hamaas (with the help of the Israeli military) can the PA leadership have the power to negotiate for real. Hell, this could even be the thing that brings the two sides together - the PA and Israel fighting together to destroy a common enemy. No, I won't hold my breath on that though.

Zero

Jun13-03, 11:59 PM

No, criticism doesn'tr have to include an better alternative. I don't have to provide a solution to rape to claim taht rape is wrong, do I?

Zero

Jun14-03, 12:01 AM

Oh, and even Bush makes vague statements that Israel needs to find a better path.

I don't claim that I know the right path, but taht doesn't mean I can't point out that Israel is lost!

russ_watters

Jun14-03, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Zero
No, criticism doesn'tr have to include an better alternative. I don't have to provide a solution to rape to claim taht rape is wrong, do I? Thats a binary example and the alternate is clear - don't get raped. As for the solution (preventing rape), I'm SURE you can give a number of examples of positive action that can be taken to prevent rape. Otherwise you are simply left with telling women - rape is bad, don't get raped.

This goes back to what kat kept asking you, Zero - if you think we shouldn't be doing what we are doing now and you don't have a better course of action, what you are suggesting is that we do NOTHING.

Its like driving somewhere in a car. If you go to turn right at a 4 way stop sign and the guy in the seat next to you says "don't turn right" does that really help you get where you need to go?

Since we've already established that there is no perfect solution, the only way you can say one alternative is bad is to compare it to another alternative. At least you tried with the ground troops vs helicopter attacks example, but it seems clear that you were wrong that 'helicopter attacks are bad' exactly because you didn't consider the alternative until we pressed you to.

Zero

Jun14-03, 12:46 AM

Honestly, I think almost all of these problems need to be solved by 'MP' style troops on the ground; basically police, but trained in military tactics. If Israel could show an effort to avoid killing children, it would be harder for terrorists to find new recruits.

Zero

Jun14-03, 12:51 AM

Oh, and let's run that 'don't get raped' example past the women on this board, and see if they think that is a reasonable solution to rape, shall we?

drag

Jun14-03, 08:13 AM

Greetings !
Originally posted by Zero
Nevrtheless, when Israel, in the name of fighting terrorism, kills a 2 year old, there needs to be a serious investigation of the tactics involved, this isn't, after all, an isolated incident, but a trend within the Israeli military.
There's a military investigation of every case when innocent
civilians are hurt. If guilt is proven the guilty are
ussualy court-martialed accordingly. Intellegence mistakes
and the occasional wrong assesments are totally unavoidable
in warfare (being an ex-soldier one would think you'd know
that, then again you probably never got farther than your
training camp, did you ? [;)]). The IDF ussualy makes the most
effort to avoid mistakes, aspecialy when targeted killings are
carried out. Statisticly the great majority of such actions
were accurate and efficient to the max.

Live long and prosper.

kat

Jun14-03, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Zero
should buy the whole population of Israel an island to live on. After all, they don't seem to be able to live in peace with neighbors... After re-reading this statement, I just can't seem to shake the connotations here. It would seem that you would ignore the fact that the PLO has been literally chased, thousands murdered, in fact entire refugee camps razed in order to get them out of other Arab countries because of the disturbances they have caused there. It would seem that you would suggest that somehow jew infants and children who ARE purposely targetted, children city in their schools cafeteria, coming home from school on the buses, young women alone in vehicles purposely targeted, women with no arms, no previous history of violence..just being jewish are not victims and do not have a right to be defended. This is NOT how the Israeli's act, this IS how the HAMAS-FATAH-Hezbollah act. What you've said here is the equivelent of saying "those darn blacks if they would just stop letting themselves be oppressed we wouldn't have this slavery problem"
You have a very anti-jew view of what's going on in Israel. Making claims that Israel is purposely targetting children, when in fact there is very little evidence to back that up, unless of course you want to ignore documentation that 14+ year olds are included in the militant armed forces of the terrorist organizations. Your view has little to no credibility with me in this matter, because what I see coming from you is tons of Arafat rhetoric, a very distorted view of cultural reality and an absolute ignorance of the broad base of victims that exist when terrorist dominate a civilian area and attempt to imprison an entire population.
You completely ignore, or perhaps you are ignorant (neither is an excuse if you are making claims such as that above) of the history of Israeli's attempt to bring peace to the area. MP type policing HAS been tried repeatedly, Joint security has been been tried several times..you neglect to consider that there is NO way for Israeli to protect itself without injuring others BECUASE that is the goal of the HAMAS-FATAH and Co., in fact because hezbollah found it so succesful to hide behind civilians, to use them as sheilds, to use civilian homes as bases..to publicize the deaths of civilians that they brought hezbollah to palestine to help train their own militants in capatilizing in the techniques, there are good reasons for geneva conventions laying the blame for the deaths of civilians on the heads of militants who purposely use civilian areas to attack from, maybe you should investigate those reasons further.

