GCMonkey - Rather than let this get bogged down into an Israel vs. Palestine debate - I'll just tell you that I was using that example as a point to show that Operation666's vague remarks could be interpreted in other ways. Terrorism is itself a vague statement, heck I could've twisted that statement to show it as the US or France and in a way I could be technically right.

How would you propose that Israel root out terrorists who hide amongst the civilian populace, Leon? Just curious...

"How would you propose that Israel root out terrorists who hide amongst the civilian populace, Leon? Just curious..."

Without attack choppers, that's for damn sure. I can't believe they can just launch missles and bombs at cars that they believe belong to militants. And to do it in a place where people died from the collateral damage? Israel should be the prime reason America is hated in the region. For all intents and purposes, that shitty regime is no better than Saddam's. The only difference is that they aren't killing their own people, just Palestinians, who apparently don't matter until someone signs a piece of paper recognizing them as a state. Want to talk about regime change? Israel should be next on the chopping block. If I was to support any overseas military action, that would be it. Operation: Palestinian Freedom. PEACE.

Haha, way to not answer the question, there.

In case you missed it, that was a query, not an invitation to step up on the soapbox. So you're saying that Israel, despite the dubious tactics employed by the Palestinian people (not to absolve Israel of wrongdoing, which it has certainly committed), should risk more of the lives of its soldiers than it has to-- say, in a door-to-door search effort-- for fear of causing the odd civilian casualty, even when the other side has shown no such compunction? Is that what you're saying? Don't make me laugh...


If they're so willing to die for their cause, then why don't they die like men, in open combat, rather than possibly (and tragically) causing (yes, they are responsible for those deaths) more civilian deaths than they already have. That's like me killing a dozen people, and then, while authorities are chasing me as I flee (while firing on my pursuers), I grab a few kids and use them as shields from the flying bullets, resulting in their deaths. I then blame the authorities for using such brazen and heavy-handed tactics in attempting to subdue me. Right. Is there any doubt as to where moral blame lies here? If not, then why do you think it is difficult to assign moral blame to the terrorists themselves for the majority of civilian casualties incurred? Note: not moral blame in TOTAL (which must be shared by Israel and the Palestinians, IMO, who both have behaved reprehensibly over the years), but moral blame for this specific ASPECT of the conflict (civilian deaths).



In any event, I, too, would likely radically overhaul the situation in Israel with regards to Palestine-- nor do I believe we should have been giving them any money and military aid in the first place; so don't try and paint me as some Israeli apologist. But bullshit is bullshit-- and trying to appropriate terms to suit your own cause smacks of disingenuousness.

quote:

---

If they're so willing to die for their cause, then why don't they die like men, in open combat, rather than possibly (and tragically) causing (yes, they are responsible for those deaths) more civilian deaths than they already have.

---

quote:

---

In case you missed it, that was a query, not an invitation to step up on the soapbox. So you're saying that Israel, despite the dubious tactics employed by the Palestinian people (not to absolve Israel of wrongdoing, which it has certainly committed), should risk more of the lives of its soldiers than it has to-- say, in a door-to-door search effort-- for fear of causing the odd civilian casualty, even when the other side has shown no such compunction? Is that what you're saying? Don't make me laugh...

---

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is an endless circle of violence, where I don't even need to bother criticizing the palestinians for their actions. So even though by critism in this particular case is rather one sided, that by no means relects my opinion on the matter.

But Israel almost seems to have a un-challended moral superiority mostly among religious based groups, and especially those high up in the current Bush Administration who are constantly providing the country with billions of funding, weaponary and diplomatic support.

But you know, there's not much Israel can say to justify the illegal settlements they set up on the occupied land, intended just so the Palestinians can never claim that land back.

Nor can they justify using civillians as shields in fire fights, (a now banned practise, but did it go on) or bulldozing huge number of Palestinian shops at once and leaving Israeli ones perfectly in-tact.

Am I the only one that almost sees Israel exploiting these terrorist attacks to steal yet more land from the palestinians? It seems whenever there is a hope of peace, or a lull in violence the Israeli goverment either assasinates a high palestinian official to spark it off again (like this current round of violence), or puts another hurdle in the way of agreements.

Anyway, let's see how far this road map gets, but if it's anything like the previous peace plan where the offer given to the palestinians was constantly being down-graded, until eventually they had nothing but afew scraps of land cut off from important water supplies. And if the statements from Israeli goverment officials, Sharon and other parties trying to put further obsticles in it's way, then there really isn't much hope.

