babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » IDF kills its own in the west bank

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: IDF kills its own in the west bank
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 March 2003 03:42 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-mideast-shooting.html
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 13 March 2003 03:53 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can't access the article
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 March 2003 04:01 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If it's a registration problem, I know Audra has posted: "babblers" for the name, and "audrarules" for the password.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 13 March 2003 04:15 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ooops

Oh Well Collateral Damage!

There own blood doesn't taste the same.


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 13 March 2003 04:30 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Umm...you're kinda on the extreme side of tasteless when you cheer these sorts of actions/accidents.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 13 March 2003 04:44 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I think it's kind of funny when they explain dead innocent Palestinian children as collateral damage, instead of bloody murder. So, in their face with the whole collateral damage excuse the IDF always uses. But I'm sure these 2 murderers will be a deep regretable loss for the IDF. A national day of mourning.
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 13 March 2003 04:56 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I understand where you're coming from. I don't doubt that these deaths are a direct result of the IDF's mandate of oppression and terror in the Occupied Territories. But cheering the death of the security guards is inappropriate, IMHO.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 13 March 2003 05:03 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I choose the wrong icon
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 13 March 2003 07:01 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, I think it's kind of funny when they explain dead innocent Palestinian children as collateral damage, instead of bloody murder. So, in their face with the whole collateral damage excuse the IDF always uses. But I'm sure these 2 murderers will be a deep regretable loss for the IDF. A national day of mourning.

Those soldiers had families too. Don't belittle their deaths because you do not agree with Israeli government policy.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 13 March 2003 07:07 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just a result of a national policy of "shoot first, id the corpses later". Sad.

Did anyone notice the photo of the vehicle the two were travelling in? I'm no expert, but that looked excessive.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 13 March 2003 07:45 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excessive certainly, but not necessarily a result of the mentality of the IDF personnel involved, but rather the weapon system and methodolgy of war applied.

The helicopter involved was certainly an US made Apache of the AH-64 series.

Judging by the photograph the gunner used the secondary weapons system, the M230 30-mm automatic cannon mounted underneath the helicopter. It is indescriminate, unleashing hundreds of lethal projectiles with the touch of a button. In fact in less than a minute it can release up to 650 rounds. Suffice to say, one burst would have created the damage that you see and there would be nothing that the gunner could have done to prevent it.

Remember, this is the secondary weapons system, so in the parlance of this particullar killing machine the operators were actually being restrained, in that they did not use the Hellfire antitank missiles that are also standard equipment on the AH-64.

I am pointing this out because what it shows is that the entire methodolgy applied by the IDF automatically undermines the ability of IDF soldiers to be restrained or to show compassion for their targets, in this case alledged Palestinian terrorist, torn apart at long range by assailants who had no chance either to identify or to sympathize with their victims.

Such is the manner in which Israel continues to presecute its war against the Palsetinians, and as such one has to ask how many Palestinians have also been misidentified as 'gunmen' by Apache helicopter crews?

[ 13 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 13 March 2003 11:10 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The helicopter involved was certainly an US made Apache of the AH-64 series.

So you were there, Moredreads?

Your continued and persistent justification for terrorist butchery does you no credit, and brings the resolution of this sad situation not one iota closer.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Funk Soul Brother
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3864

posted 14 March 2003 09:26 AM      Profile for Funk Soul Brother     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, since there is such a pro-Palestinian voice let me say...

GO ISREAL.

I hope they crush every last threat.


From: Tugging on your sleeve... | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 March 2003 09:41 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Schizm. Nowhere in Moredreads' post did he say he supported terrorist butchery. Knock it off.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 March 2003 10:13 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Those soldiers had families too. Don't belittle their deaths because you do not agree with Israeli government policy.
Doesn't change the fact that the soldiers are Terrorist Murderers, like Fuck Soul Brother.

quote:
GO ISREAL.

I hope they crush every last threat.