Zero

Jun14-03, 05:42 PM

Kat, any time someone doesn't dance for Israel, you call it antisemitism. Go grab your pom-poms and cheerlead for someone else, because I'm not buying it.

kat

Jun15-03, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Kat, any time someone doesn't dance for Israel, you call it antisemitism. Go grab your pom-poms and cheerlead for someone else, because I'm not buying it.

Everytime I point out that your POI is not based on reality and point out the flaws in your statements, you come back with a similar statement or comments on how you don't need to have the answers. Well if your statements are flawed, your veiws are based on fiction and you have not answers then maybe you should follow my suggestion and study the situation a little further from something other then indymedia or an A.N.S.W.E.R. pamphlet.
As for antisemitism, these type of comments:

pave over Israel, and put in a bunch of WalMarts, Blockbusters, and Starbucks

If Israel could show an effort to avoid killing children

should buy the whole population of Israel an island to live on. After all, they don't seem to be able to live in peace with neighbors...

when they uprooted thousands of trees out of nothing more than spite and hatred? (the real reason for those who have a concept of reality:"several bulldozers entered orchards outside the town and set about razing them to deprive rocket squads of cover")

Let's just shoot children too, so that terrorists don't have anyone to hide behind.

Israelis gun down civilians indiscriminantly

We're not supposed to talk about how the existance of Israel is supported by the presumed religious and racial superiority of Jewish people!!

Israeli troops terrorise Palestinian civilians

I wonder if somewhere, back in the mists of history, the Jews didn't earn the beginnings of the hatred.

would be considered as such by the majority of people I know.

FZ+

Jun15-03, 09:20 AM

Actually, those statements seem to be more about anti-Israeli government policies rather than anti-Jewish religion or people. It doesn't qualify as antisemitism per se. In the same way that critiquing the Spanish Inquisition isn't insulting christianity. A large number of Israeli citzens also feel that what Sharon is doing is wrong.

Zero

Jun15-03, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
Actually, those statements seem to be more about anti-Israeli government policies rather than anti-Jewish religion or people. It doesn't qualify as antisemitism per se. In the same way that critiquing the Spanish Inquisition isn't insulting christianity. A large number of Israeli citzens also feel that what Sharon is doing is wrong.

Thanks...I think I am pretty clear in my views, unless someone is so Rabidly pro-Israel that their perspective is skewed. I couldn't care less if they are Jewish, Methodist, or Jerry Springer worshippers.

I don't have a perfect answer to the problem...in the same way that, while I don't know how to perform open-heart surgery, I feel safe in saying that a rusty fork shouldn't be used in the procedure.

drag

Jun16-03, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by FZ+
A large number of Israeli citzens also feel that what
Sharon is doing is wrong.
Yeah...[:D] A large number of Israeli citizens - the
settlers and their supporters, recently began protesting
and threatening him personally for Akaba and his
agreements with the Palestinians as well as his
pathetic (to them) actions against the terrorists.
Most of the rest are pretty much content.
As for the Israeli arabs, they're pretty much always not.

Peace and long life.

Zero

Jun16-03, 12:19 AM

Well, since the settlements are in violation of a UN resolution...

drag

Jun16-03, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, since the settlements are in violation of a UN resolution...
I don't think people care much about the UN in the middle
east or in most other places btw. [;)] What is, however,
true is that the settlements are apparently the obstical
for peace. Not an agreed upon peace since after over a decade it seems that Israel can not seriously hope to reach any real and maintained agreement with the Palestinians.
But rather a peace that will be enforced and
protected by Israel by building a whole and complete border
with the Palestinian territories. Unfortunetly, the settlers
make the construction of this border very difficult and slow
and force the IDF to remain in order to protect them. These
people are and have been the direct obstical for peace (one
way or another) in Israel for a long time and it is unfortunate
that the Israeli governments are unwilling to take desicive
action against the settlements. Of course, it is well
known that the arabs will see any such one-sided move as
a clear sign of weakness - as they view any kind of retreat.
However, an Israel with defined single borders will be able
to prevent penetration of suicide bombers and missile attacks
can then be regarded as direct acts of war of the entire
Palestinian athority and treated very well accordingly without
any surface intervention. (Just my opinion, of course.)

Peace and long life.