This will be a real challenge for the US, since they almost being the only economic, diplomatic and millitary support holding Israel up right now are the only ones with the real power to push Israel into making serious consensions and to go into this plan with the hope of making it work.

To take a look at history, Israel is just as bad as Turkey, and other genocides which the US has over-looked in the past just because they were commited by an "ally". To show how far the US can over-look to atrocities of it's allies, there's also the prime example of the genocide of Kurds and other ethnic groups in Iraq, gone ignored and even attempts to hide them when Saddam was pumping oil for the US back in the 80's.

Last edited by Hamfam on 04-29-03 at 03:13:56 PM

It's surprising that with the billions of dollars we spend on defense that it is next to impossible to search an entire desert with satellite for WMDs.

quote:

---

Your logic amounts to two wrongs making a right

---

No, two wrongs don't make it right, it just makes it null and void. You cannot assign the same blame to Israeli soldiers who inflict collateral damage as you can to Palestinian terrorists who purposely target civilians. Can you say they should have handled it differently? Yes. Can you say that they were too rash in their actions? Sure you can. Can you call them "terrorists" with the same degree of certainty and honesty as you can members of Hamas? Umm, no.


So tell me, Duane-- why have nations throughout history wasted billions of dollars on military spending when they could've just whipped a few wannabe martyrs into a frenzy and brought whole nations crashing down, with the added benefit of having speciously reasoning persons such as yourself insist that their actions have the same moral weight as legitimate, conventional military acts. Hmm? Why haven't nations done that? Seems it would be pretty easy, no? Certainly much easier than wasting all these resources on our military.


You support pragmatism when it suits your ends. Period.


In another thread, you said of terrorism:

quote:

---

It's a sound strategy

---

Really? Sure, if we are speaking in practical terms, yes-- it gets results. Whether those results are the ends its perpetrators desire is another matter entirely (as illustrated by Israel/Palestine).


You also said:

quote:

---

but like any other means of warfare, innocent people get killed.

---

Again with the equivalency. How can such a demonstrably intelligent person fail to see the distinction between willful murder of civilians and unintentional (for the most part) civilian casualties?


Ok, how about this, since you're all for pragmatism:


What if Israel just bombed the ever-living shit out of the Palestinian settlements? Hmm? I mean, it's a "sound strategy" (in that it would get results), right? And, "just like any other means of warfare", innocent people will be killed, right? But that's no biggie, because we are pragmatists....oh, wait-- that wouldn't be right, because the side you're against would actually win if they were to conduct themselves in the same manner, and operate under the same skewed rationale, as do their enemies.


Give me a goddamn break, please. You just reason it so that the side you're sympathetic to is allowed to make the rules, while the other side is handcuffed by their own good sense and regard for innocent life (largely). Here's a question: Do you think that if Hamas had access to a nuke, or huge-ass bombs, that they would hesitate to drop them in the heart of Israel? No, of course they wouldn't. So, if Hamas' and Israeli soldiers' acts are of similar moral worth, why do we not see the Israeli soldiers doing exactly that, when they have the capability to? Say "unfavorable world opinion" and be relegated to nrXic levels of silliness.


Under your "view", there can be nothing wrong with Israel carpet-bombing the entirety of the Palestinian territories, given that it is a "sound strategy", although, "like any means of war, innocents will be killed". Oh well, so long as they get their results, no? Don't make me laugh . You'd be the first one on the soapbox if Israel ever even mentioned thinking of doing such a thing.


If you have moral sense, and desire to be true to the highest standard of conduct that you know, then it must hold for all sides, and not just when it suits your cause, which is what I said in the first place.


And, again-- I'm not defending Israel at all; in fact, I think a lot of people would be surprised to know exactly what I think about the nation and its actions, and what I feel it should do going forward. But never ask me to in any way defend terrorism, nor to posit equivalency between terrorist tactics and conventional ones (no matter how misguided and brazen).

Last edited by Loki on 04-29-03 at 05:18:59 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loki


[...]And, again-- I'm not defending Israel at all;[...]

---

quote:

---

[...] the distinction between willful murder of civilians and unintentional (for the most part) civilian casualties?

---

The mere fact that you word your sentences this way is disturbing.

Israelis killing civilians are soldiers. Palestinian killing civilians are terrorists.

