The way to reform democracy is not to cheer it, which we do too much, but to reform it, which we do too little
Quote of the day
 NavigationOur writersPopular ArticlesRecent: |
 |
Targeting strategy reveals who are the REAL terroristsMany Palestinian apologists seem to make the argument that the thousands of unguided rockets fired into Israel (threatening combatants and non-combatants alike) are not really terrorism since there are so few direct casualties. Israel on the other hand, does not deliberately target noncombatants and has refined technology to limit collateral damage and casualties. I came across a great article (from Reuters of all places) that was exactly on point. Excerpts below. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL04275771 Israel hones air strikes, but civilians not immune GAZA/TEL AVIV, Feb 5 (Reuters) - A day on, there is scant trace of the air strike that killed Amer Qarmout -- a small crater in the tarmac, some dusty, bloodied shreds of clothing, but no debris from the top-secret Israeli guided missile used. Had the Palestinian rocket crew commander taken one or two steps away in the seconds before impact he might have escaped death, like two of his comrades who were wounded by the attack. As Israel escalates its aerial campaign against militants in the congested Gaza Strip, it is employing hi-tech tactics designed to reduce the damage and the number of bystanders hurt, as well as fending off foreign criticism. "There is a trend in terms of the very dramatic improvement in hitting the terrorists and not non-combatants," a senior air force commander said. The air force says its strikes now cause around one civilian casualty for every 20 militants killed or wounded, compared to a roughly 1-to-1 ratio when the practice was introduced in 2002.The air force commander said operational planners have their pick of classified Israeli-made missiles with warheads that cause small and relatively contained blasts. "The impact is only on the target," he said, but added that sometimes munitions in militants' vehicles go off unexpectedly, causing "secondary" casualties that cannot be foreseen. The air force commander said he knew of many air strikes that were aborted in the final seconds, and the missile diverted safely out to sea, when bystanders were deemed to be in danger. Once, "we were tracking a car and the missile was in the air and just then along the road we saw a group of kids playing, and we cancelled it while the missile was in the air", he said. Israel says it reserves the right to carry out attacks that will almost certainly hurt non-combatants if the target is believed to be a sufficiently grave security threat. Naturally, terror apologists dispute Israeli claims--what would you expect? But post-strike analysis of low-yield explosive effects provides forensic evidence supporting Israeli claims of precision targeting of terror combatants.
Submitted on Wed, 2008-02-06 11:06
Terror apologists - or people who disagree with you?
IM, you use a tactic of falsely categorising people who disagree with you by using loaded phrases (like terror apologist for example). Why not put your argument without the unnecessary innuendo? You do not have to be a supporter of terror campaigns, or even one who may try to excuse use of such actions, to be someone who would dispute the Israeli claims. Do you always believe what governments or their military say? And especially one with such a vested interest in giving weighted information. I don't recall anyone here saying that the use of indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel was not terrorism. It is terrorism, if not a very threatening form as the statistics reveal. The fact that the statistics also show that many more Palestinian civilians are killed by their "targetted" attacks surely is in contradiction with the Isareli statement. And we are talking last year, not 2002. I would not disagree that the Israelis do have a policy of avoiding collateral damage but, as they admit, they adjudge this with an ad hoc cost-benefit analysis and, as they don't admit, not every Israeli combatant cares about this, and it is rare for punishment to occur for any breach even if this gets ever revealed. And even the Israelis don't always get their intelligence right and attack a wrong target. I don't see much hand wringing about collateral damage by the Israeli government, except insofar as it weakens their international support, and hence the press release about how careful they are. Overlooking One Point
englishman; Thank you for stating that Hamas rockets attacks are terrorist. One important thing to remember is that while their rocket attacks are inaccurate and cause minimal casualties at this time, that is no reason to think they will not try to improve. For that reason, the Israelis need to react swiftly and accurately. Improved resistance to Israel
The 'Wall' is built on the assumption that their is no such thing as a missile, a helicopter or a plane. In the course of time, the Palestinian resistance can be expected to make technological advances. 
So we ALL agree that Hamas rockets are a terror attack!
Englishman: "...you use a tactic of falsely categorising people who disagree with you by using loaded phrases (like terror apologist for example)."
Clearly, terror apologists would in fact disagree with me, but mere disagreement does not make one a terror apologist and never did I suggest that it did. You disagree with me and I have never suggested you fell in that category. Sorry you misread it that way--perhaps you should read it again. Englishman: "I don't recall anyone here saying that the use of indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel was not terrorism."
Really? Let's hear if Eric, Cyro, and Abdulsaika agree with you. All three have consistently rationalized rocket attacks as inconsequential and legitimate responses to (perceived) Israeli aggression which they characterize as terror. Eric's latest posts refers to rockets as "resistance" not terror. Sounds like my assessment is pretty fair. ...I would not disagree that the Israelis do have a policy of avoiding collateral damage but, as they admit, they adjudge this with an ad hoc cost-benefit analysis..."
No kidding! That's the nature of warfare and is the reasonable standard in the Law of Armed Conflict for most armed forces--including mine and yours. It does not constitute the standard for Palestinian military forces, which is why I have argued they largely constitute combatant terrorists.
The same discussions...
If you take the facts only: 1. There are many, many more Palestinians killed each year than Israelis. 2. The Israelis have hugely superior forces and weapons. 3. The Israelis occupy, and continue to further occupy, Palestinian land. 4. The Israelis have erected a wall that restricts movement of Palestinians even withing their own territory which damages their economy. 5. The Israelis have blockaded the Gaza strip. I fundamentally disagree that a powerful side, using tactical weapons that they know will cause the deaths of innocents, even though these innocents are not targetted, is morally superior to those without this capability. If the Palestinians had weapons capable of hurting the IDF they would use them. The concept of terrorism being more evil than state terrorism (for want of a better phrase) is a false idea promoted by (guess who) the rich and powerful nations who can afford the precision weapons. Yet still there are hugely more Palestinians killed than Israels. I bet the Fascist Ba****ds will disagree with this. Of course I don't mean you IM ;-) But I hope you take the point that being logically correct does not remove the innuendo.
Spot the terrorist & how precise, exactly, is precise?