Laser Eyes

Jun16-03, 05:03 AM

Raven, that was an excellent post you made on the first page of this thread.

kat

Jun16-03, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, since the settlements are in violation of a UN resolution...

I'm getting a strange sense of deja vu here...but, I'll ask anyway. Pray tell, which UN resolution is that, Zero?

Zero

Jun16-03, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by kat
I'm getting a strange sense of deja vu here...but, I'll ask anyway. Pray tell, which UN resolution is that, Zero?

Actually, we have done this before...several times. Wanna skip all this and thumb-wrestle for it?

Better yet, I re-submit the idea of paving over all of israel, so that no one can have it. It IS just dirt, after all...let's make it all a parking lot, so people stop killing each other over it.

kat

Jun16-03, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, we have done this before...several times. Wanna skip all this and thumb-wrestle for it?

Uhh, no, I prefer that you actually answer the questions and support your statements...since you are the one making them.[;)]

kat

Jun16-03, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by drag
What is, however,
true is that the settlements are apparently the obstical
for peace. Not an agreed upon peace since after over a decade it seems that Israel can not seriously hope to reach any real and maintained agreement with the Palestinians.
But rather a peace that will be enforced and
protected by Israel by building a whole and complete border
with the Palestinian territories. Unfortunetly, the settlers
make the construction of this border very difficult and slow
and force the IDF to remain in order to protect them. These
people are and have been the direct obstical for peace (one
way or another) in Israel for a long time and it is unfortunate
that the Israeli governments are unwilling to take desicive
action against the settlements.

At 7 million a foot, with a width of 2 to 3 hundred feet, snatching up palestinian farm land, dividing palestinian towns, forcing them to permanentlyuse checkpoints in order to get from home to farmland..this fence is a permanent obstacle to peace settlement in a way that outpost have never been. How do you build a permanent "fence" on borders that have yet to be negotiated???

Zero

Jun16-03, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by kat
Uhh, no, I prefer that you actually answer the questions and support your statements...since you are the one making them.[;)]

No, you really don't want answers. At least6 not teh kind I can give you.

FZ+

Jun16-03, 12:43 PM

Kat:

http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

# * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
# obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".

# * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
# states not to assist Israel's settlements program".

That's up to 1992. There may be additional ones since then.

Are the B52 Bombers on their way?

kat

Jun16-03, 08:53 PM

FZ-Thank you! A straight answer!
Do you think those resolutions apply to Jews who lived in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza Strip throughout recorded history, until the 1948 War of Independence, when they were forced to flee the invading Arab armies? (many of the current Jewish settlement communities existed prior to 1948, when they where overrun by invading armies and destroyed.) Kfar Etzion and other villages in the Jerusalem-Bethlehem corridor fell to Arab forces in May 1948 and those captured were massacred. Sons and daughters of Jews who lived there until 1948 were the first to return after the 1967 war.

Also, do you think that U.N. resolutions take priority over Palestinian/Israeli peace agreements in which Israel has agreed to negotiate the future of the settlements in the permanent status negotiations with the Palestinians? When the two sides have agreed that settlements in the areas are to remain unaffected and under exclusive Israeli authority? Even if the Israel-PLO agreements do not place any restrictions on the continued building or expansion of settlements?

drag

Jun16-03, 11:39 PM

Greetings !
Originally posted by kat
At 7 million a foot, with a width of 2 to 3 hundred feet,
First of all, where did you hear that very strange data ?
Second, as long as a defined border exists that is
sufficient to prevent passage even for as long as ten
minutes it is more than sufficient once you add military
patrols and posts every mile or so. Today there's a huge
amount of checkpoints and posts of the IDF in Judea and Sumaria
and a great deal of reservists also serve there. To defend
a single border would be a joke next to the present situation
and a lot less forces will be required with much less means
at their disposal.
Originally posted by kat
snatching up palestinian farm land, dividing palestinian towns, forcing them to permanentlyuse checkpoints in order to get from home to farmland..
The border is going to be in favour of Israel but by
rather little and many settlements are also left out.
No palestinian towns are supposed to be devided as
far as I know. It kin'na beats the purpose of a border
if you do that since the whole purpose is to leave
the Palestinians on one side and the Israelis (the normal
majority rather than those sick settlers) on the other side.
As for checkpoints the point is also to avoid having these
except for some that are really necessary like in the passage
between Judea and Sumaria.
Originally posted by kat
this fence is a permanent obstacle to peace settlement in a way that outpost have never been. How do you build a permanent "fence" on borders that have yet to be negotiated???
The border will be able to prevent suicide bombers from
entering Israel as they do today whenever they please
as it does in the Gaza strip. It will directly and
immidiatly stop most of the death on both sides -
suicide bombers, IDF invasions of Palestinian towns
and villages and direct military confrontations with
armed terrorist groups. It is the best and only current
solution to stop most of the killing. It is also a lot
easier to maintain financialy with far fewer forces
and means involved to guard it.

