Israeli Dies As Retribution For Israel's Terrorism

[Az]

The simple observation that Israel never once stopped enlargening their settlements on occupied territory should tell you they never intended to enter the 'final phase' of negotiations...

the simple observation is that the palestinians/arabs never stopped targetting civilians as a part of their warfare against Israel , since the 20s.

So after two weeks where there were no serious attacks on Israelis, exactly who is it that escalates things and starts killing people???

errm.... so driveby shootings of civilians , mortar attacks and firing on civilian buildings are OK , after all , noone got killed , right ?

Israel doesn't have to tolerate terrorism, however. Just give back the occupied land, and properly compensate the people who were displaced. Palestinians are as realistic as any other people.

so why the **** did Israel suffer from terrorism before 67' ?
and the jews before 48' ? unless you really think that Israel has started the violence here.

MOBIUS : I don't accept any quotes from guardian , since it only attacks Israel and doesn't even stop to think whether the palestinians have done something wrong . that is unless you prove me wrong and show me an article proving otherwise.

I try to approach your statements seriously , but then I realize you simply troll . I have difficulty facing trolls . sorry.

for example:

How many more WTC's have to happen before Americans finally wake up to the fact that they are supporting a wicked daily injustice against the Palestinian peoples!!?

or

Ever wonder why Israel wants the PA to round up all these terrorists - so then they'll know exactly where to bomb!

[Chris 62]

ME threads crack me up.

I just LOVE how naieve many of our "friends" are.

Hey Moby, why should the Jews do squat for a people who have activly tried to kill them for 50+ years?

War criminals....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This stops when the islamics stop killing, and not before.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Back to our Dookie bashing:

If you notice, he added a question mark after his thumbs up, showing in my mind that he questions this act, not supports it.

I still think he's nuts, but that's just an opinion, and I doubt he supports murder.

[History049]

Even Sirotnikov admits that Ariel Sharon is a war criminal!

Putting words in someone's mouth to further your own cause

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
GP, remember that Eli et al. have repeatedly posted similar things whenever a palestinian is assassinated by Israel. While this doesn't defend gloating over a death, it is responding in kind.

Never has Eli posted joy over palestinian civilians dying.

You also can't compare a soldier, to a terrorist.

A terrorist targets civilians and hurts who ever he can.
A soldier targets militants and may accidentally hit civilians.

While the result is always someone's death, the circumstances cant' be ignored. And still you ignore them systematically.

Paikitis, I think it is more like 'another 10 are born'.

Irrelevant.

Unless you know a better way to get the idea that "terror is a good way to promote our goals" out of the palestinian mind.

If Israel wanted security from terrorism, these assassinations are obviously counterproductive. The real reason for them is to sabotage the peace process, but continously outrage the palestinians. With the peaceprocess on hold Israel can continue its policy of starving the palestinians to death and economic ruin... All the time establishing a stronger 'fait accompli'.

You sound awfully like a palestinian apologist on this one. Which is something that you are constantly on the verge of being, but I keep hoping you're smarter than that. I saw you were smarter in personal talks.

You're not that big of an authority on fighting terrorism. Israel, having dealt with it - is.

If you clearly see that the reason for the assassinations of terrorists is to "sabotage the peace process" it's interesting to view your opinion on how war on Bin Laden is America's way of "sabotaging the world stability" and "promoting zionist ideals".

Assassinations are effective in the mid term. In the short term it causes more anger and lust for retribution. But since the leaders are dead, things don't go well and it lasts for a long time. After half a year or more, a new leader springs about.

It's not the perfect solution, but I'm not familiar with any better ones.

The peace process won't solve the problem of extremists. It may kill their support by the people, but Arafat, who makes the strategic decisions still sees it as a legitimate way of putting pressure on Israel.

And as long as terrorism is used as a strategic weapon, we can not continue with the peace process. It's a lesson we learnt after bloody 7 years, when hundreds of Israelis were victims of hideous terracts.

It is a sad fact that even intelligent people like MTG can be duped into accepting that might gives right...

It's a sad fact that even people as intelligent as you can lose connection with reality.

While the palestinian people are opressed, conquered and seek only their rights and well being, the palestinian leadership is not.

And as long as the palestinian leadership is corrupt, evil, and tries to use terror as a strategic weapon we will hurt them and hurt the terrorists. Civilians may get killed in the way. Infact many already have been. It can all stop when Arafat decides to stop everything.

Do you know that when approaching to arrest a Hamas activist two weeks ago, the palestinian police saw a group protecting the Hamasnik and gave up the idea of capturing him?

Do you think that's "doing 100%"?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Well, I don't know... Could it be because they occupy palestinian land, and the palestinian 'terrorists' are fighting back the only way they see how?

If that's the way they seek to find a solution to the conflict we shall apply similar methods, while of course not targeting civilians.

The cause of the second intifada was the stalling of the peace process...

Wasn't it Ariel Sharon's visit?

The palestinians saw that endless negotiations never led anywhere, and the longer the fruitless negotiations went on the more land they lost...

LOL
Been reading some of Abu-Omar's revisionist press, huh?

The intifada started after the biggest session of peace talks
The intifada started when a series of more talks was underway
All through the first months of the intifada Israel continued to negociate with Arafat

As far as losing land goes, please explain how can the two Israeli withdrawals are considered "losing land".

The simple observation that Israel never once stopped enlargening their settlements on occupied territory should tell you they never intended to enter the 'final phase' of negotiations...

And what was ****ing camp david?

THe settlements simply show that Israel wanted a peace deal according to it's own terms, by "setting facts on the ground". True, quite immoral, but everything is subjective.

Still, setting up more houses != Targeting Children and Civilians

The simple observation that PA never stopped propoganda and never put a decent lock on terrorists should tell you that they never intended to end hostilities.

And so, peaceful alternatives exhausted, the palestinians turned back to the only thing the Israelis ever responded to... Violence.

LOL again

Israel responded not to violence.

The first intifada was a failure.

The launch of the peace talks came after Arafat promised to leave the way of terror as a strategic weapon for ever.

The cessation of violence can not be one of the targets of a reliable peace. First you stop violence and then negociate. If Arafat uses terror to further his goal, then his will is getting mroe land.

Israel doesn't have to tolerate terrorism, however. Just give back the occupied land, and properly compensate the people who were displaced. Palestinians are as realistic as any other people.

Their leaders however are not.

Israel suggested to compensate the palestinians during camp david.

Wiglaw:
Pacifist doesn't mean coward. Gandhi, the most famous of pacifists, was an extraordinarily couragous man...

You can hardly compare the "pacifists" here with Gandhi.

And tell me, what do you consider more courageous... Accepting that you might get shot but refusing to budge, or to order the launch of cruise missiles from half a globe away?

What is more corageous?
Targetting little children and civilians (what pals are doing now)
or Stopping violence and starting peace talks (what we hoped pals would do)

I personally think Matthiggs has a lot larger balls than, say, our commander in chief...

No comment

That said, I wouldn't classify myself as a pacifist. I have repeatedly said that I think an aggressor should be fought with whatever means necessary. The nuking of Japan? I agree completely. If you attack someone, you have it coming.

I disagree.

The targeting of civilians is unacceptable even if it is a part of a hostile population.

