Car Bomb in Jerusalem - Tens of casualties

[laurentius]

Apolyton seems to be back online and so am I. Dont worry Siro, I wont be giving up that easily

Natan: If I'm not mistaken Sirotnikov and Eli have nothing to do with isreali soldiers, the occupiers. For the last time I havent said I want to see people dead. Not Eli, Siro or even you.

[Bas]

Look at your first post. It said:

Nowadays I have been starting to rejoyce every israelian casuality especially if it's a soldier

In other words, if Sirotnikov or Eli or any other Israeli civilian would be killed, you would be glad. It's not that hard to understand your own post, is it?

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Bas

In other words, if Sirotnikov or Eli or any other Israeli civilian would be killed, you would be glad. It's not that hard to understand your own post, is it?

And How Long actually are you guys going to quote that line? I mean seriously let's move on! Anyway since you bring it up, what I said and meant was:
I had started to feel alarmingly sympathetic towards the palestinians in their intifada. A news about a soldier killed in gaza or westbank was for me, a small victory against arrogant"power politics" and israeli lebensraum . I do see now I dindt put it right in my first post, my apologies for that

[Bas]

As long as you deny that you said you are glad when Israeli civilians are killed. But since you retracted that now, I'll stop annoying you with that quote. And although I still strongly disagree with you on your view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I don't really feel like entering into an argument now. But apologies accepted ofcourse

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Natan

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

By crushing the last living pals ? How sympathic programs !
As pals are your neighbourd, I suggess you not to use Nukes.
Maybe ask Saddam how to use some Mustard gazes! It was efficient against Kurdes. Napalms is good too.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

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"?

Hm, u are talking here about the TV while I talk about that particular Radiostation I've seen a report about. I cant judge about the TV I didnt see any of this. Im likley to belive the report I've seen, but I admit that it is of course possible that they just behaved nicer cose they were followed around by a foreign reporter team. So I dont know.
But in general I have to say that cutting ppl. of from their own radio/tv/newspaper information cant be a good idea. Even not when u say they sending stuff which u consider being encitement. Imagine all radio/tv/newspapers are cut off, how the palastins get their info? Right - by hearsay and I belive hearsay would carry alot more of encitement and would do more damage to their view about israel than a radio could possibly do. Second blowing of radiostations and that like give the palastins even more the view that israel is evil and fears true (the palastins would see it this way) info.
In my opinion it wont help israel.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

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.

While I apriciate that some terrorist get judged by a court (I hope that these are fair courts, meaning if there is any doubt he had anything to do with terrorist actions he is free to go), assasinating ppl. should never be an option for a state.

Think about it, what other state is going around assasinate ppl? Well maybe some dictatorships...
But what hits the mind immediatly is the comparision to mafia organisations. Right now it is in my opionion very reasonable to compare israel and the mafia. Methods are the same:
"Carlos that guy betrayed us" - "Hm 2 loyal guys says so, thats enough evidence - kill him" *victim gets killed by the mafia*
"Mossad says they are terrorists, if this evidence would be enough for a court doesnt matter, there wont be one. We believe Mossad lets kill the bastards" *ppl. accused being terrorst get hit by a rocket*

Actually the mafia is even doing their job better, usually only killing the one that was the target and very rarly ppl. happen to be around.

Of course it is a bit provocating to compare israel with the mafia. I admit that the goals are diffrent. Israel is not doing this for maximising money and trading around drugs and so on, they do it for security. But and that is important the methods seem to be the same. And this cant be tolerated. (At least not when israel claim their actions to be justified)

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

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.

Well if u want to do something but the methods u use fail. U wont use the same method again that is proved to be uneffective for your goals: Killing the ppl. that are the target without killing anyone else - the second one fails often -> ergo Methods are uneffective and needs to be changed. Running around and bombing targets with rockets blowing the whole place up wont help much on this issue. Right now Israel doesnt seem to give a **** about palastin civilian causalties.
Israel is proud of their mossad. Well maybe they should use their intelegence agency not only to find targets, but also to work out effective plans for assination. Ever heard of sniper rifles or undercover agents? There are more "clean" ways to assasinate ppl. (just learn from the mafia ). This takes of course more risks than flying around in a secure helicopter, but Israel have to take this risks or have to live with the fact to kill innocent ppl.