FIRST OFF MIKE THE GENERAL TONE OF YOUR PIECE DOES SUGGEST THAT ANYONE NOT AGREEING WITH YOU MUST BE A TERRORIST OR TERRORIST SYMPATHISER. YOU'RE BASICALLY ECHOING THE FAMOUS YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR THE TERRORIST SPEECH THAT EVEN GEORGE NOW CAN ADMIT WAS A BLUNDER AND A MISTAKE WHICH ALIENATED A MASSIVE PROPORTION OF THE, DARE I SAY IT, NORMAL, LOGICAL AND RATIONAL THINKING PEOPLE OF THE WORLD. IT'S A SHAME NOT EVERYONE HAS LEARNED THE LESSON THAT CARELESS TALK COSTS LIVES, IT DOESN'T SAVE THEM. I HAVE A POSTER IF IT WILL HELP. SECONDLY ALTHOUGH THERE IS A CASE TO BE ARGUED THAT ALL PALESTINIAN ATTACKS ON ISRAEL ARE LEGITIMATE RESISTANCE TO OCCUPATION THOSE WHO WILL ARGUE THIS CASE ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. FOR ME THE NUMBERS OF CASUALTIES IS TO SOME DEGREE IRRELEVANT, THE CLUE IS IN THE NAME - TERRORISM. IT ISN'T ALWAYS NECESSARY TO ACTUALLY KILL TO INSTILL TERROR, THE MERE THREAT OF VIOLENCE IS GENERALLY ENOUGH IF IT IS CLEAR IT CAN BE BACKED UP. IT'S THIS BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT KEEPS MOST CIVILIANS IN OBEYANCE OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS, BECAUSE THOSE GOVERNMENTS HAVE THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO THE 'LEGITIMATE' USE OF FORCE. IN A ESSENCE MOST GOVERNMENTS USE FEAR (WHATEVER FORM IT MAY TAKE) TO SOME DEGREE. AS ADAM SMITH RIGHTLY POINTED OUT IN THE WEALTH OF NATIONS MOST CIVIL GOVERMENTS EXIST TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND PROPERTIES OF THE RICH AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE POOR. TO DO THIS (TO KEEP PEOPLE IN LINE) MUST REQUIRE DIFFERING LEVELS OF THE CARROTT AND STICK APPROACH. SOME SYSTEMS PREFER FOCUS ON THE STICK, OTHERS THE CARROTT, BUT ULTIMATELY BOTH ARE REQUIRED TO SOME DEGREE. BREAD, CIRCUS', POLICE AND JAILHOUSES. ANYWAY, I DIGRESS. BASICALLY I ACCEPT THAT PALESTINIAN ROCKET ATTACKS ARE A FORM OF TERRORISM, BUT EQUALLY I UNDERSTAND THAT ISRAEL USES TERROR (AND INDEED FEAR OF TERROR) TO CONTROL ITS OWN POPULATION AND, LESS COVERTLY AND MORE EXPLICITLY, THE PALESTINIANS. THIRDLY, IT SEEMS LARGELY FORGOTTEN NOW BUT ONLY A YEAR OR TWO AGO ISRAEL BOMBED LEBANNON CAUSING MASSIVE COLLATERAL DAMAGE. UNICEF ESTIMATED THAT ROUGHLY 30% OF THE 1,200 OR SO KILLED WERE CHILDREN UNDER 13. A NUMBER OF PEACEKEEPERS WERE KILLED BY THE IDF. WE CAN ADD TO THESE FIGURES THOSE KILLED BY REMAINING MUNITIONS (CLUSTER BOMBS LARGELY) SINCE THE 'END' OF THE CRISIS. ADDITIONALLY THE BOMBING OF THE JIYEH POWER STATION CAUSED OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS INCLUDING AN OIL SPILL INTO THE MED (NO-ONE SEEMED OVERLY BOTHERED ABOUT THE TURTLES). EQUALLY TRAGIC OF COURSE WERE THE 40+ ISRAELI CIVILIAN CASUALTIES OF ROCKET ATTACKS. CLEARLY NEITHER THE IDF OR HEZBOLLAH COVERED THEMSELVES WITH GLORY IN 2006, AND NEITHER WERE SEEMINGLY OVER CONCERNED BY THE 'COLLATERAL' DAMAGE OR MORE ACCURATELY THE INDISCRIMINATE KILLING OF NON-COMBATANTS. ADDITIONALLY I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE ARTICLE IN GENERAL - THE MISCONCEPTION OF 'PRECISION' WEAPONARY. THE SAME ATTEMPTS TO SANITISE WAR HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE FIRST GULF WAR. REALISING THAT WAR IS AS MUCH TO DO WITH PUBLIC OPINION AT HOME AS IT IS WITH MILITARY REALITIES ON THE GROUND (A LESSON LEARNED FROM VIETNAM BEING THE FIRST REAL TELEVISED WAR) WE WERE BOMBARDED WITH PRESS CONFERENCES DISPLAYING HOW ACCURATE THE NEW WONDERFUL WEAPONS OF WAR WERE. THE REALITY WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. ITS CLASSIC DOUBLE SPEAK 'WAR IS PEACE' & 'CHAOS IS ORDER'. WHEN BOMBS FLY, PEOPLE DIE. ITS A SIMPLE EQUATION THAT THE CHILDREN WHO WERE KILLED IN IRAQ BY 'PRECISION' MUNITIONS WOULD HAVE FOUND OUT THEMSELVES FIRST HAND (WHEN THEY BOMBED THE SCHOOL). THE CURRENT CONFLICT, AND THE VIOLENT FORMS IT HAS TAKEN, HAS SERVED NEITHER THE PALESTINIANS OR THE ISRAELIS WELL IN ALL THE TIME ITS BEING GOING ON (APART PERHAPS FROM TINY MINORITIES WITHIN THE POLITICAL ELITE OF EACH SOCIETY). PALESTINIANS HAVE NO PALESTINIAN STATE AND THE ISRAELIS DO NOT HAVE, OR DO NOT FEEL THEY HAVE, ANY SECURITY. WOULD IT NOT BE MORE ADVISABLE FOR PEOPLE TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES DIPLOMATICALLY WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RATHER THAN FIRING ROCKETS AT EACH OTHER, 'PRECISION' OR OTHERWISE. I UNDERSTAND ALL TO WELL THAT MANY PEOPLE THINK THIS A NAIVE OUTLOOK BUT THERE HAVE BEEN EXAMPLES OF SEEMINGLY INTRACTABLE CONFLICTS BEING RESOLVED PEACEFULLY. HOWEVER I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE POSITION OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE THERE IS A MILITARY SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IS EQUALLY NAIVE. YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO KILL EVERY TERRORIST AND FOR EVERYONE 'MARTYRED' TWO MORE ARE 'BORN'. VERY SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITALS, I'M NOT SHOUTING. SOME REFS FOR BEDTIME READING: Solution to the problem
If what's wrong with Hamas is that their weapons are inaccurate, the obvious solution is to supply them with the ability to take out key military personnel and government ministers in Israel.
