Car Bomb in Jerusalem - Tens of casualties

[Natan]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
how can you study that nightmare by yourself?? Arabic is a nightmare. And I know hebrew, russian, english and some german as well.

To me, German is a nightmare because the grammar is complicated and the whole language consists of rearranging a few prefixes and suffixes around guttural verbs to create monstrously long sentences. Hebrew, lehavdil, seems weird to me because I learned hebrew from reading the tanach in school, and the modern language has all sorts of weird new weirds, half of which mean three different and unrelated things. Arabic's not so terrible though, because the grammar is like hebrew, the words are related, and the patterns of meaning make some sense. My one real complaint is that it's impossible to tell whether you have an 'af'al, fa''al, or f'al verb when it's written conjugated, and the three can have quite different meanings. That and that the langauge is unpronouncable.

[Tom201]

Some comments from me to the last couple of month in the israel-palastines conflict:
1. the intifada started after a clear provocation from sharon
2. During this intifada far more palastins (if I got the numbers right about 5times as much) causalities than israeli
3. Israel destroyed on purpose the airport, a radiostation and other civil objects that were build with EU money (u can these actions only explain with israels intend for further provocation and humiliation of the palastins)
6. People acused of being criminal (terrorists), dont get judged by some court, they just get killed. This means Israel is far away from a state in which Law counts (at least not for palastins)
5. On atacks on so called terrorists (there is never any evidence of this shown to the public) often other people died that just happend to be around (like kids playing on the street...)
6. After terror acts in israel, there are often bombings on police stations. On the intend that they should have prevented this from happening. But they are random targets, no evidence that they knew of this particular terror.
7. Palastins are taken therefor in collective guild (we just atack some palastins, when we are lucky we maybe hit the right persons...).
8. Humiliating of their leader in many situations, latest example: Israel gives orders where he is allowed to walk or if he is allowed to leave the city...


Of course there are reasons for this (the suicide bombers). But Israel goes too far with their actions. Actually doing far more damage than their enemys. I would call that state terrorism. Which I judge worse than individuell terrorism.
2. Israel dont get any positiv results with this. Even not when u only count what happens on the israeli site, cose their actions provoke more suicide bombers. Things are getting worse since their heavy counter atacks (which I would say is just some logical action-reaction issue. Violence provokes counter Violence.)


I wonder how the Israel ppl. think the conflict gonna end? Fight on till all palastins are dead?


Just my 0.02$

[Natan]

Originally posted by Tom201
Some comments from me to the last couple of month in the israel-palastines conflict:
1. the intifada started after a clear provocation from sharon

1) I don't think his walking in the wrong place explains 18 monthes of killing.
2) The drafters of the Mitchell report agree with me on that
3) I think Arafat's encouragement of the Intifada was more important.

2. During this intifada far more palastins (if I got the numbers right about 5times as much) causalities than israeli

More like three times.

3. Israel destroyed on purpose the airport, a radiostation and other civil objects that were build with EU money (u can these actions only explain with israels intend for further provocation and humiliation of the palastins)

The airport was not really "civil," it was only used by Arafat. And the radiostation was a center for incitement. NATO forces bombed Serbian radio stations in Serbia, was it intended to provoke and humiliate the Serbs?

6. People acused of being criminal (terrorists), dont get judged by some court, they just get killed. This means Israel is far away from a state in which Law counts (at least not for palastins)

Same could be said of America after what we did to Mohammed Atef.

6. After terror acts in israel, there are often bombings on police stations. On the intend that they should have prevented this from happening. But they are random targets, no evidence that they knew of this particular terror.

I actually agree on this one, bombing the police stations is senseless 90% of the time.

I wonder how the Israel ppl. think the conflict gonna end? Fight on till all palastins are dead?

Probably fight on until the Palestinians are ready to make peace and accept Israel's existence.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Natan
The airport was not really "civil," it was only used by Arafat. And the radiostation was a center for incitement. NATO forces bombed Serbian radio stations in Serbia, was it intended to provoke and humiliate the Serbs?