You might as well say you agree with the Sep 11 terracts because you believe in Osama's goal and you think the result justifies the means.

I do not think so, and can't understand how can you claim to have the higher moral ground when you support such extreme views. You're by far closer to Bin Laden than to anybody else.

But arguments like the eternal Israeli 'He started it when he hit me back', that I don't accept.

Yet you accept the palestinian version of the same claim, even though it is infact baseless.

How enlightened

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Bob Dornan
Putting words in someone's mouth to further your own cause

Exactly.

I said I accept the fact, that since Ariel was the minister of defense, thus commander of the chief of the IDF general staff, he has responsibility over what hapenned, since IDF allowed the phalanges to walk in the camps of Sabra and Shatilla.

However, the massacare that followed was not foreseen and the comitte investigating into it, found Ariel Sharon not guilty of it, as he was proved of not knowing about that massacare until after the fact.

Was it negligence to let the Christian phalanges in? Yes.

Could it been clearly expected? No. Since infact it wasn't expected. Israel, according to foreign sources, trained the phalanges to the level of an army with army codes.

It's very "cool" to come after the incident and be a wise-arse. But the same way no one expected Sept 11, no one expected Sabra and Shatilla.

Sure, now when loking back we see the "obvious lack of responsibility and negligence". But then it wasn't as obvious.

Is Ariel Sharon, currently an Israeli Prime Minister, guilty of war crimes? No.

Is the field commander of the christian phalanges, currently a Minister in the Lebanese Government, as appointed by Syria, guilty of war crimes? Yes


I won't face other Mobiusy claims since they are trolling, and one needs an IQ only of over 60 to see that.

[CyberGnu]

Since when has Hamas been interested in negotiations with Isreal?

Hamas, perhaps not. But the rest of the palestinians certainly do. If negotiations lead to peace and a better life for the palestinian people, Hamas won't have a role to play anymore. It will become marginalized and eventually disappear, much like the IRA.

The total failure of negotiations have instead increased the support of Hamas, as the palestinian people equates negotiations with continued occupation.

And don't take my word for it. Look at any analysis of the area that dares go beoynd the Israeli view, which is pretty much summed up into 'they fight back when we kick them so they must be evil murdering bastards'.

How does murdering innocents further thier cause?

Depends on what you mean with innocents. Have they killed any true innocents, i.e. people who have no involvment in the conflict? At last count, how many Norwegians have the Hamas killed?

I'm assuming you refer to Israeli civilians, though. An israeli civilian is as innocent as a japanese civilian in WW2, which means they are legitimate targets. Even more legitimate, I'd say, as the Israelis have the option to leave the country at any time, something the japanese never had.

Plans for the current Intifada were made by the PLO during Camp David II, so you'll have to do better than that.

So? You really don't think that Camp David II just popped into existance out of thin air, do you? Not to mention the second intifada? You are actually implying that one day the palestinian people go about minding their own business as happy as can be, the next the PLO get out their loudspekaers and starts proclaiming 'let's go throw rocks at the people who are anxious to find another excuse to kill us all' and presto! Uprising.

An analysis like that you can expect to find in a third graders history paper...
Q: Why did WW2 start?
A: Because Hitler was a bad man.

I think we should expect a little more than that.


The whole concept of the peace process was that small, incremental deals should be made, inching closer to the final settlement. The problem was that Israel never intended to actually get to a final settlement, as it would mean giving up the occupied territory and half of jerusalem.

Instead, they perpetuated a status quo by dragging out deadlines, rescinding deals already struck, etc etc. As years went by without any progress being made, do you really wonder why the palestinians started to become disillusionized with the peace process?

Prior to Camp David II, Arafat had already meade clear that he didn't want to go. IIUIC, he knew that Israel would not agree to a just settlement. He also knew that this would be the last nail in the coffin of peaceful negotiations. And he knew the political reality of the area: Arafats whole premise for power was that negotiations with Israel would yield peace. Failure of negotiations would lead to a decline in power for the PLO, and an increase in power for the violent fractions such as Hamas.

Lo and behold, this is exactly what happened...

They'd like too. I think they'd also like to have some assurances that the people they are negotiating with accept Isreal's right to exist, respect the peace process, and are able to crack down on the Islamic militants (the principle benefit Isreal will recieve from this process). So far they've seen none of that.

Not true. After the first Camp David Arafat did crack down on militants, putting scores of them in jail.

What Israeli propaganda is very careful to never mention, however (and you can see on past threads that whenever I bring this up, it is never denied... Instead it is buried in the sheer amount of rebuttals to peripheral issues): Failure of negotiations => Less power for Arafat => Arafat forced to shore up support => Release of militants from jail.

Things are seldom as simple as Israeli propaganda would like you to believe.

Rasputin:

perhpas the native americans should take up arms and kill American citizens too. THeir land has been taken from them !! would that be justified and ok when your son or daughter or wife or mother is killed by natives , perhaps a car bomb planted by them in new york would be ok...

The US has admitted that the treatment of the native americans was wrong, and is doing everything it can to help. IIUIC, every native american recieves something between $10k and $20k per year, regardless of income.

Comparing the situation of the palestinians today with the native americans is pointless, and you should know better.

Comparing the situation of the native americans in the 18'th/19'th century with the current palestinian situation might be a more apt analogy... and since the U.S. has publicly admitted that what the U.S. did was wrong, one would hope that the U.S. would actually have the courage not to make the same atrocious decisions today...

Again you fail to see the difference between a terrorist who was targeted because he is a terrorist and killed to prevent future teracts because it is too risky to arrest him and a civilian who was killed by people who wanted to kill as much civilians as possible.

Again, Eli, only if you accept the premise that Israeli civilians are comepletely uninvolved in the occupation... Which is patently false.

BTW, would it make any difference if Hamas declared that they had reason to believe that a helicopeter pilot would be eating at the pizza place they blew up a few months ago? After all, they would just be targeting someone who is likely to commit future terrorist acts... And accidentaly kill a score of civilians in the process.

Dalgetti:

the simple observation is that the palestinians/arabs never stopped targetting civilians as a part of their warfare against Israel , since the 20s.

Umm, Israel didn't exist in the 20's... And before the 20's, jews and arabs lived in peace. Jews were even encouraged to move to palestine by the arab muftis. The zionist movement spawned the violence, however, with their insistance that there must be a jewish state in palestine.

so why the **** did Israel suffer from terrorism before 67' ?
and the jews before 48' ? unless you really think that Israel has started the violence here.

Yep.

Read some historyof the region between 1900 and 1948. Try to read some actual history books, however, not ones published by Israel.

MOBIUS : I don't accept any quotes from guardian , since it only attacks Israel and doesn't even stop to think whether the palestinians have done something wrong . that is unless you prove me wrong and show me an article proving otherwise.

I looked at the articles in the guardian, and they follow quite closely to the NYTimes stories.

You know, a story critical of Israel could be because Israel deserves critisism... Think about that for a while.

Ever wonder why Israel wants the PA to round up all these terrorists - so then they'll know exactly where to bomb!

I don't think this is a troll. It reflects what a lot of palsetinians are thinking. and why should they thing otherwise? It is a fact that Abu Hanoud was put in jail by the PLO. It is a fact that Israel sent helicopter gunships to rocket the prison he was in. It is a fact that he escaped in the aftermath of the attack. No amount of Israeli propaganda can cover this up... So tell me, what conclusions should the palestinians draw from those facs?