OK...just the facts
1. There are many, many more Palestinians killed each year than Israelis.
...which points to Israeli military superiority and lack of Palestinian competence. It does not address eachother's targeting strategy or diminish the terror nature of indiscriminately fired Hamas rockets. 2. The Israelis have hugely superior forces and weapons.
...which is a good thing for them since Hamas is unwilling to negotiate for peace. 3. The Israelis occupy, and continue to further occupy, Palestinian land.
...which was formerly sovereign nation of Israel and never the sovereign nation of Palestine. The largest portion of land known as Palestine is occupied by Jordan. Palestinians have consistently rejected Israeli peace offers and by default, choose to continue the cycle of violence. 4. The Israelis have erected a wall that restricts movement of Palestinians even withing their own territory which damages their economy.
...which dramatically reduced the frequency and lethality of terrorist bombing. Like Tt, I have disagreements with some of the locations of the wall, but not its purpose or its success in curbing terrorism. 5. The Israelis have blockaded the Gaza strip.
...Witness the effect of the temporary loss of the barrier between Gaza and Egypt. It allowed the smuggling of explosives and renewal of bombings. When the Palestinians care more about the welfare of their children and economy, perhaps they will reject both Hamas and Fatah and negotiate for a homeland. Until then, they reap what they sow. I fundamentally agree that a nation with precision weapons should use them in precision engagement with a focus on effects-based targeting to limit collateral damage and casualties. To do otherwise is irresponsible. I bet the Fascist Ba****ds will disagree with this.
I'm sure they will and so do I. Of course I don't mean you IM ;-) But I hope you take the point that being logically correct does not remove the innuendo.
No offense or innuendo taken.
RADON, FIRST OFF, THAT KEY
RADON, FIRST OFF, THAT KEY ON THE LEFT SIDE OF YOUR KEYBOARD IS THE CAPS LOCK AND IF YOU TAP IT ONE MORE TIME, ALL Of a sudden the tone of your reply won't look like you're shouting to make your point and you won't have to apologize. While you tend to ramble in many directions and you certainly are welcome to do so, I really don't have the time or inclination to address all the sidebars you raise that are irrelevant to the thread. My post and the accompanying article contrast the targeting strategy of Hamas vs. Israeli Air Force and suggest that is a good basis for identifying the true terrorists. I agree that casualties alone are not a measure of terror. No news flash there. The number of Israeli casualties of Hamas rocket attacks is not as relevant as the indiscriminate targeting strategy and the resultant fear and anxiety. Hamas uses unguided rockets that indiscriminately target combatants and non-combatants alike, designed to create as much terror as possible-that is terrorism at it's most basic. By contrast, Israeli counter-strikes are highly targeted, precision attacks that limit collateral damage and casualties. Pictures of strike targets show car bodies largely intact indicating lower yield explosives with limited fragmentation pattern. Your example of the Israel-Lebanon conflict is outside the narrow scope of the article and discussion. WHAT IS MEANT BY PRECISION. DOES IT MEAN THE ABILITY TO GUIDE A
MUNITION TO A SPECIFIC POINT OR DOES IT MEAN THE REDUCTION OF 'UNDESIRABLE' AFFECTS. ONE DOESN'T NECESSARILY LEAD TO THE OTHER. Actually, while precision guidance can lead to a reduction of undesired effects, precision weapons are not necessarily dependant on precision guidance. In other words, a missile may have a sophisticated self-guidance system to bring munitions to a target, or a precision targeting system on an F-16 can guide a 500lb dumb-bomb down the chimney with the same degree of accuracy. However, accurate delivery is not as important as whether or not the goal was achieved--destruction of the target while minimizing collateral damage. This is "effects-based operations" (EBO) and the latest generation of Israeli munitions in the article is a brilliant example. Today's USAF precision munitions are many times more accurate than in Desert Storm. As the article I provided (had you followed the link and actually read it) pointed out, the use of Hellfire missiles is a precision delivery weapon, but is a high-yield explosive with a large blast radius not suited for removal of a rocket team in urban Gaza. Israelis have since tailored precision munitions even further to nearly a bullet precision with just enough explosives to kill what it hits. Compare the remains of a vehicle hit by a Hellfire with a relatively intact vehicle struck by new Israeli precision munitions formerly occupied by a Hamas terrorist. Actually, I'm surprised that you asked that question when you provided the answer in your own bedtime reading list. I am well familiar with Air & Space Power Journal as a graduate of both ACSC and AWC at Maxwell AFB. The principles of EBO are most effective in combination with capabilities-based planning. Keep reading-you'll get there. "I fundamentally agree that
"I fundamentally agree that a nation with precision weapons should use them in precision engagement with a focus on effects-based targeting to limit collateral damage and casualties. To do otherwise is irresponsible." - IM A straw man argument. The implication is that I said that precision weapons should not be used and that less care should be taken to avoid collateral damage. Really!! Come on. They should use fewer weapons or perhaps none at all for a while and try to negotiate with real intent on achieving a solution. Mike, you seem overawed by the technology and are content that killing 100s of innocent Palestinians is OK as long as some effort was made to avoid it, but nonetheless knowing that these efforts are insufficient. It is an illogical argument, whatever way your political hue would guide you to think. The use of military superiority does not work in this sort of assymetric scenario unless taken to an unacceptable extreme. Some Israelis would probably do this if they thought that it would be acceptable to their own people, the USA and (to a lesser extent) the rest of the world. It just makes the average Palestinian hate Israelis and Americans even more, if that is possible. They are being put in a position where they have less and less to lose; this is not a situation conducive to them wanting to come to the negotiating table. The whole concept is flawed. I have said this before, but to repeat, there are a substantial minority of Israelis who wish to drive the Palestinians out of, what they see as, greater Israel. Many of these people believe it is theirs by decree of God and are not open to reason. They have convinced the populace that the Palestinians are a huge terrorist threat and wish to maintain this view. As I also said, they have every incentive to keep this pot boiling in order to justify their actions. The election of Hamas played into their hands perfectly as I said in another post, but this is the game they are playing quite successfully.