If the border will decrease the influence and control of
terrorists amongst the Palestinian people because they
will no longer be able to "inspire" the people with their
actions or justify their existence to the people then
purhaps a new Palestinian order will arize that will,
for the first time, be prepared to make real and serious
nagotiations. If and when that happens Israel will certainly
be prepared to nagotiate.

Again, the purpose of the border is simple and of
primary importance - to stop the killing. The rest can be
dealt with once some other solution presents itself.
The fact that this border is so far greatly incomplete
and terrorists are free to enter Israel whenever they
please with no obstical on their way while the IDF tries
to destroy the infrastructure of the terror organizations
in Palestinian towns to no awail, since they never lack
the people nor the weapons anyway, resulting in more killing
and hatred amongst the Palestinians, is a disgrace to the
Israeli government of the past couple of years that due to
political pressure of settlers and their supporters allows
people to be killed.

Live long and prosper.

russ_watters

Jun17-03, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by drag
I don't think people care much about the UN in the middle
east or in most other places btw. [;)] What is, however,
true is that the settlements are apparently the obstical
for peace. Couldn't agree more. There have been dozens of UN resolutions regarding the Israeli/Arab situation, but only a handful have demanded any action, much less proposed a long term roadmap for peace. I would have thought that this would be just the type of problem the UN was created to deal with, but it has proven itself incapable of dealing with it.

There are a number of obstacles for peace - the settlements are one for the PA (the existence of Israel itself is of course a dealbreaker for Hamaas). The terrorism is a dealbreaker for Israel. Nevertheless, I find it at least a little promising that Israel and the PA are at least talking despite not having the dealbreaker issues settled first.

FZ+

Jun17-03, 04:39 PM

Actually, you will find that a major reason the UN did not undertake any measures regarding the conflict is that the US vetoed any resolution involving actions against Israel.

russ_watters

Jun19-03, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
Actually, you will find that a major reason the UN did not undertake any measures regarding the conflict is that the US vetoed any resolution involving actions against Israel. UN Resolutions alone can't create peace and ones that single out individual issues are more of a hinderance than a help. The UN has never made a serious effort at peace in the middle east and that has nothing to do with US veto of individual resolutions.

Only by mutual agreement (which clearly can't be simply imposed, it must be NEGOTIATED), can peace happen. And that means diplomatic negotiation. If the UN wanted to solve the problem, they would bring the parties to the UN to do the only thing the UN is capable of doing: TALK. The US roadmap is nice, but the essential component is the fact that the two sides are now sitting across from each other at a table talking.

FZ+

Jun20-03, 06:32 PM

No but without resolutions, the UN can't act positively either. The whole process is blocked up at the first hurdle. Hence, you can complain how the Un is failing to do what it is supposed to do, but that isn't the UN's fault. It is the failure of the leading nations in the UN, especially US to come to an agreement.
And I doubt the sitting talking is a real step towards acheivement. Without practical actions, all we are doing (as evidenced by anti-Palestinian PM protests) is to seperate the people in charge from the reality of the situation. We appear to be talking success, but weaving failure.

russ_watters

Jun20-03, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
No but without resolutions, the UN can't act positively either. The whole process is blocked up at the first hurdle. Hence, you can complain how the Un is failing to do what it is supposed to do, but that isn't the UN's fault. It is the failure of the leading nations in the UN, especially US to come to an agreement.
And I doubt the sitting talking is a real step towards acheivement. Without practical actions, all we are doing (as evidenced by anti-Palestinian PM protests) is to seperate the people in charge from the reality of the situation. We appear to be talking success, but weaving failure. The UN does other things besides just making resolutions, FZ+. They have human rights councils, economic councils, councils to deal with many specific problems. They can appoint a council to host negotiations between the two sides - and make it open ended, not limited to a specific issue. Maybe the resolution creates a panel to oversee the negotiations, but thats it - and no such resolution has ever even been proposed. The UN has never proposed any real plan (ie, the current US roadmap) that could lead to peace.

Pretty much all of the resolutions regarding the Arab/Israeli issue are 'The UN condemns Israel for XXX' and 'The UN condemns the Arabs for YYY' (for example, the list you posted...) Those are all complaints, not efforts to find a solution.