Civilians killed by Israeli people are unintended "collateral damage". Civilians killed by Palestinian people are victims of atrocious terrorism.

While your view of the subject will obviously never change, and with all due respect, I can safely say you are full of shit.

1) Are you so stupid to believe that the Palestinian have the means to oppose tanks? Bulldozers? F-16s? Rifles? With what? Stones? A few hundred people? Children? Women? Fucking hell, I thought you could at least have a shred of common sense in you.

2) Are you so blind that you can't realize Israeli "soldiers" kill civilian casualties almost daily in Palestinian territories?

3) Are you so thick that you believe Israelis never purposely target civilians?. Seriously, look around you, you [insert insult I should be banned for here].

3) Are you so insanely braindead that you absolutely cannot make the distinction between civilians purposely killed by an actual army, commanded by its government, and civilians purposely killed by an independent, extremist organization that nobody has control over?

I see my comments a couple of pages back stirred up some hateful remarks about me (I'm just checking the responses now). I stand by what I say, and I am not an automotron (or whatever the hell I was called).

Yes, the Middle East DOES need to be brought into the 21st century. What I call "civilization" includes democracy, liberty, respect for human rights, religious freedom and tolerance, separation of church and state, etc. These are what are referred to as "western" values (but really should be universal values). This is what the Middle East needs.

The age of tyranny, be it secular like Saddam's or religious like Iran's mullahs, needs to come to an end. Tyranny and oppression creates conditions that lead to terrorism. All tyrants need an external enemy to focus their oppressed peoples' energies on (it's an old dictator's trick), and the tyrants of the Middle East prop up America and Zionists/Jews as the devils for their people to hate, never shining the spotlight of blame for anything on themselves. This creates societies full of oppressed peoples burning with hatred, which is fertile ground for terrorism.

So yes, taking out Saddam's regime was the right thing to do for humanity. It's the 1st step in transforming the Middle East.

quote:

---

Israelis killing civilians are soldiers. Palestinian killing civilians are terrorists.

---

Loki, why do you bother arguing with them? They won't change their poisoned minds. The numerous terrorist apologists on this board are beyond redemption.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Operations666
Yes, the Middle East DOES need to be brought into the 21st century. What I call "civilization" includes democracy, liberty, respect for human rights, religious freedom and tolerance, separation of church and state, etc. These are what are referred to as "western" values (but really should be universal values). This is what the Middle East needs.

---

quote:

---

3) Are you so insanely braindead that you absolutely cannot make the distinction between civilians purposely killed by an actual army, commanded by its government, and civilians purposely killed by an independent, extremist organization that nobody has control over?

---

This is rich.


Are you so braindead as to think that, if Israel were, in fact purposely targeting civilians in the exact same manner as are groups like Hamas, all the Palestinian people would not be wiped out by now? Are you crazy? They have one of the most potent and hi-tech armies in the world (yeah, yeah, we gave it to them, which I don't believe we should have done, but listen for a moment)-- are you saying that they're so incompetent in their TARGETING of civilians that they couldn't have wiped out all the Palestinian settlements by now, after all these years? Spare me....


You're a dimwit if you argue that they're behaving in the exact same manner as are the Palestinian terrorists, because the evidence shows otherwise (isolated incidents, such as the one you posted, notwithstanding-- and you could post a dozen more and it wouldn't change the absolute truth of the argument above; if the Israelis' aim was to kill civilians, then there would be no more "Palestinian problem", because there would simply BE NO MORE Palestinians, period).

quote:

---

civilians purposely killed by an independent, extremist organization that nobody has control over

---

No control over? Tell me, Leon-- why do we not have such terrorist groups operating openly within the United States, mingling amongst the people, and enjoying the protection that anonymity provides? Why doesn't Britian have them? Why doesn't China? Why doesn't Australia? Canada? I mean, we would have "no control" if they chose to take up shop in these places, no? Answer me this question and perhaps I'll think about indulging you further in the future.

How did this turn into an 'Israel vs. Palestine' debate? :p

Something I found interesting, which kinda follows a previous argument of mine:

quote:

---

Now that the war is over, the U.S. has yet to let the IAEA return to Iraq, even though the agency still has a Security Council mandate in Iraq and is the only body authorised to verify compliance with the NPT, which Baghdad has signed.