Well at least the Israelis says so about the radiostation. Im sure they didnt reported much in favor of Israel, just like Israel media dont report stuff in favor of the palastinians. I watched a documentary on Arte a few days after they blow up that radiostation. The report was about this station and what they sended and so on. The report was about 90min, over 2 weeks they followed the jounalists from the radiostation around. last scenes were the radiostation gets blown up.
Arte is very good on info I think. U get the most neutral info u can get on any channel I know. (Couples of Days bevor there were a Documentary about the terror acts, and they were following Israel soldiers "at the front line" around).
From what I have seen in this Documentary I would say that this radiosender was far away from being radical.

Originally posted by Natan
Same could be said of America after what we did to Mohammed Atef.

Well I agree that America dont acts always in what u would consider Law...

[Natan]

Originally posted by Tom201
Well at least the Israelis says so about the radiostation. Im sure they didnt reported much in favor of Israel, just like Israel media dont report stuff in favor of the palastinians. I watched a documentary on Arte a few days after they blow up that radiostation. The report was about this station and what they sended and so on. The report was about 90min, over 2 weeks they followed the jounalists from the radiostation around. last scenes were the radiostation gets blown up.
Arte is very good on info I think. U get the most neutral info u can get on any channel I know. (Couples of Days bevor there were a Documentary about the terror acts, and they were following Israel soldiers "at the front line" around).
From what I have seen in this Documentary I would say that this radiosender was far away from being radical.

Palestinian television is constantly broadcasting "sermons" with lines such as "blessed is whoever sticks a bullet in a Jew's head." Maybe it's not a good idea to blow up the TV stations despite this, but I can hardly consider the demolition (it was done on the ground with explosive charges, no air attack with risk of civillian casualties) of a government-owned radio station to be a serious issue in the region. It's like complaining about pick-pocketing in Gujarat.

[Natan]

Well, the BBC is distorting the news again, surprise surprise

This just in from the BBC: Ultra-Orthodox Jews are the fiercest opponents of peace with the Palestinians. I guess that's why their parties voted for the Oslo accords and participated in the Barak governmen. I suppose their insistence that all of the West Bank belongs to Israel, reported by the BBC, is confirmed by the support of the concept of land for peace by rabbis Bakshi Doron (Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel), Ovadia Yosef (head of the largest religious party), and Moshe Gafni, the head of the second Ultra-Orthodox party.

edit: link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1851515.stm

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Tom201
Some comments from me to the last couple of month in the israel-palastines conflict:
1. the intifada started after a clear provocation from sharon

I disagree.
The intifada infact started several days before, only wasn't as big.

They used his visit as a pre-text to increase it's strength.

Israel is a free country. Arafat visited temple mount many times, and so did Sharon, before.

Plus, both intelligence evidence and exclamations by palestinian minister quoted in arab newspapers support the theory that the intifada was planned since Camp David, incase it would fail.

Infact, i remember analysts saying that if camp david fails, the pals will start another intifada.

2. During this intifada far more palastins (if I got the numbers right about 5times as much) causalities than israeli

that's result, not intent.

still, about 80% were not innocent but rather militants.

3. Israel destroyed on purpose the airport, a radiostation and other civil objects that were build with EU money (u can these actions only explain with israels intend for further provocation and humiliation of the palastins)

the airport were used only by arafat. it is known that he used his helicopters to transfer terrorists to other arab countries, and it is suspected he moved weapons too.

the radiostation, just as the TV carried encitement.
You know that muhamed el-durah was later featured in a commercial, talking from heaven and calling kids to "join him in heaven"?

6. People acused of being criminal (terrorists), dont get judged by some court, they just get killed. This means Israel is far away from a state in which Law counts (at least not for palastins)

Not true.

Those who we can catch are being interrogated and tried. Only they don't get coverage by international media.

For instance, on tuesday a terrorist was captured in Haifa. He will be tried.

also, many terrorists were captured in incursions. they will be tried as well.