[CyberGnu]

Siro:

Never has Eli posted joy over palestinian civilians dying.

You also can't compare a soldier, to a terrorist.

A terrorist targets civilians and hurts who ever he can.
A soldier targets militants and may accidentally hit civilians.

While the result is always someone's death, the circumstances cant' be ignored. And still you ignore them systematically.

I think I covered this in the previous post.

Unless you know a better way to get the idea that "terror is a good way to promote our goals" out of the palestinian mind.

Well, actually having negotiations that lead somewhere would be a start... But they MUST be followed up by actions.

You sound awfully like a palestinian apologist on this one. Which is something that you are constantly on the verge of being, but I keep hoping you're smarter than that. I saw you were smarter in personal talks.

I don't know about apologist... I think the palestinians have the moral high ground in the conflict. That doesn't mean I particularly enjoy death and bloodshed. All I want is a peacful solution to the conflict. That won't happen unless Israel conceedes to a just settlement. And so it is a question of accepting violence for the goal of peace...

After all, you never hear the term 'british apologist' when someone defends the RAF bombing of germany, do you?

If you clearly see that the reason for the assassinations of terrorists is to "sabotage the peace process" it's interesting to view your opinion on how war on Bin Laden is America's way of "sabotaging the world stability" and "promoting zionist ideals".

There is quite a difference in degree. While I think the U.S. should share some of the blame for the WTC incident, I do think that it was quite out of proportion. In analogy, if I imply you having carnal knowledge of your mother, you might get angry, but you're not entitled to kill me. If I attack you with murderous intent, however, you are entitled. You see?

A second question is whether the war in afganistan is the smartest solution. I'm not sure about that one. Having the talibans out of power is a good thing, so maybe the war brought more good than bad for the afgan people. Is it going to make the U.S. a safer place? I doubt it.

Assassinations are effective in the mid term. In the short term it causes more anger and lust for retribution. But since the leaders are dead, things don't go well and it lasts for a long time. After half a year or more, a new leader springs about.

It's not the perfect solution, but I'm not familiar with any better ones.

You're not that big of an authority on fighting terrorism. Israel, having dealt with it - is.

Ask England for advice.

It is quite simple, really... Violence only breeds more violence. Terrorism can't be stopped by more terrorism, unless you exterminate the entire populataion...

It may kill their support by the people, but Arafat, who makes the strategic decisions still sees it as a legitimate way of putting pressure on Israel.

And as long as terrorism is used as a strategic weapon, we can not continue with the peace process. It's a lesson we learnt after bloody 7 years, when hundreds of Israelis were victims of hideous terracts.

Not true, and you should know better. The one who has the absolutely most to gain by a just settlement is Arafat. Unfortunately, the people who have the most to loose by a just settlement are Sharon et al. and Hamas. This is the root of the problem.

Hamas don't want an end to hostilities, because they know their power will shrink, so they conduct another attack as soon as the peace process seems to get anywhere.

Sharon et al. don't want an end to hostilities, so he uses the Hamas attack as an excuse to halt the negotiations.

When negotiations are halted, Hamas power grows.

All going around in an endless cycle.

Now, the problem is that intelligent people should see this... And most of the pro-israeli posters (with the exeption of Natan, I think) are intelligent people. Which leads to the question: why are you defending the Israeli goverment? Do you actually believe the Israeli propaganda?

It's a sad fact that even people as intelligent as you can lose connection with reality.

While the palestinian people are opressed, conquered and seek only their rights and well being, the palestinian leadership is not.

And as long as the palestinian leadership is corrupt, evil, and tries to use terror as a strategic weapon we will hurt them and hurt the terrorists. Civilians may get killed in the way. Infact many already have been. It can all stop when Arafat decides to stop everything.

Do you know that when approaching to arrest a Hamas activist two weeks ago, the palestinian police saw a group protecting the Hamasnik and gave up the idea of capturing him?

Do you think that's "doing 100%"?

Umm, I think you answered your own question with the example. The police (controlled by Arafat) tried to arrest a Hamas member. Palestinian civilians stopped the police.

I think this prefectly illustrates the point I've made so often... Arafat is not free to act as he wants, and the further the situation deteriorates, the less he can do.

If Israel was sincere in their desire for peace, they would help Arafat as much as they can. Instead, they follow the MO outlined above, intended to perpetuate the conflict.

Wasn't it Ariel Sharon's visit?

Siro, you dissappoint me... I've made it clear numerous times that I don't buy that explanation. Sharons visit was the spark that lit the whole thing, but without the prevalent sentiment nothing would have happened.

I notice, however, that you won't deny my account of the events...

Been reading some of Abu-Omar's revisionist press, huh?

*sigh*
Don't take this as an insult, although it is kind of denigrating... But you must be projecting. You say similar things in every other ME thread, and I invaribly respond with 'I don't read arab press'. I have never done, and I don't think I ever will. I don't trust it to give me a fair account of events.

I can only surmise that since you read Israeli newspapers, knowing that they are as biased as the arab ones, you assume I do the same....

Then again, there was a smiley after the statement, so maybe you were kidding this time..

As far as losing land goes, please explain how can the two Israeli withdrawals are considered "losing land".

Israel withdrew troops from some of the palestinian territories, true. (That the withdrawals were delayed by a several years is a different matter, right?) But withdrawing troops doesn't exactly increase the land, does it?

At the same time the settlements were enlarged. Taking land from the palestinian ruled area and giving it to a jewish settlement is a very real loss of land.

I tiunk it is Eli who usually replies to this with something about how only un-used land is given to the settlement, but we all know this isn;t true... As an Israeli court decides on whether the land is used or not, and there are thousands of families who can testify about being evicted from the 'un-used' land...

And what was ****ing camp david?

Exactly what I said... Camp David never even touched the most important issues, correct?

THe settlements simply show that Israel wanted a peace deal according to it's own terms, by "setting facts on the ground". True, quite immoral, but everything is subjective.

Well, there we go... Except that it isn't all that subjective... It's even illegal by international law.

Still, setting up more houses != Targeting Children and Civilians

What is it tom Clancy is so fond of saying? Oh, yes, 'war is a just a robbery writ large'.

Japan entered WW2 to get the resources they felt they needed to achieve parity with the west. Are you saying that the U.S. should have just let them be, since after all,
Taking some oil != Targeting children and civilians
Right?

It all come back to Israel occupying Palestinian land. This is unjust, immoral and should be fought.

Israel responded not to violence.

The first intifada was a failure.

The launch of the peace talks came after Arafat promised to leave the way of terror as a strategic weapon for ever.

Again, I think you refuted your own point...

Before the intifada there were no serious negotiations, so the violence led to new peace talks. I'd say it was a great success.

However, since Israel never intended to honor the peace talks, they eventually failed.

So, you see, so far for the palestinians: violence - 1, negotiations - 0.

And you still wonder why they started the second intifada? This time, however, they won't accept just hollow promises to end the violence. They require actions to go with it. Actions that will never come as long as Sharon et al. are in power, or the U.S. are bending over to the jewish lobby.

Israel suggested to compensate the palestinians during camp david.

