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.