We assassinate only when we can't stop them using other means.

5. On atacks on so called terrorists (there is never any evidence of this shown to the public) often other people died that just happend to be around (like kids playing on the street...)

This is unfortunate and happens in every war.

Israel tries to avoid it, but fails alot.

6. After terror acts in israel, there are often bombings on police stations. On the intend that they should have prevented this from happening. But they are random targets, no evidence that they knew of this particular terror.

Yes, there are evidence. Not all evidence is released to CNN though.

But I agree, that most police stations are bombed out of general intention, and not following specific knowledge that this specific station didn't do something.

It's more of a signal.

Plus they are mostly empty by the time IDF choppers get there.

7. Palastins are taken therefor in collective guild (we just atack some palastins, when we are lucky we maybe hit the right persons...).

Incorrect.

Israel has widespread intelligence information.

while we may often accidently hit the wrong people, we do know who we are aiming for.

8. Humiliating of their leader in many situations, latest example: Israel gives orders where he is allowed to walk or if he is allowed to leave the city...

It's not made to humiliate him, but to pressure him.
He knew about terrorist's intentions and did nothing.
He only ordered more weapons to give out to them.
In fall of 2000 he released hundreds of terrorists from jail.

Of course there are reasons for this (the suicide bombers). But Israel goes too far with their actions. Actually doing far more damage than their enemys. I would call that state terrorism. Which I judge worse than individuell terrorism.

I agree that our damage is more widespread.

However, it is war.

Our goal is to hurt the terrorists.

We don't simply "retaliate" to show we are angry.

2. Israel dont get any positiv results with this. Even not when u only count what happens on the israeli site, cose their actions provoke more suicide bombers.

action provoces suicide bombers,
inaction doesn't stop them.

I agree that it's hard to get results.

If you have good suggestions, post them. We were trying to discuss possible solutions the other day.

Things are getting worse since their heavy counter atacks (which I would say is just some logical action-reaction issue. Violence provokes counter Violence.)

inaction gives violent people the idea they can use violence.
see europe caving in before hitler in the 30s.

If we don't counter attack, they think they can get away with it.

It was proven by experience that when we do very serious retaliations, though they tend to "reply", we don't see terror at the same force.

For instance, until this week, palestinians haven't fired at Gilo, ever since Israel invaded Gilo and said it wouldn't leave until they promise to behave.

That was several months ago.

I wonder how the Israel ppl. think the conflict gonna end? Fight on till all palastins are dead?

If that is needed - yes.

I would prefer they simply decide to stop terror, put terrorists in jail, and return to peace talks, like prior to september 2000.

Just my 0.02$

I'd like to thank you for taking the time to put them so well and in such a nice manner.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Innocent man loving Saddam Hussein? Is he gay?

you know what i meant

you claim bush is worse than him.
you claim iraqis are more free than americans.

all the little revisionist claims you made.

Those things are not so clear-cut as you seem to believe. Haider at least pretends to be philo-semitic; and one of his party leaders is Jewish. (Both in cartoon below)

He does pretend.
And for that reason it is stupid for israel to cut ties with him.
To ordinary people, that looks as if we were over reacting.

We should catch his words, and then present him as who he probably is.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Tom201
Well at least the Israelis says so about the radiostation. Im sure they didnt reported much in favor of Israel, just like Israel media dont report stuff in favor of the palastinians.

Israeli media is always the first to judge and bite the head of our politicians.

while i agree our coverage of palestinian problems could be better, i don't think one can compare our TV with the palestinian TV.

I watched a documentary on Arte a few days after they blow up that radiostation. The report was about this station and what they sended and so on. The report was about 90min, over 2 weeks they followed the jounalists from the radiostation around. last scenes were the radiostation gets blown up.
Arte is very good on info I think. U get the most neutral info u can get on any channel I know. (Couples of Days bevor there were a Documentary about the terror acts, and they were following Israel soldiers "at the front line" around).
From what I have seen in this Documentary I would say that this radiosender was far away from being radical.