Yeah, and the compensation entitled roughly 10.000 of the 5 million refuges to return to Israel... Now why would they see that as unfair, I don't know...

You can hardly compare the "pacifists" here with Gandhi.

Why not? Besides, it is just to illustrate that pacifism most of the time require a lot more courage than war... If you don't agree with this, you wil have to elaborate.

What is more corageous?
Targetting little children and civilians (what pals are doing now)
or Stopping violence and starting peace talks (what we hoped pals would do)

What is more corageous?
Continuing an aggressive occupation (what Israel is doing now)
or Stopping violence and starting peace talks (what we hoped Israel would do)

No comment

Yeah, he is busy hiding in North Dakota, I think...

Yet you accept the palestinian version of the same claim, even though it is infact baseless.

Claim? Israel is occupying palestine, that is not a claim, it is an observation... And that actually makes all the difference...

Later, dude!

[Sprayber]

If anyone would actually stop and look around you may notice that the sad little boy isn't posting here. If you want to actually do something helpful, in the future let his cries for attention fall to the back pages instead of hovering around the top. It's a much better tactic than giving him what he wants.

[Natan]

Infatuation: So when your family and friends are massacred in revenge for British activities in Afghanistan, will you be joining CyberGNU in the Apolyton celeberation?

CyberGNU: Let's take off from the last time you disappeared. I'll try to summarize the main flaws in your doctrine of vernichtungskrieg.

1) The apparent reason that Israelis can be ruthlessly slain without mercy is (a misinterpertation of) the Fourth Geneva convention, and some UN security council resolutions. But somehow the Palestinians are allowed to violate the UN charter and the geneva convention by attacking Israeli civillians as much as they like. The convention must apply to both sides equally, or be discounted.

2) Why is it that while all Israelis are oppressors, Israel's allies aren't? An Israeli not living on a settlement only contributes to the war effort through his tax money, and in fact, a seminary student might be a net drag on the country - he gets a government stipend, doesn't work, and doesn't serve in the army. By contrast, American tax dollars fund foriegn aid for Israel. So wasn't, according to your doctrine, the 9/11 attack simply a justified reaction to American opression?

3) What about Kuwait, the province of Iraq which American troops occupied as they waged (and continue to wage) a viscious war against the people of Iraq which has killed many civillians?

4) Why do you think that peace would shrink Hamas's power when Islamist organizations (such as the other branches of the umbrella group The Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is merely the Palestinian branch) do so well in other countries? From what does Arafat's popularity stem if not from his struggle against Israel?

[CyberGnu]

I have never invoked the Geneva Convention in that manner. I have pointed out that Israels settlements are illegal according to international law.

For the rest of question 1 and question 3, let's apply the simple principle I've told you about roughly fifty times.

Aggression = bad

1) Israel occpying palestine => Israel aggressor => Palestine justified in killing Israelis to end occupation. If Israel does not want their civilians killed they can end the occupation at any time.

3) Iraq attacking Quwait => Iraq aggressor => U.S. justified in killing Iraqi civilians. If Iraq didn't want their civilians killed they could have capitulated at any time.

See how easy that was! Now try it on your own! Just remember the principle: Aggression = bad.

2) Yes, but out of proportion. See my answer to Siro above.

4) Stemmed, yes, but perpetuated, no. By fighting Israel he gained the respect need to advance a peaceful solution. he then bargained his continued power on a peaceful process... Not understanding that Israel apparently never intended a peaceful solution.


I still don't know that german word, btw. Assuming it is a display of your incomprehension of 'context', however, so I won't delve further into it.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Natan


3) What about Kuwait, the province of Iraq which American troops occupied as they waged (and continue to wage) a viscious war against the people of Iraq which has killed many civillians?

Natan, what are you talking about?

A. Kuwait is recognized as a soverign state.

B. Even if not, can you use a misdeed somewhere else as an argument for another action that is unrelated.*

*Note: I don't even have anything against the Isr. cause, etc. I just don't understand your logic.

[Sirotnikov]

Gnu, you have too much time on your hands.

Make yourself useful

I have a school trip in 7 hours, don't post anymore. Don't be cruel. I have to get some sleep.

I leave you to my trusted NAtan, and Dalgetti and Eli.

If in doubt, forget everything Eli said.

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I have never invoked the Geneva Convention in that manner. I have pointed out that Israels settlements are illegal according to international law.

For the rest of question 1 and question 3, let's apply the simple principle I've told you about roughly fifty times.

Aggression = bad

Repeating your mantra doesn't prove it. God knows how many times I've told you killing children isn't a good thing.

1) Israel occpying palestine => Israel aggressor => Palestine justified in killing Israelis to end occupation. If Israel does not want their civilians killed they can end the occupation at any time.

PA+Fatah encouraging and engaging in terror against Israel => Arafat agressor => Israelis justified in killing

3) Iraq attacking Quwait => Iraq aggressor => U.S. justified in killing Iraqi civilians.

How many times do I have to say, Kuwait is rightfully a province of Iraq?

If Iraq didn't want their civilians killed they could have capitulated at any time.

Wrong, the civillians are not in power, Saddam Hussein's secret police are.

2) Yes, but out of proportion. See my answer to Siro above.

So if they had just killed 500 people, that would have been a justified response? Besides, why is there such a thing as proportionate response when you are defending yourself from military occupation? America could have ended its military, economic, and political support for Israel at any time.

he then bargained his continued power on a peaceful process... Not understanding that Israel apparently never intended a peaceful solution.

I think a simple analysis of the constitution of Arafat's al-Fatah movement shows that Arafat never intended a peaceful solution.

I still don't know that german word, btw. Assuming it is a display of your incomprehension of 'context', however, so I won't delve further into it.

War of destruction. nicht=not, krieg=war, vernichtungskrieg=war of making not. Hitler's term for the war in the east.

[Natan]

Originally posted by GP
Natan, what are you talking about?

I'm talking about how a logical application of Cybergnu's philosophy would end with absurd (or maybe just scary) results.

A. Kuwait is recognized as a soverign state.

And Palestine isn't, but CyberGNU's doctrine seems to be based on some sort of outside moral calculation (probably in his head) which is uninfluenced by UN decisions, as evidenced by his insistence that attacks on civillians are a-okay.

B. Even if not, can you use a misdeed somewhere else as an argument for another action that is unrelated.*

*Note: I don't even have anything against the Isr. cause, etc. I just don't understand your logic.

What I'm trying to show is how dangerous this doctrine is, since it justifies the 9/11 attacks.

[Az]

I think I let the other ones tackle todays bussiness on this one . I'll handle history.

Umm, Israel didn't exist in the 20's... And before the 20's, jews and arabs lived in peace. Jews were even encouraged to move to palestine by the arab muftis.

you don't know sh!t about this , do you ? where the **** did you get it from ?

Read some history of the region between 1900 and 1948. Try to read some actual history books, however, not ones published by Israel.

maybe british ones , from the authors of the Simpson committee.....

seriously , if you are such an expert , recommend me some REAL books

I looked at the articles in the guardian, and they follow quite closely to the NYTimes stories.

You know, a story critical of Israel could be because Israel deserves critisism... Think about that for a while.

damn , I criticize Israel all the time. I know that there are many things that are wrong about my country . but don't you think that ... maybe , just maybe , it is wrong to kill civilians? after all , the Guardian is always putting articles when Israel does so.