So Im absolutly against assasination in general (see mafia methods). But if they do so they need to do it in a "clean" way. They could if they wanted but they dont... (dont want to take any risks for their own man to avoid killing innocent ppl.)

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

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.

Well they also often kill police men on purpose (see yesterday bombings after the sniper atack, which killed 4 police man).
I dont belive this signal would help israel in any way. Just imagine being a palastin police man: First u dont help Israel by looking for terrorists and so on (or maybe some did but failed). Then there is some terrorist action in israel, and it is very unclear if u had the power to do anything about it. Israel is responding with bombing random buildings of the police and killing random police man. This should than be the signal for u to work in favor of Israel??
Honestly would u after Israel destroyed your buildings and killed maybe a friend of yours help them? Or would u be more likly to apriciate more terror atacks on tose that done the damage to u??
Just think about it...

Originally posted by Natan
It's possible to achieve military victory, even in a guerilla war.

Really? The guerilla wars that happend in the past were either won by the guerillas (cuba), or the atacking force gave up (us vs. vietnam).
With the guerillas being that radical like the palastins there is no way of military victory than killing them all. U really think this is an option?



Than at the end some questions to learn more :
How much % of the population in Israel is involved in military/police/mossad?
Can u give me a url on which u can read info from israel newspapers in english language? Im curios how "neutral" they are.


Tom (who is happy to live in a free country)

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Tom201

Can u give me a url on which u can read info from israel newspapers in english language? Im curios how "neutral" they are.


Tom (who is happy to live in a free country)

Exellent points Tom!
Im also curious to see these "free and neutral" news sources that Siro and Eli have been so enthusiastic about.

Laurentius( who is also gracious to live in a free country)

[Solver]

Laurentius,

No problem with that. I'd say Haaretz news is what you want. Read it at http://www.haaretzdaily.com . Must be OK for you to get a view.

Solver (happy to be Jewish).

[CyberGnu]

Natan, your first sentence seems to be cut off.

Actually, I think every single person arguing in these ME threads has been called a nazi at one point or the other. (Even the israeli apologists, as zionism is one of the last strong fascist ideologies)

The one year old baby was brought (or born) by people who moved here to profit from Israeli aggression. The parents of the baby are the guilty ones. If I willingly throw a baby into a minefield I am the guilty one, not the people who put the mines there....

Hmm, you are either referring to the hypothetical case I laid out in the last thread, or you are confusing ideology with practicality. I don't consider Israel morally justified in any sense, much less on 50% of palestinian land.

But practically, I'd be willing to settle for the 1948 borders and a solution to the refugee problem.

This seems to be a major flaw in your perception of the situation, actually... The complete failure to diffrentiate between ideology and practicality. The palestinians are in the same seat as me, you see. they consider all of palestine theirs (ideology) but are willing to settle for a LOT less (practicality).

(well, I guess I shouldn't say the palestinians are in the same seat as me... That would be a lot of hubris on my part. I should more probably say that my view of the situation mirrors most palestinians, as far as I know.)

Whenever the question of a workable deal comes up (i.e. what would the parameters of a practialy functioning plan be) you (you as in plural, including most of the israeli apologists) answer with ideological statements (see, here, in a speach from 1964 they say they want it all! They will never agree to this).

Now saying that this is necesserily a mental flaw on your part, however. could be part of a planned arguing tactic, that has been used with success for centuries, if not millennia. Few things distracs from practical issues as an ideological rallying cry...


Actually, there were plenty of german civilians in Poland. First off civilians who actively supported the war efforts, such as typists, mechanics etc.

But also families who were encouraged by the german goverment to settle in depopulated areas of Poland and Tjeckia. The nazi equivalent to settlements, if you will.


siro, again you have problems with temporal questions. Yes, they attacked, after Israel took the land from them...

Furthermore, as far as I know, the palestinians have never waged a war against Israel, defensive or aggressive. You yourself are fond of repeating one of the oldest lies in the jewish propaganda machine, that palestinians didn't exsist before 1970 or so.

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Natan, your first sentence seems to be cut off.

Yeah. I meant to refer to the excuse that "Jews were Communists" and therefore enemies of the Nazis.

The one year old baby was brought (or born) by people who moved here to profit from Israeli aggression. The parents of the baby are the guilty ones. If I willingly throw a baby into a minefield I am the guilty one, not the people who put the mines there....

