Sharon Acts!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They killed civilians to make political points. Irgun, Hagganah, etc. You just think Hamas and PA are killing for ****s and giggles? My, and you wonder why people say you don't understand Palestinians.

No, Hamas and PA are killing because they are psychopathic, murdering, religious zealots. The problem is, I understand the Palestinians (at least the terrorists). Because I don't live in the area, I don't know how the majority of Palestinians feel about the whole thing. I wonder how many actually want Israel smited from the planet like those Islamic Fundamentalists. In general, I don't know how the majority of the Arab world feels. If they truly want war with Israel, then I say let WW3 begin. The West will win and we can wipe fundamentalism off the face of the Earth. The peace loving Muslims who don't want any part of it can join refugee camps until the war is over, and then they can repopulate the region. I'm sure the Arab world would be split between Fundamentalists and non-Fundamentalists. A full scale war is the only solution. Terrorism is like Fascism, its going to take a world war to rid the world of it. It's not going to fall by making it go broke economically like Communism.

[Sirotnikov]

They say the same about American masscres like My Lai, but doesn't change the fact that they are abhorrant.

Perhaps I don't know enough, but from what I seem to recall, is american troops being ordered to leave no prisoners and killing everyone.

What happenned in deir yassin is that the soldiers panicced, following an attack from a commando disguised as a woman. So they started shooting at people around him. Obviously a wrong thing to do. But not quite equatable to what I understand My Lai is. Not to menion that the Israelis didn't kill everyone, but only some 200 people.

And I have a quote from a palestinian who escaped deir yassin who said on BBC show that they were told to spread rumors about false agression and rapes done by the israelis, in hope to make arab armies respond.

Instead, he said, it just made the population flee.

So it shows that the "massacares" are mostly a product of exaggeration and propoganda.

Obviously some of the exaggeration came from the Israeli side. Often, Palestinian villages stood in the way of tactical goals, so several were promoted to flee - either by force or rumors.

But generally, it wasn't an israeli action as widespread as it is presented.

And even if you clear the area, blowing up a bomb in an hotel IS targetting civilians.

Nope, not if it's supposed to be empty.
And it wasn't a hotel but a headquarters of the brittish.

In any case, about Sharon's tactic.

It just shows that the intelligence reports I've been reading about a plan to reoccupy the west bank and put it under israeli-jordanian control, are true.

As a first stage, Arafat will be banished to Gaza.
Then removed, by the egyptians, who will rule gaza.

After a while, and after the ruling countries will be satisfied with their reforms and anti-terror steps, an autonomy will form. Then a state.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So, you're saying that they aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

If they were rational they would see their policy has totally failed. . . . that goes for both sides.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If they were rational they would see their policy has totally failed. . . .

That's why I don't get Imran's dogged defense of something even he admits is quite stupid and irrational.

[Panag]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If they were rational they would see their policy has totally failed. . . . that goes for both sides.

Hi ,

At least we make telephone calls , way in advance saying when and where we shall destroy a building .

Rational , well one could argue about that for hours ,
but there is nothing rational about people who do nothing then to train and persuade others to die in the name of the holy one .

As for perspective , there is enough proof if one wants to see it , that at least the Israeli side has always been open for a dialoque .
Even when their people are murdered , every single day .

One could always speculate what would happen if the same situation would to be occuring in Europe or North-America , the world understands the respons of the United States of America when they go on a war agianst terror , but not when Israel does .

In Israel , many people who are killed are from foreign origin , Jewish or not , muslim , Greek , catholic , protestant , but this seems not to be important for some people ,....

One side killing its own people in a campaign of terror against the other , one side who cares less of what faith you have , yet they kill people in the name of their faith .

Its strange how some people "judge" others by their acts , yet they have no complete information .

Have a nice day

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by panag
that at least the Israeli side has always been open for a dialoque .
Even when their people are murdered , every single day

Hitler said he was for peace. I don't mean to compare to Hitler but he's such an easy example of saying one thing and doing another.

If Israel were open for dialogue, this woul have been settled in the '70s before the '73 war or in the 80s before the invasion of Lebanon and again before the Intafada. It has always taken violence to bring Israel to the negotiation table.

But the Palestinians aren't any better. The murder of inocents, especially children is reprehensible.

[Arrian]

:mostly agrees with Che:

You see, Imran, those of us who condemn suicide bombing are not endorsing Israeli policy. You seem to think that acknowledging that the intentional targetting of civilians is (morally) wrong constitutes some sort of capitulation on your part, which it isn't.

You continue to harp on WWII and the Jewish bombing of the Brits. What you seem to have missed is that no one here has condoned those (personally, I think every main combatant in WWII was guilty of atrocities - chiefly strategic bombing of cities - it's just that the Nazis were the worst. I would have hated to have been in Truman's shoes, though). Did Jews use terror attacks on the Brits? Yes. Was nearly wiping Dresden off the face of the Earth wrong? Yes. Do either of these things justify blowing up a bus full of school children? NO.

Why is this difficult for you to understand?

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

You see, Imran, those of us who condemn suicide bombing are not endorsing Israeli policy.

I never said that it does.

Why is this difficult for you to understand?

Because most people endorse Truman's bombings and Dresden, and yet say the Palestinians are evil because they use terrorism. It's totally hypocritical. So no, I can't understand that.

And terrorism was the ONLY way the PLO got the world focused on the problem. That is why I'm not going to condemn it outright. It ain't smart now, but it was back then. As Lenin once said, 'You have to crack eggs to make an omelet".

[Az]

common che. that way you argue about facts can be absolutely placed the other way around.

[Arrian]

And terrorism was the ONLY way the PLO got the world focused on the problem. That is why I'm not going to condemn it outright. It ain't smart now, but it was back then. As Lenin once said, 'You have to crack eggs to make an omelet".

I disagree, but there is no way for me to prove it. See my sig for my take on cracking eggs.

As for the rest, I'm amazed that you cannot see that 2 wrongs don't make a right. You realize, of course, that your defenses of suicide bombing are limited to saying:

"Yeah, but other people did X and Y bad things during Z war, so they're just as bad!"

That is not a positive defense. That's simply misdirection. The fact remains that the systematic, intentional targetting of civilians by Palestinian terror groups is morally repugnant.

-Arrian

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Arrian
That is not a positive defense. That's simply misdirection. The fact remains that the systematic, intentional targetting of civilians by Palestinian terror groups is morally repugnant.

Yep ...


In general terrorists are stucked on ideas like "no one is innocent" and hatred.

Military or gouvernmental targets like control posts, official building (at night), ministers assassination, are preferable (morally speaking) and surely more efficient politically.

Of course Israel reacted more hardly when Pals terro attacked such targets than civilian targets.

[Eli]

Of course Israel reacted more hardly when Pals terro attacked such targets than civilian targets.

Wrong.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

What about when you tourism minister was murdered ?

Your boys were send out-door for a daisy-picking party ?

[Eli]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior
What about when you tourism minister was murdered ?

Your boys were send out-door for a daisy-picking party ?

Ministers and soldiers are two different categories. Grouping them together is wrong.

If the Intifada was only againts soldiers and settlers, we would've left the territories by now because of public pressure within Israel.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Eli
Ministers and soldiers are two different categories. Grouping them together is wrong.

This is your point of view.
They are representative of a gouvernment. So if you're hostil to this gouvernment, ministers are a target.

Originally posted by Eli
If the Intifada was only againts soldiers and settlers, we would've left the territories by now because of public pressure within Israel.

It would have been better ...