This kind of tone should not be tolerated here on babble.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 14 March 2003 10:30 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think you can generalize like that about IDF soldiers. Some of them are terrorists and murderers, no doubt. But I don't think they all are. I don't think you can generalize to the entire force, especially when it is conscripted. And I don't think we should ever celebrate a death accomplished in this way.

This is very sad. I can only hope it encourages the Israeli government and military to take a hard look at their policies and the true nature of "collateral damage." They may not care when it's just another "dirty Arab," but perhaps they will when the casualties are their own.

quote:
Well, since there is such a pro-Palestinian voice let me say...
GO ISREAL.

I hope they crush every last threat.


Disgusting.

[ 14 March 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Funk Soul Brother
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3864

posted 14 March 2003 10:39 AM      Profile for Funk Soul Brother     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This kind of tone should not be tolerated here on babble.

As opposed to ...

quote:
Ooops
Oh Well Collateral Damage!

There own blood doesn't taste the same.


Don't dish it out unless you can take it.

Aside from the poor grammar, the big grin is very distasteful.

And by 'threat', I don't mean Palestine. There should be some sort of Palestine.

By 'threat', I mean everyone who threatens Israel. I would venture to say that Saddam would not be around if Israel were left to their own devices. Remember the Osirik?

And Smith, spare me the melowdrama.

[ 14 March 2003: Message edited by: Funk Soul Brother ]

[ 14 March 2003: Message edited by: Funk Soul Brother ]


From: Tugging on your sleeve... | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 14 March 2003 11:06 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Don't dish it out unless you can take it.
And you shouldn't lash out if you can't sense that I was being a little sarcastic. I still think that the IDF are blood thirsty murderers like there leader Sharon.

My statement of Collateral damage is meant to show the Irony, how they justify the murders of Palestinian children as "collateral" or an expense of doing business.


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 14 March 2003 11:08 AM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Schizm. Nowhere in Moredreads' post did he say he supported terrorist butchery. Knock it off.

Michelle:

Please note that I did NOT post that Moredreads SUPPORTED terrorist butchery, I posted that he JUSTIFIED terrorist butchery. He has done this repeatedly in other threads, and often SEEMS to be positively gleeful when Israelis are killed, so that he can make points for his side.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 March 2003 11:30 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fine. Take him to task in the other threads where he does this. I'm sick of every thread turning into a pissing match right from the start.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 14 March 2003 12:18 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't want to nit-pick too much, but judging from the report and the photo, the car was attacked with small-weapons fire, not the 30mm chaingun on an Apache. The bullet-holes seem much smaller than 30mm, and a volley of 30mm fire I'd expect to shred a car of that size, especially given that the windscreen is still intact, etc. Also, I dont think the second guard would report "Palestinians disguised as soldiers" if a helicopter was in the initial assault.

From the report cited by the newspaper, infantry soldiers shot up the car, then a gunship killed the second man when he tried to run.

Avoiding all questions of blame, I think B'Tselem has the right of it when they suggest that this calls for a serious rethinking of free-fire-in-the-occupied-territories policy. Again judging from the report, it seems to me that the standard policy of verbal warnings and warning shots was not followed. It remains to be seen whether the official inquiry will place any blame, but judging from past performance they won't, in order to preserve the "rightness" of their current practices.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
LionKeeper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3728

posted 14 March 2003 01:17 PM      Profile for LionKeeper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It’s a policy of shoot first… and only when it’s your own… ask questions!

A prime example of Demoncracy at work, in Israel!

From: The Lion's Den | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 14 March 2003 04:00 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quite right Aroused, I should have read the article more closely. Be that as it may I was trying to underscore, how the methodology of modern war undermines the even the possibility of restraint.

Yes, Schizm, I do not justify the attacks against Israel by Palestinians militants, I support the activities of Palestinians militants. Frankly in a conflict in which both sides have clearly shorn themselves of any respect for civilians, I can only judge the conflict in political, not moral, terms. Certainly, any loss of life is reprehensible, even that of soldiers, I see no value in making such arbititrary a priori value judgement about life, where a soldiers lilfe is somehow less valuable than a civilian.

