why the hell isn't the US kicking the **** out of the palestinians?!?!

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Tom201
1) with terrorist are the soldiers and government meant. u cant deny that they killed innocent civilians. U can argue if they intend to do so or not.

Excuse me, but did you just claim that Murder One is equal to Accident Casualties during Armed Conflict?

I sure hope that if you accidentally kill somebody, your judge won't have the same idea.

opression counts as terrorism too.

According to which defenition?

Let me remind you:

Before 1967, terrorism against Israel was rampant. Terrorists shot at Israeli towns and fields from Jordanian grounds.

This is what lead to the decision to stay in the territories occupied from Jordan.

The palestinian terrorism started before the occupation, not after.

2) hitler was also elected democratically.

WRONG.

Hitler was appointed by the President.
His party wasn't even a majority once iirc.
And he used terror methods to get many of the seats.

The Israeli ppl. are fanatic -> they elect a fanatic government. Democracy dont prevent that.

The Israeli people are fanatic?
This is with over 50% support for Barak during Camp David?
This is with Israeli doctors giving free aid to palestinians?

You must have forgotten who are willing to kill innocent civilians for Palestine, and infact do so every day.

Why don't you admit to yourself, that you have no freaking idea what is going on?

3) given the link of DinoDoc, its more by far more sure that Israel have them, than iraq.

I read that link long ago and it's in my bookmarks.

I find it hard to believe you read all the information in such a short time.

Furthermore, as I mentioned:
Israel, while reportedly having nuclear weapons since 1967, has not used them once, while facing situations like the war of 1973, and the bombing by Saddam in 1991.

Saddam, however, already used chemical weapons agianst the Iranians and against the Kurds.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
Find anyone who ignores Arafat's role and raise this point with them. It's a little wasted on me.

Let me remind you:

The killings won't stop while Sharon is in power. Given his history, I can understand the violence

By blaming the killing and violence exclusively on Sharon, and raising a claim that the killings will only stop after he leaves, you ignore Arafat's role of:

1) masterminding terror.
2) funding terror.
3) enticing terror.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Excuse me, but did you just claim that Murder One is equal to Accident Casualties during Armed Conflict?

For assasination
1) killing someone without a fair court is murder in my book.
2) the "accidents" that come along with this are maybe no intendet, but Israel is either incompetent or just dont care that much. imo Accident is the wrong term for this.

Israel is killing random police man, as u admited in an other thread. thats clearly murder.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

The Israeli ppl. are fanatic -> they elect a fanatic government. Democracy dont prevent that.

The Israeli people are fanatic?
This is with over 50% support for Barak during Camp David?
This is with Israeli doctors giving free aid to palestinians?

That one was maybe a bit overdrawn, but the fanatic tendensy
is obvious. A israeli life is valued a lot higher than a pal one.


As for the axis of evil, im sarcastic. Of course the US will first invade pal territory bevor they would touch Israel. But thats not a moral consideration.

[SlowwHand]

Re: why the hell isn't the US kicking the **** out of the palestinians?!?!

Originally posted by Kaak
We claim to be at war against terrorism, and we sit back and watch another suicide bomber every day. WTF is going on?!

You like having Americans in hot water here, don't you?
You eat a meal one bite at a time.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Tom201
As for the axis of evil, im sarcastic. Of course the US will first invade pal territory bevor they would touch Israel. But thats not a moral consideration.

When will people realize that neither side in this conflict has the moral high ground? Anyone looking for a "righteous" side to support in this whole ordeal is deluding themselves to the reality of the situation.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov


Let me remind you:

The killings won't stop while Sharon is in power. Given his history, I can understand the violence

By blaming the killing and violence exclusively on Sharon, and raising a claim that the killings will only stop after he leaves, you ignore Arafat's role of:

1) masterminding terror.
2) funding terror.
3) enticing terror.

I don't blame Sharon exclusively.

I don't doubt that Arafat is at least partly responsible.

I maintain that the killings will never stop while Sharon is in power.

I maintain that Sharon has a lot of blood on his hands.

Siro- you're way too close to the action and you're making an awful lot of assumptions that you can't support.