No straw men here
My argument that you suggest is a straw man is merely a rebuttle to the following. EM: "I fundamentally disagree that a powerful side, using tactical weapons that they know will cause the deaths of innocents, even though these innocents are not targetted, is morally superior to those without this capability.
ALL weapons are capable of causing the deaths of innocent and guilty alike. You suggest there is no moral superiority to targeting the guilty over the innocent, simply because the guilty are not equally armed. I find that objectionable. We have discussed the Law of Armed Conflict many times here and I'm sure you know that requires the combatants to avoid collateral damage and casualties. There's no exception for when combatants are not equally armed. Your argument flies in the face of LOAC and frankly it surprises me. If anything, the side with the capacity to employ precision weapons is morally bound to use them. Mike, you seem overawed by the technology and are content that killing 100s of innocent Palestinians is OK as long as some effort was made to avoid it, but nonetheless knowing that these efforts are insufficient.
Yes, I prefer a negotiated peace. But I also take Hamas at their word--they will not negotiate, they will not surrender, they will maintain a state of war with Israel as long as Israel exists. Since the terrorists are not going away and will not negotiate, I appreciate new technologies that limit strikes to terrorists and spare the innocents. That does not mean that I am eager to see anyone dead. I am advocating technologies to deal with the reality we have, not whine over the reality that we do not have. targetting
It is my contention that targetting the guilty, KNOWING innocents will be killed as "collateral damage", is not morally superior to the Hamas firing of rockets randomly into Israel. I deplore this too, but I think that the pretence of moral superiority in the overwhelming Israeli response is outrageous. Israel has never been known for the proportionality of its responses. The numbers, which you dismiss as not relevant, confirm this. By the argument you use, even a stone thrown (which can, after all, be lethal) could be responded to with a missile attack. And what's more a missile attack on anyone who may be considered to be associated with the stone thrower and it seems that you justify innocents killed as a result on the basis of using the best technology available. This is Orwellian double thinking of the highest standard. I also applaud the use of the best technology to limit innocent deaths. It is not the technology that is at fault but the people who are commanding its use and then pretending that they therefore have no guilt for the innocents that are killed. This is crap. And while this line is continually followed, and many in Israel and the USA seem happy in the knowledge that the Israelis are really doing the best they can to not take innocent lives (despite the evidence of the numbers), the longer this war will go on. It takes two sides to negotiate. Hamas is an obstacle, as I argued in many posts previously, but then so are the Israeli hardliners who have no interest in peace. englishman's ignorance
It is my contention that targetting the guilty, KNOWING innocents will be killed as "collateral damage", is not morally superior to the Hamas firing of rockets randomly into Israel. Complete nonsence. Israel doesn't fire rockets knowing civillians will be killed moron. Perhaps you should re-read the article. The palestinians on the other hand deliberately target civillians. If you can't see the difference its because you're ignorant. I deplore this too, but I think that the pretence of moral superiority in the overwhelming Israeli response is outrageous. Israel has never been known for the proportionality of its responses. The numbers, which you dismiss as not relevant, confirm this. By the argument you use, even a stone thrown (which can, after all, be lethal) could be responded to with a missile attack. And what's more a missile attack on anyone who may be considered to be associated with the stone thrower and it seems that you justify innocents killed as a result on the basis of using the best technology available. This is Orwellian double thinking of the highest standard.
You're obviously a bigot because no one can be so ignorant. To claim Israel fires missiles at stone throwers or even more comicaly those associated with them is illogical beyon belief. Can you point to when this has happened? As for proportionality unfortunately Israel responds far too weakly so yes you are right their responces are disproportionate. A suicide bombong in Israel should see the IDF demolish the village the bomber came from. I also applaud the use of the best technology to limit innocent deaths. It is not the technology that is at fault but the people who are commanding its use and then pretending that they therefore have no guilt for the innocents that are killed. This is crap. And while this line is continually followed, and many in Israel and the USA seem happy in the knowledge that the Israelis are really doing the best they can to not take innocent lives (despite the evidence of the numbers), the longer this war will go on. It takes two sides to negotiate. Hamas is an obstacle, as I argued in many posts previously, but then so are the Israeli hardliners who have no interest in peace.
Israel has repeatedly made generous offers but the Hamas refuse to even accept Israel's right to exist. Israel isn't run by a right wing hardline gov't unfortunately, whilst the palestinmians are run by a far right wing TERRORIST gov't. To equate the two again shows your ignorance. Israel's generous offers
These 'generous offers' should be put to the test of a Hamas, armed with the same murderously somewhat precise weapons. Let's wipe out Israeli military commanders and polititical rulers and see where it gets us. More to the point, I hope.
AH THERE it is, thats much better now I'm not shouting. IM. Yes I did ramble a bit as is my nature. My basic point was that I am largely mistrustful of any military claims regarding precision bombing etc for the simple reason that modern militaries understand the need to fight the propaganda battle, and the line fed to the public during the first Gulf war was to all intents and purposes misleading. I'll deal with the core issues then. 'My post and the accompanying article contrast the targeting strategy of Hamas vs. Israeli Air Force and suggest that is a good basis for identifying the true terrorists.' - IM. Lets ignore the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and metropolis' the IDF carried out during the recent conflagration in the Lebanon. Lets focus on Palestine. Reducing civilian casualties is a good thing; no arguement from me. But we are defining who the terrorists are in a conflict that pre dates the development of even basic precision weaponary. So in effect we have to look at the conflict as a whole rather than its most recent form. Furthermore targeted attacks, and rocket attacks on Israel, form just one aspect of a multi faceted conflict which exists not only at a military level but a social, cultural and political one too. Basically a Palestinians experience of the conflict (and terror/fear/humiliation) is less likely to be targeted attacks and more likely to be the everyday interaction between him or herself and the IDF, the lack of access to goods services etc. Basically the implicit threat, and use, of (structural) violence for the average Palestinian hardened by numerous negative interactions with the IDF maybe more important than the explicit use of force against specific targets with whom they may not tarry in any case. In essence Israel target Palestinian civilians whether it be with rockets, or restrictions on their movement, or the dehumanising treatment they may recieve at some roadblock, or indeed by keeping them essentially stateless. http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties.asp Hope that was more relevant than my last post. eric
Eric, you think that by giving the Hamas tanks and Helicopter gunships they'd be succesful? You do know why they and the other palestinian terror groups use terrorism and target civilians.? Its because they've seen what happens to arab armies in wars against the Jewish state. They get annihalated. Rational debate has just gone
Oh dear IM, you have batman on your side now. You must be right, in every sense. randons' insane theory
IM. Yes I did ramble a bit as is my nature. My basic point was that I am largely mistrustful of any military claims regarding precision bombing etc for the simple reason that modern militaries understand the need to fight the propaganda battle, and the line fed to the public during the first Gulf war was to all intents and purposes misleading. What, and the terrorists don't use propoganda? The palestinians are masters at it as is shown by their disgusting murder of muhammed al-dura and the brutal killing of a family on a beach in Gaza. Both attrocities were carried out by palestinians on palestinians and blamed on Israel. Perhaps you should read the following site http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php Lets ignore the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure and metropolis' the IDF carried out during the recent conflagration in the Lebanon. The only 'civillian' areas targeted were Hezbollah stronghholds. More arab propoganda. Did you not notice the Hezbollah officials directing news crews to film certain areas? For someone who writes so much you sure are naive. Lets focus on Palestine.