This same logic could be used against Palestinians, since the risk of a Palestinian youth dying is greater than that of an Israeli way, but of course neither you nor anyone else would say that. You're not saying that the parents took a risk, you're saying that the sins of the fathers must be visited on the (one year old) children - not to be confused with racism, of course.

Hmm, you are either referring to the hypothetical case I laid out in the last thread, or you are confusing ideology with practicality. I don't consider Israel morally justified in any sense, much less on 50% of palestinian land.

But practically, I'd be willing to settle for the 1948 borders and a solution to the refugee problem.

This seems to be a major flaw in your perception of the situation, actually... The complete failure to diffrentiate between ideology and practicality. The palestinians are in the same seat as me, you see. they consider all of palestine theirs (ideology) but are willing to settle for a LOT less (practicality).

Okay, so it's just that all Jews in the area should be killed. I don't think living in an area can be considered aggression. I don't think you can say that people who "profit from aggression" should/can be killed. This is again Nazi logic; the Jews certainly gained from the Versailles treaty.

(well, I guess I shouldn't say the palestinians are in the same seat as me... That would be a lot of hubris on my part. I should more probably say that my view of the situation mirrors most palestinians, as far as I know.)

No, hubris is saying that your views mirror those of a nation whose media you simply ignore with complete and utter disdain.

Whenever the question of a workable deal comes up (i.e. what would the parameters of a practialy functioning plan be) you (you as in plural, including most of the israeli apologists) answer with ideological statements (see, here, in a speach from 1964 they say they want it all! They will never agree to this).

Seeing as they also say they'll never compromise on their goals . . .

Now saying that this is necesserily a mental flaw on your part, however. could be part of a planned arguing tactic, that has been used with success for centuries, if not millennia. Few things distracs from practical issues as an ideological rallying cry...

Cyber, if you'd like to believe that I'm part of a Zionist plot, go ahead. But don't you think the Jews have more clever ways of manipulating public opinion than webboard sophistry?

Actually, there were plenty of german civilians in Poland. First off civilians who actively supported the war efforts, such as typists, mechanics etc.

In most armies, such people wear uniforms and have military rank. Do you have any evidence that Germany was an exception?

But also families who were encouraged by the german goverment to settle in depopulated areas of Poland and Tjeckia. The nazi equivalent to settlements, if you will.

These were insignifigant. And besides, the Poles did not target them. Oh, and as for that snide settlements comment, the Poles did the same thing in 1945.

Tom, Zobezo: There are lots of examples of guerilla movements defeated:
* Nationalist partisans in the USSR after WWII fought against the Soviets for several years, but were eventually defeated.
* The US defeated insurgents in the philippines at the turn of the century.
* The British defeated the Communist insurgents in Malaya in the 1950s.
* Bader Meinhoff and other leftist terror groups in Western europe, crushed in the 1970s and 80s.
* PLO defeated in and expelled from Jordan during Black September.
* Maronite paramilitaries defeated by Syria in Lebanon in the 1980s.
* The Algerian government seems to be beating the FIS in that country, as does the Egyptian government seem to be defeating the Muslim Brotherhood.

Also tom, the comparison to the mafia isn't right. What is objectionable about the mafia is their rules, not their method of enforcement. If the mafia, instead of assassinating its enemies, kidnapped and tried them in a mafia court on charges of betrayal or whatever else, with an impartial judge from another mafia clan, a jury, and even a legal advocate, complete with written rules, it would still be criminal and wrong. You can't kill people for double-crossing your criminal enterprise. You can kill people though for being terrorists, and I think it's a little bit absurd to demand that terrorists planning attacks be kidnapped for public trial. The vast majority of those assassinated are quite open about their involvement in terrorism as it is.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Natan
Tom, Zobezo: There are lots of examples of guerilla movements defeated:
(...)

Hm, yea thats maybe right, but what I mean is that there is never defeat of a guerilla group as long as they have a huge sympathy within the population. In the ME case there is plenty of sympathy for the guerillas. I dont think u can military defeat them without killing every palastine that can hold a weapon.

Originally posted by Natan
You can kill people though for being terrorists, and I think it's a little bit absurd to demand that terrorists planning attacks be kidnapped for public trial. The vast majority of those assassinated are quite open about their involvement in terrorism as it is.