[SlowwHand]

UNTIL suicide bombing starts.
That negates the "pureness of the cause" somewhat.

[Evil_Eric_4]

In response to the question why the US isnt fighting ALL terrorists

Our initial objective is global terrorist networks(ie. those that can hit us) and Hamas, IJ, and the like are regional. Though we do have scores to settle with some of these groups we have bigger fish to fry right now.

What surprises me is after seeing Palistinians dancing in the street following 9/11 that we havent given Isreal a free hand in dealing with their terrorists.

Russia now freely kills Chechnyans every day now-same in the Phillappines-soon Georgia and Yeman.
But Isreal -No Way

Its so contradictary--
To make matters worse now we are leaning on Israel in an effort to kiss-up to these lowly Arab states so that we might do them a favor and get rid of the most unstable man in the region.
its despicable Im ashamed of GW for the first time.lol

Let Israel deal with her problems without interference.
We dont need help or even consent from these countries to enforce UN cease-fire agreements.

[Kaak]

slowwhand: we have the resources to take care of several birds at the same time. The longer this goes on, the more resentment for it there is going to be. We should strike several contries at once, and get it over and done with.

[Drake Tungsten]

Europeans don't complain about dead Chechen and Filipino "freedom fighters". That's the difference.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Tom201
For assasination
1) killing someone without a fair court is murder in my book.

Describe "war" in your book.

2) the "accidents" that come along with this are maybe no intendet, but Israel is either incompetent or just dont care that much. imo Accident is the wrong term for this.

You know, you have a very short temper for accidents.
I wonder how many people will accidentally die in a war with you.

To our defense, we're clearly not as prone to accidents as the UN:

The UN itself provides at least one apt example: in 1993 UN peacekeeper forces in Somalia used helicopter gunships to mow down hostile civilians and militiamen. On September 9 for example, in one brief engagement, US Cobra helicopters defended a US bulldozer crew by firing anti-tank missiles and 20-mm cannon on a crowd of attacking Somali civilians and militiamen. The UN justified the killing of almost 100 Somalis by noting that, “Everyone on the ground in the vicinity was a combatant, because they meant to do us harm.” US soldiers referred to a “free fire zone” and complained that Somalis “call us killers of women and children when we shoot the very same people who are shooting at us and we kill some of the people that they are using for cover.”

In 1991 Somalia was disintegrating as a country, its government overthrown and the streets of its capital, Mogadishu, run by competing clan-based militias. Widespread famine covered by the media spurred international intervention. Under a United Nations banner, US forces, along with personnel from 25 other nations, attempted to restore order, distribute much-needed food, disarm the militias, and eventually restore civilian rule.

One of the militia leaders, Muhammad Farah Aidid, wanted to be the sole ruler of Somalia and rejected compromises among the clans brokered by the UN. On June 6, 1993, Aidid’s forces, shielded by a cordon of civilians, attacked Pakistani UN soldiers, killing 23:

One or two men approached the soldiers and began to talk to them as 15 or so walked toward them, their hands behind their backs ... Women and children then surrounded the Pakistanis ... blocking them from shooting at the men, who pulled out sticks and knives as other Somalis on nearby rooftops opened fire. (New York Times, June 8, 1993)

A few days later, in response to sniper fire during a demonstration, Pakistani UN soldiers fired on a crowd of Somali demonstrators, killing two:

In what appears to be a pattern of intensifying harassment, shooting episodes have increased over the past two days. On Monday, Pakistani soldiers killed two Somalis during a demonstration outside their headquarters after snipers opened fire. (New York Times, June 9, 1993)

The United Nations forces responded with full scale attacks against General Aidid and his militia, first attacking densely populated Mogadishu from the air:

After hours of bombardment that shook the city, United Nations troops stormed the headquarters of General Mohammed Farah Aidid early this morning, but the Somali clan leader was not there.

The center of Mogadishu was transformed into a battlefield as aircraft led the assault and peacekeepers swept through the city...