From what I know, that radio station once reported that an israeli baby that was killed by a palestinian sniper, was actually killed by it's mother and she blamed the pals.

it is the most idiotic peace of bull**** one could imagine.

Well I agree that America dont acts always in what u would consider Law...

[CyberGnu]

You sound like the sort of Nazis who talk about how Jews deserved to die because some of them were leftists. The victims of this bombing don't even have relatives serving in the Israeli army; they're Ultra-Orthodox.

Natan, Natan, Natan...

*trying hard not to let condesention show*

Nazis killedjews for something they were born as. In some cases something they weren't even aware of themselves.

My view is based on the actions of Israel.

You can tell the difference between 'being' and 'doing', right?

My theory is that my view sounds like nazism only to someone who believes that anyone not agreeeing with them is a nazi. Which, incidentally, has been the official line of Israel for the past 50 years... You might want to explore this option.

Regarding the ultra-orthodox, they are still living in Israel and contributing to the occupation. They voluntarily immigrated to an occupied land, with the express intention of profiting from the Israeli acts of aggression.

They never killed one year old babies. Comparing them to these murderers is libelous.

Actually they did. Both resistance movements worked hard on for example derailing train cars. In Poland and Russia, this was sometimes more detrimental to the german war effort than the russian soldiers... And in these acts of resistance (or terrorist acts, if you prefer that term) several civilians were killed. Several orders of magnitude greater than the number of civilians killed in the ME conflict.

Don't accuse me of racism or insensitivty. That's reserved for you.

Actually, I haven't accused you of either. I know Siro has on occaison admitted to being racist in his beliefs that a jew is inherently better than others... I don't know if you share those views.

As for me, you again confuse 'being' with 'doing'. A racist hate a particular race because they are born that way. I don't hate jews. I don't hate you. And while your views anger me, I don't cate if you are jewish, black, asian, catholic or have an extra eye in your forehead. It is your views and actions that matter.

Insensetive, perhaps. It's a fluffy term, however, with no real substance to it...


Siro,
As far as I can tell, Plaestine is not occupuying israeli land, nor is the U.S. occupying Saudi or even ANY muslim land.

I don't support ethnic cleansing, as it implies killing people due to their inherent race.

I support hurting an aggressive nation until they capitulate and retreat. Very simple, n'est pas?

it is the most idiotic peace of bull**** one could imagine.

Nah, that title is reserved for the Jerusalem Post (sorry, couldn't resist)

[Tom201]

1. In general I have to say that Im for sure dont know as much Details as some other people discussing this thread.
Actually its not really my problem, I dont think there will be any influence of this on my personal life. Im just interested
A sitenote I dont watch CNN. For info I watch Arte (a mix channel from french and germany), dutch or german television. I sometimes read news on heise.de
2. I have the general opinion that everything is (maybe) possible. Any information could be wrong. U just look at it and judge yourself and most of the time just belive what u want to belive...
The world is grey (not black and white). But some parts are darker than other parts... (getting a bit philosopistic hehe)

Im curios what u say about the settler issue, about palastins complaining they dont get permission from israel authorities to build houses and getting therefor there buildings destroyed.
I believe Israel authorities refuse to give them permissions on purpose, which I think is a very likly possibilty...


Solutions for the problem? Dont know, there will be always ppl. left who will demand revenge for some relative or friend that got killed in the conflict.

I think let the palastins have their own state would settle things a bit more down. As by know it seems to me, Israel only demands things and offers nothing in exchange.
A lot of conflict potional lies in the fact that the palastins have nothing to loose (what they have can be destroyed by Israel anytime if they want to). A lot living in refugee camps, there is nothing u could consider wealth. Giving them a own state, involving them in buildup of some economy and stuff like that.
Maybe this is a bit too idealistic

All this military showoff of strength wont lead to success, cose the Palastins are far to proud to give up on their "right" (<- the palastins see it this way same as Israel) of violence.
Until one site gives up on violence there wont be any stop.