IAEA officials say privately they have no idea when the U.S. will let them return to Iraq.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GG-Duo
:(

---

It's nice to see everybody knows what's best for the Iraqi people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loki
Why is that passage met with such dismay? He's absolutely right (in what he stated in that passage). I'm as religious as anyone, but things such as religious tolerance and freedom and separation of church and state are indeed wise, noble, and incredibly desirable ends. Universally. Sorry.

---

CrunchyB, I hope you were not referring to my post, which was in reference to this post:

quote:

---

Yes, the Middle East DOES need to be brought into the 21st century. What I call "civilization" includes democracy, liberty, respect for human rights, religious freedom and tolerance, separation of church and state, etc. These are what are referred to as "western" values (but really should be universal values). This is what the Middle East needs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrunchyB
It's nice to see everybody knows what's best for the Iraqi people.

---

quote:

---

So...where are the WMD?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GG-Duo
i share his sentiments about human rights and freedoms
but to suggest that only the western system is 'civilized' raises a lot of problems.

i can understand where he is coming from, but i just feel one should be careful in making those statements.

bye.

---

quote:

---

Yes, that is best for the Iraqi people, whether they (or you) realize it or not. They are universally desirable ends.

---

And that has...what exactly to do with the truthfulness of what was stated? Oh, that's right-- nothing at all.

It's funny (sad, really) how some people on this board bring every discussion down to Israel-bashing, no matter how irrelevant it is to the subject at hand.

Also, to listen to them it's as if the Palestinian terrorists and the Arab states that fund and support them (now minus Iraq) have NOTHING to do with the sorry state of the Palestinian people. Sh'yeah, right!!! If the terrorism stops, there can be peace. Then Israel will no longer have any valid reason to "occupy" Palestinian territory. That's why Arafat, who was, is, and always will be a terrorist, has to go. The U.S. is dead right about that. The path to peace in Israel/Palestine is pretty simple, really.

quote:

---

And that has...what exactly to do with the truthfulness of what was stated? Oh, that's right-- nothing at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tazznum1
In Bishop's pants.




BTW, I did not read the whole thread, so if there were jokes like this already, my apologies.

---

Loki, I've never equated blowing up children to collateral damage. Palestinian extremists to Israeli soldiers. When the fuck have I labelled suicide bombing as a noble action?
Don't put words in my mouth because it will make the debate much longer than it needs to be.

quote:

---

If a Palestinian is shooting at some Israeli soldiers and an Israeli child happens to get in the way, they are, in a similar fashion to the Israeli soldiers, NOT TERRORISTS

---

quote:

---

It's funny (sad, really) how some people on this board bring every discussion down to Israel-bashing, no matter how irrelevant it is to the subject at hand.

---

I'm laughing at you now, too. O my it's all so funny...

quote:

---

Also, to listen to them it's as if the Palestinian terrorists and the Arab states that fund and support them (now minus Iraq) have NOTHING to do with the sorry state of the Palestinian people. Sh'yeah, right!!! If the terrorism stops, there can be peace. Then Israel will no longer have any valid reason to "occupy" Palestinian territory. That's why Arafat, who was, is, and always will be a terrorist, has to go. The U.S. is dead right about that. The path to peace in Israel/Palestine is pretty simple, really.

---

Can you just possibly be bothered to address who these people are that you speak of? I mean it isn't like this is some anonymous message board. We all have usernames.

Let me explain Israel to you simply. The last remaining apartheid state in the world which basically stole whatever land it now Occupies by force and arms supplied to it from the U.S. The country is essentially a thief or terrorist forcing the rest of the region i.e. the rightful occupants of the territories to fulfill its whims and fancies. Any demand that is met further increases Israel's grip over the Middle East.

There can never be peace with dictators. So, either the current state of Israel must be improved tenfold and real peace be attained OR as usual the Palestinians will be forced to accept some half-ass roadmap/plan (which currently is being blocked by Israel) that will eventually never come to fruition anyway, because the Israelis would rather chop off their heads (or Palestinian heads), then actually return what is not theirs.

Last edited by Refugee on 04-29-03 at 05:43:16 PM

quote:

---

The path to peace in Israel/Palestine is pretty simple, really.

---

Yeah thats why there is peace there right now Its just so simple.

quote:

---

If the terrorism stops, there can be peace. Then Israel will no longer have any valid reason to "occupy" Palestinian territory

---

Look everyone its just as simple as that. Why hasnt anyone thought of this before. (World leaders collectivly slap their foreheads)

Last edited by robochimp on 04-29-03 at 05:46:55 PM