Really, when we are talking about soldiers we are talking about young adults who are mostly not even a year or two beyond childhood -- this is the fodder of modern war. I find it amazing that you can steep yourself in such mythical and completely arbitrary value judgements about life. In my mind, they can only be self serving as they are patently illogical.

Frankly, I find the use of the term 'terrorist,' to be an interesting exercise in 'double think.' Herein the term terrroist applies only to those who attack Israeli civilians, whereas members of the IDF who kill Palestinian civilians are identified as soldiers, and somehow therefore exempt from criminality.

In the end it is obvious that Israel is the invader, and in that light it is also obvious that the resistance is correct.

[ 14 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 14 March 2003 09:37 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder how people can justify labelling Israelis as murderous terrorists, but then condemn the same thing when it comes to Palestinian terrorists.
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 14 March 2003 10:03 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Noting that the means through which Israel works as a military machine are not subtle is meant to counteract propoganda to the contrary. Why do this? Because there is an untruth being perpetarted here. That untruth is that somehow Israel's means of fighing this war are more humane than the means through which Palestinian militants conduct their side of the war.

The rules of the game are not very nice on either side. Objectively on a humanitatian level, one should reject both. But, given that there is a war on, and neither side is being subtle or adhereing to any very high standards of what would be called the ethics of warfare, one has to look elsewhere when trying to determine which side is right.

I choose to look at the root political causes of the conflict. The essence of this conflict is the occupation and continued settlement of Arab land, therefore I condemn Israel's territorial expansion while ignoring the actual means of the conflict on both sides. War has never been fought in a civilized manner, anyone who tries to attach such ideas to warfare is ignorant of how it is practiced.

So no I don't condemn Israel's means of prosecuting the war but the puropse for which the war is fought, while noting that there is nothing particularly humane in Israel's means of war fighting to distinguish it from the 'means' of their opponents. Given that Israel is in the wrong (as the invader and occupier) I can not justify its atrocities, whereas the Palestinian atrocities are understandable in the context of what is primarily a defensive war.

The 'morality' of Israel's case will always be questionable as long as Israel occupies land that does not belong to it, it is an incotrovertible fact. I might think differently were Israel to withdraw and Palestinians were allowed to govern themselves without interference from Israel. But that is not the case.

And no, I do not think that the Palestinians abrogated that right by instigating the latest Intifada because Israel's expansion of settlements during the Oslo accords were in direct contradiction to both the spirit and the letter of the agreement.

A good example of this is the water usage rights. Oslo specifified that water usage would be maintained at the same level throughout the post-signing negotiation period. Expanded settlment meant increased water usage, etc, therefore Israel broke the letter of the agreement, as well as engaged in activity that was provocative -- building.

An insignificant detail? Perhaps, but much of this conflict comes down to some very specific day to day conflicts between people, and in the dry lands of the WB water is a critical commodity. No, this information does not get a lot of play in the western press. I mean: why write about the 'dry' details of nitty-gritty legal disputes when you have a suicide bombing to cover, but I guarantee you that this information I am giving you is correct.

If you choose you can look up the Oslo agreement on-line and see for yourself.

[ 14 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 14 March 2003 10:57 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes but the thing is, that the land is currently within Israeli borders. How can Palestinian terrotists be justified? Thats like saying I should be able to go back to my country of ancestry and fight the government there because a long time ago they took over my country and therefore I have some right to land there.

I don't think so.

quote:
The 'morality' of Israel's case will always be questionable as long as Israel occupies land that does not belong to it, it is an incotrovertible fact. I might think differently were Israel to withdraw and Palestinians were allowed to govern themselves without interference from Israel. But that is not the case.

Israel's non-entitlement to the land is not incontrevertable. And to what point must Israel withdraw? Don't you realize that the Palestinian terrorists will not stop until they have destroyed Israel completely?

quote:
That untruth is that somehow Israel's means of fighing this war are more humane than the means through which Palestinian militants conduct their side of the war.

So there is no difference between targeting civilians and targeting militants?