Maybe it could be an option to replace the Israel military in the puffer zone, with UN (=neutral) military to ensure security (Israel military only within the bounderies of Israel). I think the palastins demanded this already but Israel refuses. Why?

Ahja whats your opinion about the saudi arabia suggestion?

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I'd like to thank you for taking the time to put them so well and in such a nice manner.

Well Im most of the time nice
From reading the thread I expected to get flamed but Im happy u actually can talk with the ppl

[Sirotnikov]

I support hurting an aggressive nation until they capitulate and retreat. Very simple, n'est pas?

Ok.

in 1948 arab nations aggressively attacked israel, so we hurt them, and took some land to better defend our selves.

in 1967, after a long period of aggressive terracts against israelis coming from the west bank, we conquered that too, to better defned our selves, and to prevent them from using that land to attack us.


using your own logic, we were right both times.

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


Natan, Natan, Natan...

*trying hard not to let condesention show*

Nazis killedjews for something they were born as. In some cases something they weren't even aware of themselves.

My view is based on the actions of Israel.

And there were a lot of anti-semites, even some Nazis, who argued that the reason Jews had to be killed was that "they" were

My theory is that my view sounds like nazism only to someone who believes that anyone not agreeeing with them is a nazi. Which, incidentally, has been the official line of Israel for the past 50 years... You might want to explore this option.

I disagree with chegitz. Do I call him a Nazi? I disagree with Imran. Do I call him a Nazi?

Regarding the ultra-orthodox, they are still living in Israel and contributing to the occupation. They voluntarily immigrated to an occupied land, with the express intention of profiting from the Israeli acts of aggression.

That one year old baby, voluntarily expressing his intention to profit from Israeli acts of agression - he barely knew how to talk! And I thought it was your claim that Israel has a right to exist within its 1948 borders, so how do they benefit from "Israeli acts of aggression?"

Actually they did. Both resistance movements worked hard on for example derailing train cars. In Poland and Russia, this was sometimes more detrimental to the german war effort than the russian soldiers... And in these acts of resistance (or terrorist acts, if you prefer that term) several civilians were killed. Several orders of magnitude greater than the number of civilians killed in the ME conflict.

You'll have to provide a source for that. I find it highly dubious that large numbers of German civillians were killed riding on trains in the USSR - no German civillians went to Ukraine

As for me, you again confuse 'being' with 'doing'. A racist hate a particular race because they are born that way. I don't hate jews. I don't hate you. And while your views anger me, I don't cate if you are jewish, black, asian, catholic or have an extra eye in your forehead. It is your views and actions that matter.

So someone who says "I only hate Palestinians and want them to die because they support terrorism by providing cover for terrorists and willingly aiding their cause" would not be racist?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Tom201
Im curios what u say about the settler issue, about palastins complaining they dont get permission from israel authorities to build houses and getting therefor there buildings destroyed.
I believe Israel authorities refuse to give them permissions on purpose, which I think is a very likly possibilty...

depends where.
israel is certainly not interested in palestinians building houses in east jerusalem, as we fear they will try and strengthen their claim over it.

as for houses being destroyed in the territories - that's houses that people shoot from or are refuge to terrorists.

Solutions for the problem? Dont know, there will be always ppl. left who will demand revenge for some relative or friend that got killed in the conflict.

well, those should be restricted
israel usually restricts such people.
when we went along with oslo talks, many people were hurt in terracts. "victims of peace" they were called. israel didn't act upon it.

why don't palestinians restrict their own as well?

I think let the palastins have their own state would settle things a bit more down. As by know it seems to me, Israel only demands things and offers nothing in exchange.

currently we demand to stop the violence.

if we offer something in exchange, we will be showing a bad example of how violence can achieve things.

after violence, we are ready to go back to negociate.

