Latest Exploit of the Heroic Palestinians.

[KrazyHorse]

In general, Israel isn't all that dangerous. Over the last 18 months terrorist activity has just about equalled the US murder rate. Oh, wait...

[Bereta_Eder]

KrazyHorse is a palestinian terrorist.

[KrazyHorse]

Crap. Now I've got to look out for Mossad...

EDIT: The good people at the CBC are palestinian terrorists too...

http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/newsworld/viewer.cgi?FILE=PI20020429.html&TEMPLATE=pe2.ssi&SC=PI

I get annoyed with stuff like this. The Toronto Jewish Film Festival pulls the airing of a documentary about Sharon's involvement in the Shatila massacre because of political reasons?

[Natan]

KH, I don't think they can be considered soldiers unless they're available for military operations on a continuous basis. There are Palestinians who own weapons too, but it's not okay for Israel to bomb their houses on that basis unless the Palestinians are actively involved in terrorism, and even then, I think the Israelis are obligated to make efforts to avoid civillian casualties. Heck, half of Americans own guns or have them in the house, but I don't think that makes it okay for our enemies to bomb American houses.


Cyber, the argument is ridiculous. Had the feds lit that fire (and it appears it was the Davidians who did) then they would be quite responsible for the deathes of the children. Also, I gather from the insults you're hurling at your opponents here that you're rather bored. You're welcome to return to the debate you left off with last time at http://64.246.32.51/~admin1/forums/s...&postid=889855 And finally, I hope you're satisfied to see how everyone else shares your understanding of how children's deathes are their parents fault and how Israeli civillians should be killed.

As for the Geneva convention, IIRC it bans the "deporation or transfer" of the citizens of the occupying power into the conquered territory, I think both of those terms clearly imply forcible, and not voluntary, movement.

[KrazyHorse]

Natan, those compounds are inside occupied territory and have taken it upon themselves to provide both for their own defense and for succor of Israeli forces while they are conducting operations inside the occupied territories. Those outposts are militarily defended and are de facto extensions of Israeli authority. Anyone who is responsible for the defense of the compound as a whole, or any part of it that contains weapons or troops is a soldier.

If they aren't military outposts, then why can't Palestinians cross into them?

If somebody owns a gun and is responsible only for the defense of his own property (which is not used by the Israeli military) then he is merely a civilian with a gun. If he carries the gun openly outside and is responsible for defense of any perimeter that contains military forces then he is a combatant.

[Natan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Natan, those compounds are inside occupied territory and have taken it upon themselves to provide both for their own defense

In some, but by no means all cases.

and for succor of Israeli forces while they are conducting operations inside the occupied territories.

Ditto. I see no evidence that Israeli forces were based in Adora prior to this attack. If they had been, it would have ended sooner.

Sure they extend Israeli control over the area, but Palestinian cities extend Palestinian control over the area they exist in too.

If they aren't military outposts, then why can't Palestinians cross into them?

Firstly, in many cases they can and do. Secondly, where and when they cannot, it is because the resisdents are scared to death that the Palestinians will kill them if they are allowed in. Israelis can't enter most Palestinian cities because of the dangers involved, and if they do, the PA brings them back to Israel. That doesn't mean Palestinian cities are military outposts.

If somebody owns a gun and is responsible only for the defense of his own property (which is not used by the Israeli military) then he is merely a civilian with a gun. If he carries the gun openly outside and is responsible for defense of any perimeter that contains military forces then he is a combatant.

Serious question: What if he doesn't defend a perimeter but intends to use it for the defense of other peoples' property too, if necessary? And what if he patrols a perimeter but no forces of the IDF or any offensive forces exist within the perimeter?

[KrazyHorse]

As long as he submits to the authority of the surrounding country, then fine. Otherwise he's a border guard for Israel.

[Natan]

The sorrounding country in this context being "Palestine?"

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Check out this cool link

So, where are you on the chart? I'm -2,-4. Take it only once or the results will be skewed.

[Velociryx]

-1.12 (Economic Left/Right)
-4.72 (Authoritarian/Libertarian)

A shade to the left.

-=Vel=-

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Same quadrant as Ghandi.

[Velociryx]

Officially changing my name to 'Velhatma Ghandi'



-=Vel=-

[notyoueither]

Dag nabit. In Canada I'd be a Liberal!

Economic Left/Right: 0.50
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -2.05

Choke on that KH. No wait. I will. Kaff, kaff.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Canuckma Ghandi?

lol vel. hows that civ3 start guide coming along?

[Natan]

Oh well, I suppose I can't resist the tide of the threadjack.
economic: 4.0
social: -0.92
I expected to be listed as more of a social authoritarian. Also, I'd be curious to know how the question about Jews gets factored in.