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 14 March 2003 11:21 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have no reason to doubt your interpretation of the Oslo Accords, or Israel's actions subsequent to them. Year after year, Israel builds more settlements, and that is still ongoing. The longer the latest intifada lasts, the more settlements will be built, and the less chance there will be that Israel will give up territory. By prolonging the intifada, the terrorists are reducing the chances of the legitimate Palestinian interests achieving their objectives. They are, in fact, fighting against the aspirations of their own people for independence and a normal life.

quote:
Given that Israel is in the wrong (as the invader and occupier) I can not justify its atrocities, whereas the Palestinian atrocities are understandable in the context of what is primarily a defensive war.
[Moredreads]

quote:
 I do not justify the attacks against Israel by Palestinians militants, I support
the activities of Palestinians militants.

[Moredreads]

I guess it's just a matter of degree and judgement. If a person, in their infinite wisdom, decides that one side is in the wrong and the other side is in the right, then that person can arbitrarily decide that blowing up a bus with dozens of innocent civilians in it is supportable.
In that context, for those who are calling Americans 'bastards' and warmongers, then 911 was perfectly justifiable; that is, a legitimate expression of national (religious, economic, social, _________ ) outrage. I imagine that such people will then support poison gas or biological agents being used by the Iraqis on U.S. troops in self-defence. Are there no limits to what people are willing to support as long as their chosen side is the one employing those means?


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 15 March 2003 12:23 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe that 9/11 and attacks by Palestinian militants are entirely two different things. partly, this is because the causual realtionships between violence and the occupation are clear, whereas 9/11 was inspired by abstract ideological goals, primarily to do with Islamic fundamentalism.

More to the point you have again made this unsustainable assertion:

quote:
Year after year, Israel builds more settlements, and that is still ongoing. The longer the latest intifada lasts, the more settlements will be built, and the less chance there will be that Israel will give up territory.

Correctly, you have pointed out thay Israeli settlement persists, as has been the case for years, yet you try and establish a link between setlement building and Palsetinians actions. Your statement suggests that if Palestinians stop sucide bombing, then Israel will stop settlement building. You can not show a link. I think I have asked this question of you more than once now, yet you can not show me, nor the Palestinians, that settlement building is linked to Palestinian actions. Israel builds settlements, whether Palestinians are blowing themselves up or not, that is the facts.

Why perists in asserting something that is patently untrue?

Again, before 1987 there was no sucide bombing, yet Israel built settlments, during the 'Oslo years,' when there was relative peace, Israel built settlements, and on and on. Israel has yet to do the one thing that would seriously affect Palestinian feeling, and that is put a moratorium on settlement building. Such a moratorium has been well within the grasp of every single Israeli government since 1967, yet none have done so, therefore the position that Israel has ever seriously undertaken the peace process in real terms is entirely unsuportable.

quote:
Israel's non-entitlement to the land is not incontrevertable. And to what point must Israel withdraw? Don't you realize that the Palestinian terrorists will not stop until they have destroyed Israel completely?

It must withdraw to the 1967 border as per UN resolution 242.

The fact that terrorism for all practicable purposes ceased during the period of Oslo negotiations completely undermines the fundamental tenent of your assertion "...that will not stop until they have destroyed Israel completely." In the same vein since the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, Hizbolah has more or less contained itself to vague nationalist mutterings from the safety of their elected offices in the Labanese parliment.

quote:
So there is no difference between targeting civilians and targeting militants?

Not if the means used to target those militants almost automatically end up with collateral damage. Things such a rocket attacks into crowded Casbahs and blowing up a block of flats to get one alledged terrorist can hardly be considered selective targetting. As well, the target selection process would seem to be suspect based on the article used to begin this thread.