There is no such place. In essence Israel target Palestinian civilians whether it be with rockets, or restrictions on their movement, or the dehumanising treatment they may recieve at some roadblock, or indeed by keeping them essentially stateless. Its called retortion and perfectly legal. You think a civilian population that not only supports terrorism but elects terrorist groups into power should be immune and not be held accountable? Lets talk statistics. According to B'TSelem, and correct me if I'm reading the figures wrong, there were 4437 Palestinians killed during the period 2000 to the end of 2007. The table below it suggests that of these 1494 were combatants and 2061 were noncombatants. Btselems's statistics are misleading. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=12&x_article=1265 Take the time to read the article. You'll see that a 'civillian' death includes terrorists who didn't happen to be holding a gun or wearing a bomb vest when killed. Not quite accurate is it? Hell there figures could be biased or wrong, but lets for the sake of argument trust them, especially as they have come from Israelis. I've not analysed them with a fine tooth comb and my calculations are rough estimates. Well, I've shown you that they're wrong so you'll have to change your tact. Hope that was more relevant than my last post. Not really. Sorry you had to waste your time but your theory needs to be backed up by better sources.
Englishman
It is my contention that targetting (sic) the guilty, KNOWING innocents will be killed as "collateral damage", is not morally superior to the Hamas firing of rockets randomly into Israel.
While I agree with many of Batman's points, I categorically reject his use of pejoratives. Our disagreement does not make you any more an ignorant moron, than me a Fascist Ba***d. ;-) I believe you are referring to the following passage in the article… Israel says it reserves the right to carry out attacks that will almost certainly hurt non combatants if the target is believed to be a sufficiently grave security threat.
The article is clear that non-combatants are not deliberately targeted by Israel (unlike Hamas) and in fact, the article goes on to note that attacks have been aborted with the missile in flight due to the unexpected appearance of non-combatants. That is Israeli policy. However, I can see there may be a rare time when the stakes are sufficiently high, with a sufficiently grave and time-sensitive threat (nuclear, biological, etc.) to make an exception to policy and engage a target knowing innocents will be sacrificed. I anticipate the counter-argument about what threat is sufficient to warrant the sacrifice of a small number of innocents to save a much larger group of innocents and at what level should this decision rest? Obviously, such a decision can only be left to the highest levels of elected government, not military discretion. There should be clear legal guidelines to remove subjective interpretation. Consider the most important point of all: This dilemma only exists for Israel, not Hamas who is bound by no such moral ambiguity. The fact that Israel willingly wrestles with that dilemma and Hamas does not, provides Israel with moral superiority.
Practice vs principle
IM, I was not referring to the article specifically but to the general point. However, I do not disagree with the principles involved as stated, but I mistrust the reasons for the article as a justification for the actual actions as carried out in practice. If it were really the case that the weaponry so accurate, the discipline so perfect, and the intelligence so faultless, that only combatants were killed, and even accepting some innocent deaths, I would not find the article objectionable. It is simply that this is not the case and the numbers support this assertion. Yes, it could be worse in that they may choose to operate without any official constraints, but that does not justify the fact that the contraints are insufficient. The article is to further bolster support for Israel, if this were needed, and to give the impression that they are really on the side of the righteous, as demonstrated by such restraint. But they would say that, wouldn't they? I do not see the Israeli-Palestinian issues being solved militarily and it needs both sides to withdraw from their bellicose positions. It may seem illogical but historically this rarely happens when there is such an asymmetric state unless the powerful side shows great restraint. Given an underlying desire by a currently influencial minority within Israel to drive out all Palestinians or even to wipe them out, which was batman's view at one time, such restraint does not seem to be on the cards. I find it both sad and disturbing that many young Israelis are taking the view that there is nothing that can be done to solve the war with the Palestinians and that they feel that Israel does everything possible to protect its citizens against the surrounding hostile arab states and that, maybe the extreme Israelis should not keep settling on Palestinian land, but that the land was not being put to good use anyway. I could go on but basically they are coming to accept the daily propaganda of the dominant popular news sources. This is a change from the Israelis of my age who had a more balanced view in light of their actual knowledge of the history. The irony is that the Isrealis of my age actually did face a threat from a potentially superior force, whereas now the dominant regional force is overwhelmingly Isreal herself. This new combination is not conducive to peace.
Palestine does exist!
Batman, I concur with your argument as you might expect. At least up to this point. Lets focus on Palestine.