A lot of conflict potional lies in the fact that the palastins have nothing to loose (what they have can be destroyed by Israel anytime if they want to). A lot living in refugee camps, there is nothing u could consider wealth.

about the refugee camps - arafat doesn't allow many of them to move or build homes. he wants to keep them there. "from here you will only go back to israel in the right of return" he says.

he keeps many of the aid money to himself.

Giving them a own state, involving them in buildup of some economy and stuff like that.

we basically did that .

don't forget they had great revenues in the new millenium, from the pilgrimage to beth lehem and hebron etc.

Maybe this is a bit too idealistic

it's not.

All this military showoff of strength wont lead to success, cose the Palastins are far to proud to give up on their "right" (<- the palastins see it this way same as Israel) of violence.

well, israelis won't cave in to violence.

it took the lebanese 18 years of violence to convince us to get out.

and the territories we hold much closer.

Until one site gives up on violence there wont be any stop.

we tried numerously to give up on violence.
the last time, a week ago.
but a set of terracts and attempts in the days before thursday lead to this.

Maybe it could be an option to replace the Israel military in the puffer zone, with UN (=neutral) military to ensure security (Israel military only within the bounderies of Israel).

tsk tsk tsk..

"UN forces" in lebanon have proved to be ineffective in stopping hezballa from kidnapping israelis, or shooting mortars and anti-tank missiles (even today) at israel.

so no, we won't allow that.

I think the palastins demanded this already but Israel refuses. Why?

see what i wrote above.

Ahja whats your opinion about the saudi arabia suggestion?

there's a thread on the 2nd or 3rd page of the OT forum titled "saudi arabia peace plan".

and welcome to the middle east discussions.

i can promise lots of tears blood and sweat

Well Im most of the time nice

me too

From reading the thread I expected to get flamed but Im happy u actually can talk with the ppl

oy don't worry about it.

as long as you don't march in and begin flaming israel or israelis you can expect to be treated nicely.

laurentius also personally annoyed me when he ignored everything i said which he could use for his purposes.

so after a while i got upset and then i got cranky. i appologize.

but i cool down quick

and there are maybe 4 people, including laurentuis who got me cranky.

most of them aren't posting here anymore

j/k

[Natan]

Originally posted by Tom201
Im curios what u say about the settler issue, about palastins complaining they dont get permission from israel authorities to build houses and getting therefor there buildings destroyed.
I believe Israel authorities refuse to give them permissions on purpose, which I think is a very likly possibilty...

Definitely true in some cases, but it seems that some people do get the permits, and that many Palestinians just don't want to apply for permission.

I think let the palastins have their own state would settle things a bit more down. As by know it seems to me, Israel only demands things and offers nothing in exchange.

It seems to me that it's the reverse.

A lot of conflict potional lies in the fact that the palastins have nothing to loose (what they have can be destroyed by Israel anytime if they want to). A lot living in refugee camps, there is nothing u could consider wealth. Giving them a own state, involving them in buildup of some economy and stuff like that.
Maybe this is a bit too idealistic

I think the problem is that making the refugee camps an independent state doesn't necessarily make them prosperous.

All this military showoff of strength wont lead to success, cose the Palastins are far to proud to give up on their "right" (<- the palastins see it this way same as Israel) of violence.
Until one site gives up on violence there wont be any stop.

It's possible to achieve military victory, even in a guerilla war.

Maybe it could be an option to replace the Israel military in the puffer zone, with UN (=neutral) military to ensure security (Israel military only within the bounderies of Israel). I think the palastins demanded this already but Israel refuses. Why?

Because the Palestinians just want to slowly work the UN in until they can use it against Israel. The UN has a history of opposition to Israel, for fifteen years it held that "Zionism is racism." Israel is not even allowed to be seated normally. Besides, no nation wants the UN anywhere near it, it's an affront to soveriegnty.

Ahja whats your opinion about the saudi arabia suggestion?

Interesting, but probably not going to go anywhere because they won't talk to Israel about it. They want Israel to implement their suggestion without any dialogue, and that's not really realistic at all.