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 15 March 2003 01:01 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But why shouldn't Israel build settlements? It is offcially their teritory, whether or not this SHOULD be the case is debatable, but the fact remains that that land is contained in the recognized borders of Israel.
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 15 March 2003 01:50 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No it is not officially their territory. Geeze, even Israeli maps don't signify it as such. Nor does the UN. In fact the UN a specifically identified the WB and Gaza as not beloning to Israel, as per resolution 242. It was taken from the Arabs in 1967. Unless of course you believe in the right of conquest, in which case lets throw out all the nicities that you like to cloak your arguements in, things like international law.

Is that your intention? If it is then you have spent the best part of this thread arguing for legalities you don't actually believe in (except of course when they support the side that you choose to support.) International law, not only defines borders and the relationship between peoples and states but also includes concepts such as the inviolability of civilians in wartime. Something that, I note, you spend a lot of time talking about.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry.

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 15 March 2003 12:50 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I believe that 9/11 and attacks by Palestinian militants are entirely two different things. partly, this is because the causual realtionships between violence and the occupation are clear, whereas 9/11 was inspired by abstract ideological goals, primarily to do with Islamic
fundamentalism.

I agree. I only brought up the 911 attacks as a point of comparison for the many and various reasons for disparate groups' justifications for their particular brand of terrorism. You reinforced my point.

quote:
Correctly, you have pointed out thay Israeli settlement persists, as has been the case for years, yet you try and establish a link between setlement building and Palsetinians actions. Your statement suggests that if Palestinians stop sucide bombing, then Israel will stop settlement building. You can not show a link. I think I have asked this question of you
more than once now, yet you can not show me, nor the Palestinians, that settlement
building is linked to Palestinian actions. Israel builds settlements, whether Palestinians are
blowing themselves up or not, that is the facts.

Why perists in asserting something that is patently untrue?


Why; because you say so? I was pointing out that, as long as there is no peace agreement, there is no incentive for Israel to stop building settlements, and that the more settlements there are, the less land the Israelis will be willing to return. The longer the terrorists prolong the conflict, the less bargaining power the Palestinians have, and the less they stand to gain. I'm saying that the terrorist attacks are counterproductive and against the interests of ordinary Palestinians. The terrorists operate in their own little world, with their own agenda and their own interests. Anyone who supports Palestinian aspirations and interests would recognize that. And "that is the facts".

quote:
You can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry.

Yes I can!

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: schizm ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 15 March 2003 01:42 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I agree. I only brought up the 911 attacks as a point of comparison for the many and various reasons for disparate groups' justifications for their particular brand of terrorism. You reinforced my point.

And my point was that both sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians are commiting war crimes against each other, and that it is impossible to build a moral case against one side or the other based on their method of fighting. On the other hand Israel occupies land that does not belong to it, and on that basis it is possible to build a moral case against Israel as it is the invader and occupier.

And I am saying that there is no evidence that lack of militant activity deters Israeli settlement. In fact Israel took the opportunity of the Oslo detente to increase settlement construction. The prima facie case is that lack of militant activity encourages Israeli encroachment, not the other way around.

Ergo, you have no evidence to support your case and no cake.

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 15 March 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The prima facie case is that lack of militant activity encourages Israeli encroachment, not the other way around.

Ergo, you have no evidence to support your case and no cake.


And the increase in militant activity discourages it? I don't think so! The result of two years of the intifida has been nothing but increased suffering for both sides, especially for the Palestinians, and the aspirations of the Palestinian people have been made subordinate to the goals of terrorist groups.

The only rational solution for both sides is for militant activity to cease, and for a peace agreement, possibly brokered by outside agencies, to take hold. That way everyone gets cake (even me!).

[ 15 March 2003: Message edited by: schizm ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 15 March 2003 03:24 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes it does discourage it. It makes it expensive and embarrassing.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 15 March 2003 06:52 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes it does discourage it. It makes it expensive and embarrassing.

Yet it continues apace, and the Palestinians lose and lose and lose, thanks to the "help" they're getting from the terrorists.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 15 March 2003 07:29 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You just don't get it do you. Where is the link? I'll tell you were it is: It is in your head. There is not a link. It does not matter what Palestinians do the Israelis will continue to build settlements.