The attack began at 1:30 A.M. local time as General Aidid’s neighborhood was shaken by cannon fire, missiles from Cobra helicopter gunships and a AC-130H Specter gunship... (New York Times, June 18, 1993)

The AC-130 is a particularly devastating weapon, and the raids caused heavy casualties:

By this evening, hospitals reported that more than 60 Somalis had been killed and an estimated 100 wounded.

Two helicopter missiles landed in the yard of a French relief agency, International Action Against Hunger, killing one Somali worker and wounding seven others. (New York Times, June 18, 1993)

Among the targets was Mogadishu radio, which was bombed to silence “anti-United Nations” incitement:

... aerial bombardments ...hit the Mogadishu radio station. The station, United Nations officials said, had been used to broadcast anti-United Nations messages and incite actions against the peacekeeping force. (New York Times, June 18, 1993)

After the initial fighting, 20 Somali civilian demonstrators were killed by Pakistani troops:

The attacks have fed resentment and anger among Somalis against the Americans and the United Nations. The tensions were made worse when more than 20 civilians were killed in two demonstrations on Sunday when Pakistani troops opened fire after snipers aimed at them ... (New York Times, June 18, 1993)

The UN envoy in Somalia, retired US Admiral Jonathan Howe, laid the blame for civilian deaths squarely on General Aidid:

Admiral Howe accused General Aidid of using women and children as shields for gunmen, saying that the general’s faction had organized the demonstrations and that he would be held responsible for the deaths. (New York Times, June 18, 1993)

---

[/quote]Israel is killing random police man, as u admited in an other thread. thats clearly murder.
[/quote]
I dont' recall admitting any such thing.

Israel may accidentally kill random police men when it bombs police stations.

It targets police stations because palestinian policemen are active participants in the terror against Israel, and often become terror planning facilities.

Furthermore, they are Arafat's means of control, and this way of targetting his means of control are putting pressure on him - either act now, or your power base will be gone.

That one was maybe a bit overdrawn, but the fanatic tendensy
is obvious. A israeli life is valued a lot higher than a pal one.

Let me remind you, that the Israeli army's duty is protecting the Israelis. Often, that may lead to palestinian casualties. It's avoided whenever possible, but it is still so.

You simply give us no possible ways of actively dealing with terror.

We have two ways:

1) Targetted killings
Pros: Only targets one very important terrorist at a time, More exact that simple shelling. No expense of troops, and little civilian casualties.
Cons: Sometimes kills civilians close to target.
Get killed: Terrorist mastermind and a friend, and rarely a civilian.
Reaction: Criticized by the world.

2) Arrests of suspects
Pros: Targets are arrested. Homes are searched. Weapons are ceased.
Cons: Requires an incursion of forces. Most suspects manage to escape ahead. Requires capturing civilians and disturbing them. Higher civilian casualties as result of the gun fights.
Get Killed: Armed combatans, and civilians from stray bullets.
Reaction: Criticized by the world.

What would you do?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
I don't doubt that Arafat is at least partly responsible.

I don't doubt that Arafat is completely responsible.

Remember - if he hadn't started this intifada, Sharon wouldn't have dreamed of being a PM.

In all the years of the peace process, 5 Israeli PMs changed.
Arafat stayed.
Arafat is the problem.

I maintain that the killings will never stop while Sharon is in power.

I maintain that these killings didn't stop before he was in power, therefore he has no blame for them.

They will stop some time after the Pals will choose a peaceful leader.

I maintain that Sharon has a lot of blood on his hands.

I maintain that he has little blood on his hands. Less than most generals in the world.

Siro- you're way too close to the action and you're making an awful lot of assumptions that you can't support.

I would think that people who are too far from the actions are those prone to assumptions.

The fact is, your news service report you only a small part of what is going on, and they rely exclusively on public statements. Public statements are untrust worthy.

There is almost no investigative journalism what so ever. Therefore, most incidents of terror you don't know about. What is worse, is that there is no international news service to investigate actively into claims made by either side.

So no truth is ever found. Everybody continue to rely on thier prejudice and bias.

Why is it so?

Because
a) it is dangerous to be in the line of fire
b) it is dangerous when palestinain gunmen, and officials, threaten news reporters.