There is no such place. There IS such a place as Palestine. It is a geographic region primarily (but not exclusively) dominated by what is Jordan today. Palestine has never a sovereign nation, but clearly it has been occupied since at least the early 1900s by a people with a common culture and regional identity as "Palestinian." Modern Palestinians like to claim ancient heritage with the Philistines, but there is no evidence to support that claim. If you haven't seen it, there is a great article on point that drives the OD community nuts! They prefer to diminish the author rather than engage the argument which is convincing and well documented. http://middleeastfacts.com/Articles/myth-of-the-palestinian-people.php The reality is Jordan is not going to give back Palestinian land and the Palestinians are not going anywhere. Nor will the Palestinians EVER have a homeland until they make a commitment to negotiate with Israel, or they engage the Jordanians in terror campaign. Of course, they can expect Jordan will NOTshow the same restraint as the Israelis--which is why perhaps the Israelis are the preferrable enemy. israel establish its states on killing innocent people
englishman still i didnt read all the points above, it is not easy for me to grasp everything, but i know already nothing will be new and nothing will be solved after 60 years and i know more that those young israeli dont know history as you know it and this age is really dont care about morals and ethics even in settling and stealing other property. Those israeli people give execuses to continue killing as much as palestinians and the solution is with them, they try to find sympathy and they dont give it to us palestinians, always they cry for their haulaucaust and forget what they are doing to palestinain hallocuast, so may be older jewish who suffer from europe or the just one can understand our palestinaisn hallucaust and are more sympathetic and logic and know the reason and root of conflict and that we are palestinians are victoms and not aggression and we are only defender for our land and property and as muslims we know that who die defending his land will be died as martyee, but not to start killing innocent. The first who start killing have to bare responsibility , and whom start occupiying other land, and that is already known but they want it to be twisted by biased media. mr englishman, i respect u as also you have more experience than young people whom wants to forget the history or dont have patient to be neutral and think well and read history well as you. jerusalem founded by arabs Canaanites
jerusalem is an ancient araci city. It is mentioned in old egyptian texts that jerusalem was founded by the Arab Canaanites who were the earliest settlers of palestine. contrary to the common belief, Jerusalem is not a Hebrew name: it is an Arabic name given by King Salem al-Yabousi, the Cannanite King who was said to be a monothesist. The city was called Your Saleem . "your" means "place" and " saleem" is the related to king Salem or to salm which the Arabic word for peace. So the original name means " the city of KIng Salem" or the " city of peace". It was later modified to "Your Sahlem" because in Semitic languages it is common to repldace the letter (s) with the lettter (sh) . Likewise, the letter Y was replaced with J, a common modification in latin languages. Thus, the name was further modified into Jour Sahlem or jerusalem in English. That proove that jerusalme is arabic and arabs first inhabitants before jews.
Principle vs. Principle
If it were really the case that the weaponry so accurate, the discipline so perfect, and the intelligence so faultless, that only combatants were killed, and even accepting some innocent deaths, I would not find the article objectionable. It is simply that this is not the case and the numbers support this assertion
You and I both know that warfare will NEVER be that antiseptic. There will be failures of technology and human judgment. It is far more important for both sides (if negotiation is not an option to one or both sides) to have a moral framework and ideally the technology to support it, to limit human suffering of the innocent Palestinians who are as much a victim of this conflict as the Israelis living in fear of unguided rockets landing in Pre-schools. The body count may be disproportionate (and disputable), but the state of fear for both is not. I do not see the Israeli-Palestinian issues being solved militarily and it needs both sides to withdraw from their bellicose positions. It may seem illogical but historically this rarely happens when there is such an asymmetric state unless the powerful side shows great restraint.
I agree negotiation is preferable, but how much restraint is great enough and who decides? Where is the balance between the Israeli government's obligation to protect its people (the primary purpose of government in a social contract) and its desire to show "great restraint?" How much restraint is Israel compelled to show to an enemy whose only restraint is their ability to obtain the means (weapons and explosives) to wage asymmetrical warfare? Thanks to a Palestinian commitment to never negotiate, young Israelis only know a state of warfare. It's not propaganda influencing them, its the reality of living under constant threat that creates a siege mentality. Palestinians will have none to blame but themselves for creating a generation of hard-liners who become less and less inclined to negotiate. Palestine
Now here is me thinking that Palestine was actually the whole of what we call today Israel, the Gaza strip, west bank AND Jordon. Well there's a thing. This article is as revisionist as those prepared by Goebbels. These articles are to support the committed and convince the stupid. The guy who wrote it is a marketing executive and clearly committed himself so I guess he, himself, may fall into both categories, at least when it comes to historical research. One thing is certain; that is that few Israeli jews have any historic heritage rights that dates back to before the twentieth century unless you go back thousands of years. Personally I don't think this counts highly, but I am nonetheless a supporter of the view that Israel now exists, and now has a right to exist, as a state based on its obvious establishment and the rights of the many people who now live there. What is wrong is that the government of these people do not show the same justice to the Palestinians.
Myth of the Palestinian People
The term "Palestinian" is itself a masterful twisting of history. To portray themselves as indigenous, Arab settlers adopted the name of an ancient Canaanite tribe, the Phillistines, that died out almost 3000 years ago. The connection between this tribe and modern day Arabs is nil. Who is to know the difference? Given the absence of any historical record, one can understand why Yasser Arafat claims that Jesus Christ, a Jewish carpenter from the Galilee, was a Palestinian. Every year, at Christmas time, Arafat goes to Bethlehem and tells worshippers that Jesus was in fact "the first Palestinian".
If the Palestinians are indeed a myth, then the real question becomes "Why?" Why invent a fictitious people? The answer is that the myth of the Palestinian People serves as the justification for Arab occupation of the Land of Israel. http://middleeastfacts.com/Articles/myth-of-the-palestinian-people.php
Propaganda wars
This article is as revisionist as those prepared by Goebbels. These articles are to support the committed and convince the stupid.
Like I said, it drives the OD community nuts! ;-) I offer it somewhat tongue-in-cheek because it certainly is no less propaganda than what Abdulksaida has proposed and is a great example of propaganda employed by BOTH sides. how israel exists?
englishman so u englishman and others wants to submit that as long as now israel exist , so it has wright to exist and steal more land knowing that they steal the land of the already palestinians were was living their. so when other generation come, and by israel killed all palestininas so the whole world would forget that palestinaisn were living before and admit for the reality. it will not make it moral to take other country by force , and only wants a jewish country, israel also never was a country before Belfore promis a land to them and by the help of UN and now by the help of only America. If e.g jewish people were existing before and America help another people to envade them and put them by force and give them all weapons is that make it correct? I mean only becasue the most powerful country is with israel , is that making them correct and have to punish all palestinians and steal daily more land from them unless let them all die or surrender or leave their country , that is really injust of all people thinking humanely and justly. Can u englishman give your country or home to anyone by force as they were killed by other people whom u r not responsible for them, so palestinians are not responsible for the hallucaust occured to jewish in europe and why we have to pay for it and not europe or one do it. Is that justice.