Give me one piece of evidence to suggest that Palestinian pacifism instigates the 'good will' of Israel?

You make a moral argument about terrorism, yet fail to make a moral distinction about invasion and occupation.

Your position is hypocritical because you ask for Palestinians to mitigate their behaviour yet do not ask Israel to do the same by ceasing settlement construction.

But I guess you just can't wrap your head around any of that.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 15 March 2003 09:23 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your position is hypocritical because you ask for Palestinians to mitigate their behaviour yet do not ask Israel to do the same by ceasing settlement construction.

The unfortunate reality is that Israel will not give an inch until the terrorist attacks stop. Why can't you comprehend that the terrorists do NOT have the interests of the Palestinian people in mind. As long as they can accept funding from foreign dictators, and send innocent and gullible youngsters to their deaths, they have absolutely no incentive to stop. The madness will continue until Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other terrorist groups are recognized for what they are by ordinary Palestinians.

To bring some perspective to my views, I'm Jewish, and my son converted to Islam in order to marry a dear, sweet Muslim girl whose parents support the PLO. I have a great deal of empathy and compassion for the plight of the Palestinian people, but none whatsoever for the cowardly Palestinian butchers and their supporters. Wrap that around your head!


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 15 March 2003 10:07 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

May I take a moment and point out that I am once again a sad panda?

*sigh* When will the Israelis and Palestinians not kill each other?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 16 March 2003 12:42 AM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doc:

Thanks for NOT choosing the panda with the swastika cap.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 16 March 2003 12:47 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The unfortunate reality is that Israel will not give an inch until the terrorist attacks stop.

Well then your cause is lost because Palestinians will continue to resist until they are enfranchised within their own lands, as is their right.

Ending resistance is is not necessarily even something that is within the control of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any number of Palestininian political organizations. Even if all of those existent rejected militant action and prohibited sucide bombings, and yet the occupation persisted, a new group would form as a vehicle for resistance and the process would begin again.

Israel, on the other hand has complete control over the process of settlement building and could put and end to it by (a) ending funding for it and by (b) prohibiting the IDF from defending new settlements.

[ 16 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012

posted 16 March 2003 01:03 AM      Profile for Flowers By Irene     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, Doc, the Sun is expected to go red giant and swallow the earth in a couple billion years... I mean I hope we can find peace before then, but at the current pace...
From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 16 March 2003 03:29 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In the end dear Schizm it is you who proves the point that it is Israeli intransigence that is the key stumbling block to peace, when you say: "The unfortunate reality is that Israel will not give an inch until the terrorist attacks stop." This is exactly true, it is pure defiance, and not the language of peace or negotiation. Phrases like "will not give an inch," and such are the language of war and tyranny, not compromise.

Is that the best that you and Israel can do for a peace process?

[ 16 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 16 March 2003 12:46 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well then your cause is lost because Palestinians will continue to resist until they are enfranchised within their own
lands, as is their right.

Are you authorized to speak for the Palestinians? Have you discounted their capacity to finally recognize the fact that the terrorist groups are acting against their best interests, and to turn on them? How readily you denigrate their intelligence.

quote:
Ending resistance is is not necessarily even something that is within the control of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any
number of Palestininian political organizations. Even if all of those existent rejected militant action and prohibited
sucide bombings, and yet the occupation persisted, a new group would form as a vehicle for resistance and the
process would begin again.

Again you take it upon yourself to speak for the Palestinian people. A new group would only be likely to form if Israel and Palestine fail to come to some agreement. I think (IMO) that this would be unlikely, given the mutually destructive result of the present standoff.

quote:
In the end dear Schizm it is you who proves the point that it is Israeli intransigence that is the key stumbling
block to peace, when you say: "The unfortunate reality is that Israel will not give an inch until the terrorist
attacks stop." This is exactly true, it is pure defiance, and not the language of peace or negotiation. Phrases
like "will not give an inch," and such are the language of war and tyranny, not compromise.