I don't think this is a troll. It reflects what a lot of palsetinians are thinking. and why should they thing otherwise? It is a fact that Abu Hanoud was put in jail by the PLO. It is a fact that Israel sent helicopter gunships to rocket the prison he was in. It is a fact that he escaped in the aftermath of the attack. No amount of Israeli propaganda can cover this up... So tell me, what conclusions should the palestinians draw from those facs?

how the hell do you know what palestinians are thinking ?
what is that Israeli propoganda **** ? did you ever read an Israeli newspaper ? you know what are you talking about ?

What is it tom Clancy is so fond of saying? Oh, yes, 'war is a just a robbery writ large'

quoting Tom Clancy ....



and after all said and done , what is your knowledge of the events around here in the early century ? seriously , tell me what you think you know about events here , so I can kick your ass once and for all. ( not literally , of course ... )

[TCO]

Natan, you have muddled the issues. The issue of wether the Isr. settlements on post-1967 conquerred territory has to be settled on its own merits. As does every such issue. I mean if Isr. thinks it's their land shouldn't they just annex it? (I admit to being ignorant of the exact legal nature of current status. but the land must have some ultimate owner. Either a pre-1967 Jordanian individual or the Jordanian govt. So don't you have to annex/condemn it?)

Anyway...I did not hear Gnu argue for justifying terorrist actions. I think he just argued the merit of the settlements themselves. (I admit to not reading every single cut and paste...but that was the impression that I had.)

Ok? Now come back out of your corner swinging!!

[Natan]

Originally posted by GP
Natan, you have muddled the issues. The issue of wether the Isr. settlements on post-1967 conquerred territory has to be settled on its own merits.

But I'm talking about the presence of Israeli troops, not the settlements. That's in a another thread.

I mean if Isr. thinks it's their land shouldn't they just annex it? (I admit to being ignorant of the exact legal nature of current status. but the land must have some ultimate owner. Either a pre-1967 Jordanian individual or the Jordanian govt. So don't you have to annex/condemn it?)

It seems fair to me to say that Israel is temporarily maintaining control of the area until its status can be determined. The Allies held control of Germany after WWII without annexing it, and eventually set up two states with altered borders.

Anyway...I did not hear Gnu argue for justifying terorrist actions. I think he just argued the merit of the settlements themselves. (I admit to not reading every single cut and paste...but that was the impression that I had.)

Ok? Now come back out of your corner swinging!!

GNU is arguing that all Israelis, whether living on settlements or elsewhere, are legititimate targets for killing because of the presence of Israeli soldiers (and possibly because of the civillian presence as well) in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The ostensible reason is that they are supporting those Israelis actually in these regions, and I'm trying to show that:
1) This logic leads us to side with Iraq and al-Qaeda against the United States.

2) This logic is not self-consistent, because it uses various treaties and sources selectively.

[TCO]

Natan,

Too many damn ME threads!! Hard to keep all the stuff seperate.

I think you're being a little bit coy regarding the settlements. If they are just holding on to that land while figuring out what to do with it:
-it's been a long time...no?
-putting up houses for people (who aren't the landowners) certainly seems like you want to take that land. So fine just admit it and take it.
-Your example of American occupation of Ge is also a little strained...as we did not exploit the territory by putting people there...maybe a better example could be the seizing of E. German property and land* by the Soviet puppet state.

Let's let Gnu tell us if he thinks the prescence of settlements/troops/ISR. state/whatever justifies terrorist attacks. I di not get that impression. But if he agrees, I'll withdraw from my referee position.

*I'm not saying those two case are the same in degree but rather in kind.

[Natan]

Originally posted by GP
I think you're being a little bit coy regarding the settlements. If they are just holding on to that land while figuring out what to do with it:
-it's been a long time...no?

Sure, but it's a sensitive area. Negotiations have been underway for 8 years. It seems quite common in the Middle East to leave things in a strange state rather than create a potentially negative change i.e., campaigns run by banned political parties, regulations governing banned activity, etc. The truth is, Israel doesn't have a clue what it's going to do with 95% of the West Bank, so it just hasn't done anything with them.

-putting up houses for people (who aren't the landowners) certainly seems like you want to take that land. So fine just admit it and take it.

Well, that's what Israel did in East Jerusalem and the Golan heights, but the situation in the West Bank is a little less clear.

-Your example of American occupation of Ge is also a little strained...as we did not exploit the territory by putting people there...maybe a better example could be the seizing of E. German property and land* by the Soviet puppet state.

Right, but there are two separate issues which I think need to be adressed separately.

Let's let Gnu tell us if he thinks the prescence of settlements/troops/ISR. state/whatever justifies terrorist attacks. I di not get that impression. But if he agrees, I'll withdraw from my referee position.

Let me quote from CyberGNU's post above:
"1) Israel occpying palestine => Israel aggressor => Palestine justified in killing Israelis to end occupation. If Israel does not want their civilians killed they can end the occupation at any time."

[CyberGnu]

Umm, Israel didn't exist in the 20's... And before the 20's, jews and arabs lived in peace. Jews were even encouraged to move to palestine by the arab muftis.

you don't know sh!t about this , do you ? where the **** did you get it from ?

First off, calm down, OK?

This is the bibliography from the EB:
Among many recent works on Ottoman Palestine, the following are the broadest and most valuable: Moshe Ma'oz (ed.), Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period (1975); Amnon Cohen, Palestine in the 18th Century: Patterns of Government and Administration (1973); David Kushner (ed.), Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social, and Economic Transformation (1986); and Neville J. Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism Before World War I (1976, reprinted 1980).

Some useful general studies that cover the 20th century are Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal, Palestinians: The Making of a People (1993); Fred J. Khouri, The Arab-Israeli Dilemma, 3rd ed. (1985); Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel, 2 vol. (1979-87); Rosemary Sayigh, Palestinians: From Peasants to Revolutionaries (1979), a collection of interviews with camp Palestinians in Lebanon; Bruce R. Kuniholm and Michael Rubner, The Palestinian Problem and United States Policy: A Guide to Issues and References (1986), with an extensive bibliography; Pamela Ann Smith, Palestine and the Palestinians, 1876-1983 (1984); and Ian J. Bickerton and Carla L. Klausner, A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2nd ed. (1995).

The period of the British mandate is covered by Tarif Khalidi, "Palestinian Historiography: 1900-1948," Journal of Palestine Studies, 10(3):59-76 (Spring 1981); Adnan Mohammed Abu-ghazaleh, Arab Cultural Nationalism in Palestine During the British Mandate (1973); Sami Hadawi, Bitter Harvest: A Modern History of Palestine, 4th rev. and updated ed. (1991); Ann Mosely Lesch, Arab Politics in Palestine, 1917-1939: The Frustration of a Nationalist Movement (1979); Y. Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement, 1918-1929, trans. from Hebrew (1974), and The Palestinian Arab National Movement: From Riots to Rebellion, 1929-1939, trans. from Hebrew (1977); Kenneth W. Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 (1984); Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (1987); Conor Cruise O'Brien, The Siege: The Saga of Israel and Zionism (1986); Dan Horowitz and Moshe Lissak, Origins of the Israeli Polity: Palestine Under the Mandate (1978; originally published in Hebrew, 1977); and Wm. Roger Louis and Robert W. Stookey (eds.), The End of the Palestine Mandate (1985).