Land ownership
Abdulksaida, The lands that were Palestine are quite large and whilst there was an indigenous population in the early 1900s, it could not be said to be very big. It had previously been governed as a feudal state by the Ottoman Empire. About that time there was about 500,000 arabs and about 50,000 jews (the vast majority not zionists) living there. These figures are hotly disputed as the Turkish census was not very accurate. What is true is that the total population was certainly less than 1M people, mostly arab and bedouin arab. Immigration started and was not especially resisted initially. It was not thought of as a threat until the numbers increased. Land was not stolen at this time, but bought and legally acquired. Between 1922 and 1947 the percentage of the population that were jews grew from 11% to 33% with a total population of about 2M. A good website that gives the various sources of information about the population is http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm I find this site to be well researched and without any detectable bias. The point is that ownership of land was down to individuals at that time. The state, as a whole, could be said to be under the governance of Turkey which forfeited this after WWI. Do the people who happened to live there at this time have more rights to land they sold and were bought in good faith? Of course the Balfour agreement changed the balance and made a ruling that they were probably not entitled to make. There was also an increasing influx of european jews and the British mandate ceased on the declaration of the independent state of Israel in 1948. These were times when land was indeed stolen from Palestinians and this was wrong. However the world had suffered a huge world war where many, many people had lost their lives, their loved ones, their homes and their livelyhoods. Many borders were moved and whole countries changed. The jews, as a group, suffered more than most. So, yes, the wrongs done to Palestinians were largely ignored by the International community. This associated site give a balanced history I think http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm In the battles that were fought and the subsequent attack by the surrounding arab states, more land was taken. The spoils of war, some would say, but the result was many Palestinian refugees. Without recounting more of the history, the resulting state of Israel now exists with a population of about 7M, 75% of whom are jews. These people have homes and a life there and, as a whole, are honest and good people. Israel/Palestine is still a large area of land though, and if both sides would agree a compromise there is room for all. But the Israelis have elected a government who does not see a compromise as possible, and unfortunately this view is becoming more prevalent amongst the populace too. And the Palestinians elected Hamas who have a view that they will never recognise Israel and who allow rockets to be fired into Israel, which strengthens the Israeli resolve that the Palestinians cannot be negotiated with. The problem is that the people in charge on both sides don't want peace, they want revenge. This is the cycle that needs to be broken. There is no complete solution that will satisfy everyone. Justice will be a compromise and, until this is recognised, there will be continued bloodshed and no settlement.
abdul
it will not make it moral to take other country by force , and only wants a jewish country, israel also never was a country before Belfore promis a land to them and by the help of UN and now by the help of only America. Palestine wasn't a country either and so long as the palestinians use terrorism it never will be. Can u englishman give your country or home to anyone by force as they were killed by other people whom u r not responsible for them, so palestinians are not responsible for the hallucaust occured to jewish in europe and why we have to pay for it and not europe or one do it. Is that justice.
You palestinians are a fake nation. There was no seperate palestinian arab identity until the 1960s. Its amazing how you know nothing about your own people. abdul
jerusalem is an ancient araci city. It is mentioned in old egyptian texts that jerusalem was founded by the Arab Canaanites who were the earliest settlers of palestine. contrary to the common belief, Jerusalem is not a Hebrew name: it is an Arabic name given by King Salem al-Yabousi, the Cannanite King who was said to be a monothesist. What a joke. The Canaanites were NOT arabs but you're right, Jerusalem is not a Hebrew name. YERUSHALAYIM is the correct name. The city was called Your Saleem . hahahahaha That proove that jerusalme is arabic and arabs first inhabitants before jews. Jerusalem was established long before the arabs infected the region. Insanity; the only sane reaction to an insane world...
Batman, "What, and the terrorists don't use propoganda?" Did I say they didn't? Of course they do, its more important to them than it is to the Israeli's in many senses. What does propaganda seek to do and what does terrorism seek to do. In essence similar things; altering/influencing peoples belief and behaviour patterns. Hamas, Hezbollah et al spend significant energies manipulating the media and producing their own to further their cause; I never suggested any differently. "The only 'civillian' areas targeted were Hezbollah stronghholds. More arab propoganda. Did you not notice the Hezbollah officials directing news crews to film certain areas?" I refer you to the above in answer to the second part. One thing I also noticed was the reaction of the UN staff on the ground in and around the Lebanon and their condemnation of Israels excessive use of force. The problem with the first part of your retort is that Israel considers probably 99.9% of Lebanon to be a Hezbollah stronghold. Perhaps you should pay attention to the internal report of Brigadier General Michel Ben-Baruch whose recent report for the IDF showed that cluster munitions were used in situations contrary to the orders of Chief of Staff Dan Halutz (and in some aspects international law), and that civilian areas were indeed 'targeted'. MRLS was also used extensively, systems that can be innaccurate to 1,200 metres, firing north of the Litani into a civilian environment. Here's the report from Human Rights Watch for your interest: "There is no such place" There is no such place as the US. It is an imagined community, with the obligatory 'destiny', dreamt up to justify the genocide of the native indian tribes and theft of their land... We can deny the existence of any country/nation till the cows come home. We could even get into a long and boring debate about Andersons 'Imagined community' and what a nation actually is but I don't think it would be a good use of my time. "You think a civilian population that not only supports terrorism but elects terrorist groups into power should be immune and not be held accountable?" No I think individuals should be responsible for their individual actions. 'I was just following orders' didn't wash for the SS men of Nuremburg for the same reasons; we are individuals with the competancy, in most cases, to make individual decisions, therfore we are individually responsible for what we do as individuals whether we be part of a group or not. I can understand how those coming from a right wing/nationalist/facist perspective may have trouble with this one. Again we also have the problem of defining terrorism. Additionally I can point to western examples of 'terrorist' linked groups involved in political processes; the most obvious to me being Sinn Fein. I have, and have had, no desire to bomb Cork or Dublin. What happened to your repsect for Democracy, peoples right to chose their own governments, or did it ever exist? "You'll see that a 'civillian' death includes terrorists who didn't happen to be holding a gun or wearing a bomb vest when killed. Not quite accurate is it?" You've shown nothing to be wrong; you've offered an alternative explanation. B'TSelem clearly define their terms. If unarmed in a conflict zone, whilst unarmed you surely can't be a combatant. Obviously it doesn't preclude you from picking up arms, at which stage you are a combatant. CAMERA however are terrorist sympathisers and apologists. Their, statistics and their opinions are therfore completely invalid... Sorry but isn't that usually the reaction other sources recieve. It's clear which camp they sit in. B'TSelem publishes its donor list, unlike as far as I can see CAMERA, and