I can't disagree with you there, but compare that with language like "No Israeli is safe" and "We will avenge these deaths" and "Death to Israel" and on and on and on. It is pure defiance, and not the language of peace or negotiation.This is the language of war and terrorism, not compromise.
Get the point?

Is that the best that you and Palestine can do for a peace process?


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 16 March 2003 03:44 PM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are you authorized to speak for the Palestinians? Have you discounted their capacity to finally recognize the fact that the terrorist groups are acting against their best interests, and to turn on them? How readily you denigrate their intelligence.

Well, we've already heard that Israel "will not give an inch" until the bombings stop. And yet, there must be Israelis who recognize that violence breeds violence. Do you think the Israelis are too stupid to recognize this and turn on the Butcher of Baghdad?

quote:

I can't disagree with you there, but compare that with language like "No Israeli is safe" and "We will avenge these deaths" and "Death to Israel" and on and on and on. It is pure defiance, and not the language of peace or negotiation.This is the language of war and terrorism, not compromise.
Get the point?

Yes. Palestine bad. Israel bad. Everybody bad. Nobody stops. Everybody dies.

In a moral stalemate like that, I choose to put more responsibility on the invading party, the party with the organized military, the "democracy," and the First World GDP.


From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 16 March 2003 06:49 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, we've already heard that Israel "will not give an inch" until the bombings stop. And yet, there must be Israelis who recognize that violence breeds violence. Do you think the Israelis are too stupid to recognize this and turn on the Butcher of Baghdad?

I would hope that they'd support a war against Saddam, who is complicit in financing the atrocities committed by Hamas and their ilk.

Of course there are Israelis who recognize that violence breeds violence, and express that publically, but Israelis are the ones who are being attacked by terrorists whose avowed aim is to kill them all. If I were over there, I would not be willing to cease to defend myself against a fanatical foe who continues to vow to destroy me, and is continually vowing revenge.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 16 March 2003 09:47 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, Palestinians can justify ongoing war against those who harbour the likes of Baruch Goldstien, and the still very active, yet underground, Kach party, all implacable foes who are vowed to destroy or remove the Arab popualtions of the WB. Well no, they do not represent the Israeli state, as Hamas does not represent the PA.

However, it is not just the Kach Party that vows 'not to give an inch,' but the elected representatives of Likud in the Knesset. Meanwhile, Arafat, continually asks for truces, condemns suicide attacks and a ask for negotiated peace.

Very convenient to quote a few outcast martyrs, and try and establish them as the voice of Palestine, and then justify the hard line policies of Sharon on that basis, while condemning those who call for peace as irrelvant and demanding their removal from positions of influence.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 09:58 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Arafat also supports terorrisim was a terorrist in the past the Israelis gave him a couple chances to change his path but he still wants his cake and to eat it too. I believe that the Hamas and all those other teroorist orginzations are not the true voice of palistinians but I don't think Arafat is either.

And you know what the Isreali goverment has flip flopped many times in the last 10 years. The day Rabin died was the one of the saddest days my life and I still oppose likud. I'd rather labour anyday but it seems as if the palistinians don't perfer labour. In short I think they are just as much to blame for getting sharon elected as the Israeli's are. I know Barak's deal was far from perfect yet it was more then anyone willing to offer before and they could have continude to negotiate from there no one said it had to be the end but they decided to go back to violence instead not the Israeli's. how do you excuse that?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 16 March 2003 10:08 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How can you excuse Sabra and Shatila -- the man should be in jail not in office.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 March 2003 10:19 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Same way some excuse sucide bombing it was the fanatic Christians in south Lebanon that did it Sharon should have known and thats what he is guilty of indefernce. Same as Arafat should be reponsible for sucide bomings.

Basically I don't I never have supported sharon and never will. The question is whose fault is it realy?

[ 16 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 17 March 2003 03:17 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The panda is still sad, people.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
schizm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3817

posted 17 March 2003 02:21 PM      Profile for schizm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The panda is still sad, people.

Unfortunately, the panda ain't seen nothing yet! Break out the Valium.


From: Ontario | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca