UN Slams Israel's killings of civillians - Only USA not in favour of vote.

[Ming]

You will continue to see what you want. But answer this question.

Isn't peace a better goal... or do you think that sucide bombing is the only answer.

And obviously... while you may claim it's working, please provide proof that it really is. The facts are against you.
People are dying... and it's only getting worse. If this is success in you eyes... They are no closer to peace... no closer to having their own homeland... and nobody seems to be coming to their aid, not even their own Arab brothers... success... hardly. Some would call it defeat.

[Jamski]

Of course peace is the better goal.

Peace will only come about by international and domestic pressure forcing Israel to back down.

Of course they are combatants, they became combatants as soon as they fired that rifle or carried that bomb.

No they don't. Buy a dictionary.

-Jam

[Pax]

I'm sure that a lot of palestinians want Isreal to be destroyed. I'm also sure that the number of Palestinians and Arabs who want Isreal destroy will increase at an uncontrollable rate as long as Isreal continues to subjugate the Palestinians and their lands.
The brilliant concept of winning the hearts and minds of the opposition can only work when you give the enemy a reason not to hate you vice giving them a reason to hate you.
I would love for the Palestinians to stop suicide bombings and killing Isreali children. I mourn for the Isreali dead.
I abhor the things that the Jewish people have suffered. I wish them peace with their fellow neighbors. I agree that they have every right to defend themselves and take steps to ensure their continued existence.
When the state of Isreal returned the Sinai pennisula back to the Egyptians I saw this as a sign that Isreal truly wanted peace. When they kept the Golan Heights I understood that they did not want to give Syria a strong position of attack. However on the issue of Palestine, the Isreali's are wrong. They seem to have no intention of giving the land back. They make incredible demands. They ask the PLO to renounce their only means of fighting back. They do renounce their means of fighting. They actually attempt to divide the Palestinian people.
The method I would use is to give the Palestinians their land back with the provision that they not allow any Arab foreign troops inside. Provide economic and rebuilding assistance on the basis that this assistance will be withdrawn based on "terrorist" activity. If I was Isreal I would call for U.N. troops to police the Gaza strip and West bank until the Palestinians had gained stability. That way any military actions carried out could not be blaimed on Isreal. Jerusalem is the most touchy point of the argument. I would make Jerusalem a city neutral of Isreal or Arabs. Governed equally by both security provided by the U.N.
Most people say the U.N. would be impotent. That the U.N. is good for nothing. I say make the U.N. work if that's the case. If it will ease the Isreali security concerns to have a military presence in Palestinian territory let it be the U.N. and not the Isreali's.
Of course, this plan sounds stupid or crazy but the present plan obviously does not work. So any plan is probably better. I would like to hear someone else come up with a plan instead of the status quo.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jamski


And the killing goes on right as we type.

This is what Dino, Monk, Ming et al, are supporting. The independant Palastinian organisation strikes back by targeting soldiers. The Israelis kill children.

-Jam

Please point out where I have supported these actions.
I have continued to say that BOTH sides are at fault.

And I won't bother posting the hundreds of news stories about innocent people dying from suicide bombers... actions that you ARE suppporting.

You are the one supporting killing children... I have never done so.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ming
You will continue to see what you want. But answer this question.

Isn't peace a better goal... or do you think that sucide bombing is the only answer.

And obviously... while you may claim it's working, please provide proof that it really is. The facts are against you.
People are dying... and it's only getting worse. If this is success in you eyes... They are no closer to peace... no closer to having their own homeland... and nobody seems to be coming to their aid, not even their own Arab brothers... success... hardly. Some would call it defeat.

according to Zevico or Syro the Isrealis are losing.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Actually, they're citizens of Jordan, if anything.

Actually, the Israelis are citizens of America, if anything.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
according to Zevico or Syro the Isrealis are losing.

And what exactly has world opinion gotten the Pals yet.

Do they have a homeland...
Are living conditions getting better...
have people stopped dying...
Are they any closer to having this all end...

While the Isrealis may be losing the battle of world opinon... the Pals conditions only continue to get worse... Who are the real lossers here...

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Ming
and nobody seems to be coming to their aid, not even their own Arab brothers... success... hardly. Some would call it defeat.

Why would the other Arabs want to help them as long as there is a ready supply of willing palastinians ready to blow themselves up. From the Arab standpoint, its a win win proposition. Isreal is attacked and they don't have to actually put themselves on the line.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Jamski
Of course peace is the better goal.

Peace will only come about by international and domestic pressure forcing Israel to back down.



No they don't. Buy a dictionary.

-Jam

Illegal combatant (also unlawful combatant) is a term that has been introduced in some countries to refer to a person who carries arms or engages in warlike acts (known as a Enemy combatant) in alleged violation of the laws of war. Such a person is not necessarily considered a lawful combatant and therefore is not necessarily accorded the rights of a prisoner of war (POW).
The term was first introduced in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):


"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

http://www.free-definition.com/Illegal-combatant.html

[Jamski]

Thanks for proving my point for me Monk

Since there is no war, there are no unlawful combatants.

-Jam

[Ming]

So Jamski... it seems like your whole point can be summed up with:

Pals can kill, and they should... and it's good.
Israel can't kill, and they shouldn't, and it's bad.

A pretty fair perspective you have

How about both sides are wrong and need to talk peace... or is that too logical

[The Mad Monk]

or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property

What are they coming through for? The knishes, perhaps?

[Jamski]

So Jamski... it seems like your whole point can be summed up with:

Pals can kill, and they should... and it's good.
Israel can't kill, and they shouldn't, and it's bad.

No.

More like :

Pals can kill, not effectivly - but they try, and its bad.
Israelis can kill, ver effectively, and its very bad.

But my actual point is - Israel is illegally occupying another coutry and should get the hell out. If they get suicide bombed after sending in tanks and 'copters - then what did they expect? Everyone should be allowed to defend themself.

-Jam

[Jamski]

How about both sides are wrong and need to talk peace... or is that too logical

If I'm in your house with a gun, and I tell you what to do. Maybe I shoot your kid, and say that your house should belong to me, and you try to punch me, does that mean we are equally in the wrong?

-Jam

[Ming]

Originally posted by Jamski
Everyone should be allowed to defend themself.

Gee... your point seem to be that Pals can defend themselves, but the Israelis can't... not everyone as you so claim.

And you analogy is funny at best.

You are advocating violence... which hasn't worked.
I'm advocating peace and talks... Again, I'll let rational people decide which is right.