[Evil_Eric_4]

I would like to add that we should all be patient.

Sooner or later some fanatic will get a crazy idea like bombing the US embassy or something would be good for the cause.

then its by- by PA

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Describe "war" in your book.

Israeli government dont recognise it officially as a war, cose they dont want to obey genfer conventions. As long as they dont declare it a war, u cant say these are war actions.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
You know, you have a very short temper for accidents.
I wonder how many people will accidentally die in a war with you.

Im gonna be the last one who ever will engage in any war. So probably noone
And u are right, I dont tolerate avoidable accidents (bzw. accidents that are calculated in advance).

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
To our defense, we're clearly not as prone to accidents as the UN:
[...]

The mistakes of others dont make yours right. I dont consider the quoted actions justice.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
You simply give us no possible ways of actively dealing with terror.

Clear the roots. By this I dont mean militarly. Remove/Reduce the reasons why pals hate israel - Give occupied territory back, right of return for refugees, allow the pals to have their own state, etc.
u know stuff that benefits the pals and lead to deescalate the situation.
U cant win against pal terrorism by the retaliation politics.
ppl. with no reason to hate u, wont atack u. same goes the other way round. easy as that.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Tom201
Israeli government dont recognise it officially as a war, cose they dont want to obey genfer conventions. As long as they dont declare it a war, u cant say these are war actions.

Sure it is war.

The problem is, that is not a war against a country - but against terror - which is a concept.

more likely, it is a war against individuals who participate in terror.

They are, however, not soldiers, and therefore do not deserve the same protection, esp. since they don't abide by the warfare rules.

They are sort of illegal combatants.

They are not your regular criminals though.

Im gonna be the last one who ever will engage in any war. So probably noone

That's exactly the point.

You completely resist war, while, sadly, this is the only way to outroot terror.

I remind you - there can be no appeasement of fanatics. WWII Germany and Japan could not be appeased.

What stopped them, was loosing a war, and then re-education.

The problem is, that they had armies. The arab terror is not that of state armies, even though it is supported and funded by states.

And u are right, I dont tolerate avoidable accidents (bzw. accidents that are calculated in advance).

Accidents are not avoidable.
That's the whole point - they are accidents.

Israeli soldiers do not go "2 innocent people will be killed, oh screw it".

In interviews those responsible for the assassinations stated that thier clear orders, is to abort, or delay if there is evident risk for casualties. Reportedly, some assassinations were aborted on that ground.

But if you send a missile, and a second later, two kids jump out of a building and run towards the target, what can one do???

The mistakes of others dont make yours right. I dont consider the quoted actions justice.

What you don't understand is that some amoung of civilian casualties is unavoidable in war. It not something that I accept and say "screw it". obviously the attempt is to minimize the casualties - or have none.

But some do occur. That's why war is difficult and should be decisive. Unlike what Israel has been doing.

Clear the roots. By this I dont mean militarly. Remove/Reduce the reasons why pals hate israel - Give occupied territory back, right of return for refugees, allow the pals to have their own state, etc.

We can't simply give everything back.
Why?
Because we conquered it for a reason.
The terror existed then too.

If we give it back - we need a guarantee that this is going to stop.

Remember an agreement was almost signed as late as December 2000, in Tab'a in Egypt.


RoR will eliminate Israel and is unacceptable. Period. Compensations however, were included in Camp David and Tab'a.

u know stuff that benefits the pals and lead to deescalate the situation.

Excuse me, but this all was very true in Sept. 2000, and somehow this "random" terror broke out.

This "random" terror is actually planned.

Arafat actively allowed these flames to erupt, in order to put pressue on Israel to give up more land and RoR.

U cant win against pal terrorism by the retaliation politics.

"You can stop Germany by appeasing it".
"We've signed a peace treaty for the next 1000 years". Said Chamberlain after giving more land to the Germans.

ppl. with no reason to hate u, wont atack u. same goes the other way round. easy as that.

What do you think wars are about?
Random people who hate each other?

No. It's about goals and means to get them.
The palestinian leaders want to get RoR and thereby destroy Israel. Since we didn't give it to them, they pressure Israel into giving up more.