I've only read Mandel and Porath myself, but this should keep you occupied

If you want the short verison check out the EB.

damn , I criticize Israel all the time. I know that there are many things that are wrong about my country . but don't you think that ... maybe , just maybe , it is wrong to kill civilians? after all , the Guardian is always putting articles when Israel does so.

Well, I don't know if any of your relatives went to the gas chambers... But even if they didn't, aren't you pretty glad that the Allies defeated Germany? Even if it took killing over two million german civilians?

We don't live in the middle ages any more. Wars are not fought between two mercenary armies. That era ended with industrialism.

how the hell do you know what palestinians are thinking ?
what is that Israeli propoganda **** ? did you ever read an Israeli newspaper ? you know what are you talking about ?

I trust reporters in NYTimes to tell the truth... and I have a few palestinian friends. and yes, I browse through the jerusalem post occasionaly. But most of all it comes from the posts made by por-israelites... When statements such as 'there is no such thing as a palestinian' are perpetuated the reason is Israeli (jewish?) propaganda... As it has no basis in reality, yet according to one of the posters on this forum is featured in Israeli text books.

quoting Tom Clancy ....

Would you mind critizising the statement instead of the source? that's cheap and pointless... Considering that if Einstein says 2 + 2 =5, he is wrong... While if Bush says 2 + 2 =4, he is actually right.

[CyberGnu]

Repeating your mantra doesn't prove it. God knows how many times I've told you killing children isn't a good thing.

Of course it isn't. So help me stop israels occupation so more children won't be killed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PA+Fatah encouraging and engaging in terror against Israel => Arafat agressor => Israelis justified in killing

Again the key word is 'context'.

Israel occpying palestine => Israel aggressor => PA+Fatah encouraging and engaging in terror against Israel is justified.

You really seem to have problem with the concept of time as well.

If I hit you in the face, I'm the aggressor. If you hit me in the face, and I hit you back, you are the aggressor. If you hit me in the face and I shoot you in the leg, you are the aggressor. If I hit you in the face and you decide to give me a kiss, I am the aggressor.

Notice what all those things have in common? Yes, it is the very FIRST attack that decides who is the aggressor and who is the victim. Whatever happens AFTER doesn't change this fact.

So, let's try again, shall we?

Israel occupies palestinian land makes them what?

Yes, the aggressor!!!!!

Now can we get past this, you think, or do we really have to go trhough this every time?

How many times do I have to say, Kuwait is rightfully a province of Iraq?

No it isn't. If Quwait decided to join Iraq they could do so at any moment.

Wrong, the civillians are not in power, Saddam Hussein's secret police are.

Unfortunately, you can't make that distinction. Iraq as a nation attacked Quwait. Iraq as a nation must capitulate. Whether that occurs through toppling the goverment or defeat of the military capability is a question of feasibility.

As I asked dalgetti, are you actually disagreeing with the Allied bombings of Germany and Japan? Usually jews complain about how the allies didn't defeat Germany fast enough...

So if they had just killed 500 people, that would have been a justified response? Besides, why is there such a thing as proportionate response when you are defending yourself from military occupation? America could have ended its military, economic, and political support for Israel at any time

A proper response would have been to stop selling oil to the U.S..

I think a simple analysis of the constitution of Arafat's al-Fatah movement shows that Arafat never intended a peaceful solution.

And reality says something completely different.

War of destruction. nicht=not, krieg=war, vernichtungskrieg=war of making not. Hitler's term for the war in the east.

Still don't get it.

And Palestine isn't, but CyberGNU's doctrine seems to be based on some sort of outside moral calculation (probably in his head) which is uninfluenced by UN decisions, as evidenced by his insistence that attacks on civillians are a-okay.

I quite frankly don't understand what you are talking about...

If a civilian is part of an aggressor nation, that civilian is a legitimate target. AIAIK, the U.N. has never condemned the Allies for their role in WW2.


GP, my view is that Israel has themselves to blame for their casulties. I think aggression is wrong, and a state using violence against their neighbour should be defeated by any means necessary. After Japan attacked the U.S., this resulted in the nuking of two japanese cities. Israels occupation of palestine is resulting in civilian casualties from bombs etc.

Both could have been averted by Japan/Israel ending the aggression. In Japans case full capitulation, in Israels case a more moderate settlement.

It can be simplified up like this: If I hit you in the face, I have only my self to blame for whatever damage I contract as a result of my aggression.

[Natan]

Of course it isn't. So help me stop israels occupation so more children won't be killed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And a non-sequiter followed by a series of exclamation points really isn't an improvement.

If I hit you in the face, I'm the aggressor. If you hit me in the face, and I hit you back, you are the aggressor. If you hit me in the face and I shoot you in the leg, you are the aggressor. If I hit you in the face and you decide to give me a kiss, I am the aggressor.

Not really. Too abstract, and ignores the time between the act and the response, as well as the fact that Israel took the areas in a defensive war (Dalgetti's department) The fact is, the Palestinians agreed to abandon terrorism and they never did. Furthermore, I don't see administering a piece of land as an attack. Such logic is silly. Israel didn't take the area from the Palestinians, it took it from Jordan, a distinct entity which no longer makes a claim on the area anyway. So the act can't be considered agression against the Palestinians.

No it isn't. If Quwait decided to join Iraq they could do so at any moment.

Not really, because Kuwait was (and is) a dictatorship. You might as well say that the Palestinians in East Jerusalem can join the PA at any moment.

Unfortunately, you can't make that distinction. Iraq as a nation attacked Quwait. Iraq as a nation must capitulate. Whether that occurs through toppling the goverment or defeat of the military capability is a question of feasibility.

As I asked dalgetti, are you actually disagreeing with the Allied bombings of Germany and Japan? Usually jews complain about how the allies didn't defeat Germany fast enough...

That's the most extrem case imaginable, and a tough one. It's a situation where America had to choose between civillian death and civillian death - now my belief is that the bombings were the right decision, but it's a debatable matter. It's irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian situation because neither side is really trying to exterminate the other, regardless of your demented propaganda.

A proper response would have been to stop selling oil to the U.S..

Iraq doesn't sell oil to the US as far as I know. Besides, the Palestinians certainly don't. But besides, you already said that if I hit you and you shoot me in the leg, that's self-defense. So either you admit that your doctrine defines the 9/11 attacks as self defense, or you retract your statement.

And reality says something completely different.

Um, written statements are reality. As are physical actions, like praising terrorists, giving them free right to operate where they please, and failure to provide a single idea at the Camp David talks.

If a civilian is part of an aggressor nation, that civilian is a legitimate target.

Right, just as the US was an aggressor nation, providing guns, money, UN votes and even military training and emergency resupply to Israel. In fact, many Israelis and even settlers are American citizens.

[CyberGnu]

And a non-sequiter followed by a series of exclamation points really isn't an improvement.

How is that a non-sequiter? If you think the killing of children is wrong, you should be striving for ending the conflict, not perpetuating it.

Not really, because Kuwait was (and is) a dictatorship. You might as well say that the Palestinians in East Jerusalem can join the PA at any moment.

Not comparable. Regardless of rulership, both you and me know that the quwaitis did not want to belong to Iraq.

That's the most extrem case imaginable, and a tough one. It's a situation where America had to choose between civillian death and civillian death - now my belief is that the bombings were the right decision, but it's a debatable matter. It's irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian situation because neither side is really trying to exterminate the other, regardless of your demented propaganda.

Ahh, so we've established that civilian casualties for the enemy is justified if it spares civilians casualties for your own people. The five children killed last week thus more than justifies palestinian violence against Israel in any way, shape or form.

Iraq doesn't sell oil to the US as far as I know.

Well, AFAIK, Iraq wasn't involved in the WTC incident, was it?

Besides, the Palestinians certainly don't.

Well, AFAIK, Palestine wasn't involved in the WTC incident, was it?

Umm, were you deliberatly putting spurious sentences in there, or were you just really sleapy?

Furthermore, half of the hijackers as well as bin laden himself came from Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil producer.

Um, written statements are reality. As are physical actions, like praising terrorists, giving them free right to operate where they please, and failure to provide a single idea at the Camp David talks.

Praising terrorists, a product of the failed negotiations. 'Free right to operate' - Not true, Failing to provide a single idea at the Camp David talks - a bizarre argument.

I guess you meant that instead of being honest and stating what the palestinian people required to accept a deal, he should have required Palestine, Israel and little bit of Brazil, just for good measure, only so he could pare down his 'demands' in negotiations?

Unlike Israeli apologists, a realist acknowledges that how sincere someone is about compromising depends on how close to a just settlement it takes the parties, not how far from their arbitrarily stated starting positions they are willing to go.

If I hit you in the face, I'm the aggressor. If you hit me in the face, and I hit you back, you are the aggressor. If you hit me in the face and I shoot you in the leg, you are the aggressor. If I hit you in the face and you decide to give me a kiss, I am the aggressor.


Not really.

Ahh, I guess this is the root of the problem. I'm sorry to have to say this, but this shows you clearly are delusional... I'm sorry, but your perceptions of reality doesn;t seem to fit with the rest of humanitys.

GP, would you mind commenting on that?

[TCO]

Please tell me clearly what you want commented on. I can't follow the thread anymore.

[Sprayber]

Well, I see that everyone followed ole Sprayber's advice.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Chris 62
ME threads crack me up.

I just LOVE how naieve many of our "friends" are.

Hey Moby, why should the Jews do squat for a people who have activly tried to kill them for 50+ years?

War criminals....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This stops when the islamics stop killing, and not before.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Back to our Dookie bashing:

If you notice, he added a question mark after his thumbs up, showing in my mind that he questions this act, not supports it.

I still think he's nuts, but that's just an opinion, and I doubt he supports murder.

it's all good. this is a trolling thread, after all. but chris62's level of infantileness is right there with the thread starter. you gotta love the 'coffee' line...pretty much sums up the sad chris62 character . such command of subject! such depth! hahahah

[MOBIUS]

the simple observation is that the palestinians/arabs never stopped targetting civilians as a part of their warfare against Israel , since the 20s.

IIRC Jews lived in peace in Palestine for hundreds of years under the rule of the Ottomans. What changed in the 20’s was the rise in popularity of extreme nationalism in Zionism who wanted to carve their own living space for Jews out of what was already an independent nation.

The whole premise of Zionism is an invasion and take over of another nation’s land! Is it any wonder that some of the local population reacted angrily to hundreds of thousands of the these invaders especially when their express purpose was to set up a Jewish State!!?

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist about my use of the word ’invade’

This is the definition of the word from
The Cambridge Dictionary

invade

verb

to enter (a place) when not wanted, often by using force or in large numbers

Now the Jews were welcome in small numbers as a valued minority group by the Arabs - not hundreds of thousands every year answering a clear doctrine to take over their country!!!

Most of these were illegal immigrants who were breaking the law - and yet for some reason they are seen by many Israelis as pioneering heroes!

So although Israel lionises Jewish illegal immigrants, she refuses the legitimate return of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees back to the in Israel that they fled fom in fear of their lives...

Zionism is an aggressive doctrine - how else can you take over a land for yourself from people who didn't want to be ruled by you?

errm.... so driveby shootings of civilians , mortar attacks and firing on civilian buildings are OK , after all , noone got killed , right ?

Well sorry, they obviously didn't make the news here...

I'd be interested in seeing those links though for the past few weeks so I can get my facts straight.

MOBIUS : I don't accept any quotes from guardian , since it only attacks Israel and doesn't even stop to think whether the palestinians have done something wrong . that is unless you prove me wrong and show me an article proving otherwise.

So all these stories I've been reading about the 5 Israeli boys killed etc are completely untrue? If they're so false, point out their falsehoods - just don't make a blanket generalisation without backing it up!

Besides, even when I quote articles from Ha'aretz (Israeli paper), I still get told by your lot that they're not to be accepted as they're a commie PA sympathising paper or some such...

Best not even mention B'Tselem huh?

Funny how the Guardian regularly wins international awards for it's journalism in the ME - you'd think it was for writing balanced fact based articles wouldn't you...?

I try to approach your statements seriously , but then I realize you simply troll . I have difficulty facing trolls . sorry.

Where's the trolling in the two articles I've used?

WTC: Israel is consistently the US' largest recipient of financial and military aid every year! The reason the US was attacked in this manner and not Israel is that the US is a 'soft target' - Al-Qaeda would never have been able to pull off the same stuff with Israeli airliners! Besides, you want to cut off the support at the source, hence the US is the militant Arab world's no.1 enemy!

I mean that's the reason all these terrorists give for their attacks of the US. Are they lying? Maybe OBL is sore at the US cos he had a MacDonalds that gave him food poisoning?

So, is that a Troll? No.

As for Hamoud being the victim of a rocket attack whilst incarcerated in a Palestinian cell, it happened!!! They didn't just use missiles - they used 1 ton bombs! So the precedent is there for it to happen again!

So, is that a Troll? No, the fact is that you have no argument, so you try to sully my good name by calling me a Troll...

Hey Moby, why should the Jews do squat for a people who have activly tried to kill them for 50+ years?

War criminals....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This stops when the islamics stop killing, and not before.

There speaks the voice of ignorance...

Fine, keep your head in the sand - there's plenty in this post alone to challenge your assumptions on who the aggressors are, the reasons behind why a good number of Israeli PM's past and present could be considered guilty of war crimes and why as the dominant power and occupying force in this conflict, it behooves Israel to be the one that stops the killings and the 'pre-emptive' assassinations...

Never has Eli posted joy over palestinian civilians dying.

Nice try, Siro...

Cyber wasn't talking about civilians, he was talking about the assassinations. Eli's glee over some of these deaths and IDF military strikes has been palpable in the extreme!

While these are clearly 'bad guys' that are dying in the majority of cases, the fact that Eli should derive joy from their deaths is a little troubling to say the least...

quote:

Paikitis, I think it is more like 'another 10 are born'.


Irrelevant.

Irrelevant!!?

No - it's a graphic example of why you don't understand that revenge strikes, assassinations etc is worsening your security and not improving it!

Take the Khmer Rouge - they were just some tiny group of crackpot Marxists (uses that term very loosely!) until the US started bombing the Cambodian countryside indiscriminately and turn the population to them. Next thing you know, they've taken over the country and killed between 1-2 million of their own people!

If someone killed someone in your family and you knew that your only chance of 'justice' was to fight back, would you - or would you just meekly accept it?

You would fight back! So why do you expect the Palestinians to meekly take it?

Unless you know a better way to get the idea that "terror is a good way to promote our goals" out of the palestinian mind.

Yeah, it's called stopping killing them and giving their country back (the occupied territories). Easy really, still can't figure out why you haven't worked that out for yourself...

Assassinations are effective in the mid term. In the short term it causes more anger and lust for retribution. But since the leaders are dead, things don't go well and it lasts for a long time. After half a year or more, a new leader springs about

I'd say those leaders are being replaced as fast as Israel's assassinating them actually - you still haven't figured out that Martyrdom itself is a powerful weapon in the Palestinian arsenal.

And what was ****ing camp david?

THe settlements simply show that Israel wanted a peace deal according to it's own terms, by "setting facts on the ground". True, quite immoral, but everything is subjective.

So you're admitting that Camp David was unfair to the PALS, that's what I like about you - eventually you actually admit these things, that's what keeps me posting!

Still, setting up more houses != Targeting Children and Civilians

Well if you read one of my links in my 1st post you'll find that Palestinian houses were bulldozed only last week I'm thinking that Women and children lived in those...

How would you like it if one day your next door neighbour decided to extend his property by bulldozing your house and stealing your land!!?

Question: Do the Pals get paid compensation for getting their houses bulldozed or are they just left homeless to fend for themselves!?

The simple observation that PA never stopped propoganda and never put a decent lock on terrorists should tell you that they never intended to end hostilities.

No, as I've mentioned earlier, Israel has already bombed prisons it knows to contain militants - to lock these people up would be giving them the death sentence in the face of Israeli assassinations! I don't think so!

What is more corageous?
Targetting little children and civilians (what pals are doing now)
or Stopping violence and starting peace talks (what we hoped pals would do)

The targeting of civilians is unacceptable even if it is a part of a hostile population.

Um, most of the dead Palestinians are actually civilians - like those 5 boys last week for example...

How can you condemn Palestinian atrocities without condemning your own!!?

Fact: More than 4 times as many Palestinians have died as Israelis - most of those civilian!

I said I accept the fact, that since Ariel was the minister of defense, thus commander of the chief of the IDF general staff, he has responsibility over what hapenned, since IDF allowed the phalanges to walk in the camps of Sabra and Shatilla.

However, the massacare that followed was not foreseen and the comitte investigating into it, found Ariel Sharon not guilty of it, as he was proved of not knowing about that massacare until after the fact.

Was it negligence to let the Christian phalanges in? Yes.

Could it been clearly expected? No. Since infact it wasn't expected. Israel, according to foreign sources, trained the phalanges to the level of an army with army codes.

Of course the fact that the Phalange President (Jamayil sp.) had been assassinated the day before had absolutely no bearing on thoughts of revenge when they were invited by the IDF into the camps!!!

Then there's these claims about those that 'disappeared' in the hands of the IDF (see my link in 1st post)...

Either way Sharon had to step down, which IMO is a tacit admission of guilt. Which brings me to the next question - if he was not fit for the job as defence minister, how the hell did he get to become PM!!?

I think the words 'cover' and 'up' spring to mind here - cover ups happen all the time, so why not here...

Is the field commander of the christian phalanges, currently a Minister in the Lebanese Government, as appointed by Syria, guilty of war crimes? Yes

Yes and he should be brought to justice too! So, you're saying it's OK because he did it?

I won't face other Mobiusy claims since they are trolling, and one needs an IQ only of over 60 to see that.

Where's the Trolling? Is Sharon not already under investigation for War Crimes in Belgium?

I like asking this question, so I'll ask it again... "When are we going to see Sharon come to the UK for a state visit?"

The answer is never because he knows he risks be indicted for war crimes!

It's not a Troll - it's a fact!

Another fact is that you refuse to answer my posts because you can't!

So far you've admitted to me that Sharon is guilty of war crimes by proxy, that Begin and Shamir were terrorists and now you've just admitted that Israel's peace 'proposals' were/are blatantly unfair...

Is it any wonder you don't want to answer my posts - or that the pro Israel brigade never answers my really meaty questions such as the ongoing expansion of the Settlements by bulldozing and stealing Palestinian houses and land!!!

C'mon hotshot - gimme all ya got!

I still don't know that german word, btw. Assuming it is a display of your incomprehension of 'context', however, so I won't delve further into it.

Best not to - seeing as he appears to be associating you with a nazi term...

Aggression = bad

Repeating your mantra doesn't prove it. God knows how many times I've told you killing children isn't a good thing.

Seems like Cyber needs to keep repeating it in the vain hope that something that is patently obvious might actually get through to you sometime soon...

Perhaps you should tell Israel about stopping killing children? I'm willing to bet that Israel has killed more women and children than the terrorists since this conflict started...

[Eli]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
The whole premise of Zionism is an invasion and take over of another nation’s land!

Yes, I guess that the Palestinian(and this word got it's modern meaning only after 1967) independant state that was here before the Jews came was conquered.

[Superpopanz]

Fact 1: The UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947).
Fact 2: On 14 May 1948, the UN general-assembly voted for the partition plan and the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the Partition Plan. At the the first day of independence , all surrounding arab states, tribes and groups declared war on Israel with the outspoken intention to "push the 600000 jews back into the sea".
Fact 3: In the following 4 wars, the arabs got their butt wiped in 75%.
Fact 4: The foundation of Israel has been decided by the UN, the arabs didnt accept the solution , waged war and lost. Thus the arabs have also lost ALL moral and official right on their part of the land, END OF STORY!

It is so pitiful to watch the arabs now cry for the UN. Had they accept the solution, everything would be entirely different. They wanted it all, they got nothing. Imagine if Germany wanted East Prussia back! Now they have to take what Israel offers them. If the US withdraws from the game, the palestinians will be wiped off at the next opportunity, bombing, ambush whatever. No sovereign country would take this **** for long, the US is the one who put down the top of the boiling pot for they must stay got with the arab oil. There is no chance for peace. I always thought if Rabin had not been assasinated, they could have done it. This is a MYTH! I spoke with several MODERATE arabs of Jerusalem and Hebron, very warm and friendly people btw, bussiness men, guides, cab driver, family fathers etc. and they UTTERLY destroyed the myth! All what was negotiated and agreed in Oslo and Camp David was ONLY the very first step to those moderate arabs, plain and simple! Whatfor to make compromise, if you know damn well the others will break it anyway. How long can the strongest society follow the path of peace if it gets attacked daily and weekly by terrorists attacks?

All of you "good-human", pacifists, "friends of the underdog", left and right anti-jews and anti-americans, your all hipocrisy makes me SICK! Your utter one-eyedness and ideologic emotionality never let you see both sides of the story, your incapability to understand history and daily reality results ultimately in such a disgusting and flatout dumb-impertinence to ask a democratic country to commit suicid in favour of an archaic , brutal and corrupt society and THIS is what makes the line between your kind and any moderate, balanced and realistic person.
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/46c...2560e5005c1f2b!OpenDocument