Why is it absurd to demand law instead of unlawness and murder (it is murder cose they are just acused of being terrorist I doubt their proove for the acuse would stand a neutral court. Unless they show proove to the public I believe in an unlawness intellegence agency action - They dont have to show proove = doors are wide open for abuse).
As I see it Terrorists are criminal in the cases of murder or planed murder.
Imagine this in a free Country in Europe or the US. Say the FBI has information about someone planning to kill a dozen ppl. What they gonna do? Send a helicopter and blow up his car (with his wife and children in it)? Or would it be more likly they storm his house and try to get him alive (unless he is defending himself with a weapon) and putting him for a court.
And: Even in Texas u dont get charged with execution for planed murder...

Tom

[Natan]

Originally posted by Tom201
Hm, yea thats maybe right, but what I mean is that there is never defeat of a guerilla group as long as they have a huge sympathy within the population.

Not true. The PLO had tremendous sympathy from the population in Jordan, and the Kata'ib were pretty popular themselves, ditto for the nationalist partisans. Also, it's part of the counter-insurgency force's strategy to erode support for the guerillas, generally by a combination of carrot and stick. Punish those who cooperate, reward those who don't, encourage betrayals and infighting within the insurgent force. Part of Israel's problem is that it hasn't been making effective use of either rewards or punishments, administering the latter in a haphazard way and the former little or not at all.

In the ME case there is plenty of sympathy for the guerillas. I dont think u can military defeat them without killing every palastine that can hold a weapon.

Not true at all. Firstly, the price of an M-16 in the West Bank is way beyond what the average Palestinian makes in a year or even in several years. There was none of this sort of violence before the late 1980s, even though Palestinians definitely sympathized with the PLO in the 1970s.

Why is it absurd to demand law instead of unlawness and murder (it is murder cose they are just acused of being terrorist I doubt their proove for the acuse would stand a neutral court. Unless they show proove to the public I believe in an unlawness intellegence agency action - They dont have to show proove = doors are wide open for abuse).

You can't expect proof to be shown to the public because the proof usually consists of information gathered in secret. Revealing the methods used to obtain this information, or even what the information exactly is, endangers lives.

As I see it Terrorists are criminal in the cases of murder or planed murder.
Imagine this in a free Country in Europe or the US. Say the FBI has information about someone planning to kill a dozen ppl. What they gonna do? Send a helicopter and blow up his car (with his wife and children in it)? Or would it be more likly they storm his house and try to get him alive (unless he is defending himself with a weapon) and putting him for a court.
And: Even in Texas u dont get charged with execution for planed murder...
Tom

Like any country, Israel generally prefers to arrest rather than kill suspects. If nothing else, you get a chance to interogate them. But every country kills its enemies in war. Like the way the US declared with pride that it had killed Mohammed Atef, an Al-Qaida leader. No trial of course. But I don't think you really need to try people who are open about their membership in terror organizations, they're effectively enemy soldiers.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Natan

You can't expect proof to be shown to the public because the proof usually consists of information gathered in secret. Revealing the methods used to obtain this information, or even what the information exactly is, endangers lives.

Could maybe be true. Nevertheless I dont like this "keep it secret" philisophy of military ppl. - it lead just to much possiblitys of abuse, or is used for nonmoral tactics (like the german government try to keep their exact involment in their part of actions in afghanistan as secret as possible, even criticising the US to reveal any info. It is election year, dangerous military actions arent populair...)
Im personell more on the "free info for everyone" site.

Could be that this secret stuff is sometimes necessery but they cant expect me to trust them (not that they would care, it doesnt matter what I think )

[Sikander]

Originally posted by laurentius
Maybe we shouldnt have these ME-discussion at all anymore. There cant be real discussion. there are only Israelies and the rest of the world, no palestinians around. as I try to say something I got bashed and called an evil biggot, stupid westerner who knows nothing about anything. israelians can always say "hey I only have to look out of my window and I see it happening". What can we say? We are not there to witness is so we are not equal to disagree with you. As long as we dont have a palestinian point of view here, we might never get on with the subject...

I'm not an Israeli, or for that matter a Jew, but I agree that you are a bigot, and probably an evil bigot. All you have done is profess joy at the deaths of Israelis and condemn them. You haven't supplied one uncorrected fact, or made a single cogent argument. Even if there were a Palestinian posting here, and he agreed with you, you would still be wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And the war continues.

Do you Israelis really think you are winning or will win? Sharon's popularity is falling, and the violence increases. Do the Israelis think they will ever live in peace in the near future? And what happens when Arabs outnumber Jews in Israel in 50 years?