from what I see the donor base is fairly broad. For example the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, EED and the New Israel fund - all very much respected institutions, yes even the FCO still has some respect! I've read the history and background of both organisations, and I can safely say that in terms of independant and accurate sources I would tend to err on the side of B'TSelem. I did enjoy CAMERAS slightly schizophrenic mix of Judaism and Zionism from a diaspora community, with attempts to engage evangelical Christianity. A concerted effort to engage both in a symbiosis of self egrandisment and self fulfilling theocratic prophecy. Get real; CAMERA is a US based lobbyist group set up by a Jewsih diaspora community. B'TSelem is a respected (evident from its diverse funding sources) human rights organisation based in Israel, involving Israelis and non Israelis alike from respected social positions in politics, and education etc. I'm imagining CAMERA would see the statistics thus; No. of terrorists killed = anyone shot or otherwise by the IDF and whatever figure it is, its not enough. I'm guessing you feel the same. Anyway what was my theory and what was insane about it. That both sides practice terrorism in different ways? That it is wrong to do so in both cases? That a sustainable solution to the problem is likely only to come about through diplomacy and dialogue, not a military solution? That people have reason to, and do, lie in wars? Yes, clearly all insane suggestions, lets all stay sane and continue to bomb, shoot and dehumanise each other whilst saluting the flag. The only thing you preach, Batman, is extinction. That is the true waste of sentient life. randon
I refer you to the above in answer to the second part. One thing I also noticed was the reaction of the UN staff on the ground in and around the Lebanon and their condemnation of Israels excessive use of force. The problem with the first part of your retort is that Israel considers probably 99.9% of Lebanon to be a Hezbollah stronghold. Perhaps you should pay attention to the internal report of Brigadier General Michel Ben-Baruch whose recent report for the IDF showed that cluster munitions were used in situations contrary to the orders of Chief of Staff Dan Halutz (and in some aspects international law), and that civilian areas were indeed 'targeted'. MRLS was also used extensively, systems that can be innaccurate to 1,200 metres, firing north of the Litani into a civilian environment. UN officuals criticesd Israel? There's a shock. As for firing into civillian areas this was done only in the south and in Hezbollahas S Beirut stronghold. Thats not 99.9% of Lebanon but hitting these places was inevitable considering Hezbollah fired their rockets from them. Here's the report from Human Rights Watch for your interest: I'm not interested in what this impartial biased organisation has to say. And yes I did notice Hezbollah tourist guides. Things is there wouldn't have been anything to show if Israel hadn't been bombing the place. Your statements rather akin to shooting the messenger. Hezbollah agents and propagandists must have been creaming themselves over the propaganda victory Israels overexuberence would, and did, provide. Had Hezbollah not started the war they wouldn't have been bombed. You seem to get your chain of events mixed up. There is no such place as the US. It is an imagined community, with the obligatory 'destiny', dreamt up to justify the genocide of the native indian tribes and theft of their land... We can deny the existence of any country/nation till the cows come home. We could even get into a long and boring debate about Andersons 'Imagined community' and what a nation actually is but I don't think it would be a good use of my time. Acyually the US does exist and to claim otherwise is madness. Palestine does NOT exist. Have you not noticed the 'palestinians' are demanding a state? Until its created I'm afraid you can't refer to Palestine. No I think individuals should be responsible for their individual actions. 'I was just following orders' didn't wash for the SS men of Nuremburg for the same reasons; we are individuals with the competancy, in most cases, to make individual decisions, therfore we are individually responsible for what we do as individuals whether we be part of a group or not. I can understand how those coming from a right wing/nationalist/facist perspective may have trouble with this one. Again we also have the problem of defining terrorism. Additionally I can point to western examples of 'terrorist' linked groups involved in political processes; the most obvious to me being Sinn Fein. I have, and have had, no desire to bomb Cork or Dublin. What happened to your repsect for Democracy, peoples right to chose their own governments, or did it ever exist? Why should Cork or Dublin be bombed? Were the IRA allowed to operate freely? Did the IRA fir rockets into England from Cork or Dublin? There's no comparison. The only reason why the IDF have to act in these areas is becvause the PA police not only refused to aprehend terrorists but in many cases helped them. As for respecting democracy I'm sorry but thats a lame retort. The palestinians have elected a TERRORIST movement that refuses too recognise Israel's right to exist. This should be 'respected' why exactly? You've shown nothing to be wrong; you've offered an alternative explanation. B'TSelem clearly define their terms. If unarmed in a conflict zone, whilst unarmed you surely can't be a combatant. Obviously it doesn't preclude you from picking up arms, at which stage you are a combatant. CAMERA however are terrorist sympathisers and apologists. Their, statistics and their opinions are therfore completely invalid... Sorry but isn't that usually the reaction other sources recieve. It's clear which camp they sit in. LOL! So a mass murderer is not a combatant because he wasn't carrying a weapon when he was killed? What a joker. Thats like saying a soldier isn't a soldier unless he's carrying his weapon. As for CAMERA being terrorist sympathisers can you provide evidence? B'TSelem publishes its donor list, unlike as far as I can see CAMERA, and from what I see the donor base is fairly broad. For example the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, EED and the New Israel fund - all very much respected institutions, yes even the FCO still has some respect! And? Does that mean B'tselem don't get things wrong? The PA can point to a pretty large donor list but that doesn't negate the fact many PA officers are also terrorists. I've read the history and background of both organisations, and I can safely say that in terms of independant and accurate sources I would tend to err on the side of B'TSelem. Of course you would but that doesn't hide the fact Btselem frequently make erroneous reports and is politicaly motivated by its far left wing ideology. Anyway what was my theory and what was insane about it. That both sides practice terrorism in different ways? That it is wrong to do so in both cases? That a sustainable solution to the problem is likely only to come about through diplomacy and dialogue, not a military solution? Thats such a lame and parroted comment. The ONLY sollution is a military one. That people have reason to, and do, lie in wars? Yes, clearly all insane suggestions, lets all stay sane and continue to bomb, shoot and dehumanise each other whilst saluting the flag. The only thing you preach, Batman, is extinction. That is the true waste of sentient life. No I preach the right to life which is why I call for palestinian terrorism to be crushed rather than negotiated with. Most of you idiots make me
Most of you idiots make me sick with bleeding for these pal pukes. They are arab pieces of shit that need to go back to their arab shithole of origin. The restraint Israel shows to these subhuman scumbags is remarkable...but I believe is running out. Any other nation would have totally destroyed this terroristic scum collection of arabs.
If we are all idiots, why bother coming here?
Steelers, I just waded through several of your posts on a variety of threads. Its sad that you seem to have nothing to offer but grade-school name calling that says more about you, your education, and your character than the OD community. It suggests you do not have the capacity to offer a reasoned argument. There are a lot of boards on the net for your ranting. This is one for reasoned debate among people who want to better understand the perspectives of diverse cultures. |
Posts: 943
Joined: 2004-10-07