View Full Version : The Israeli Occupation in a Microcosm
The House That Became A War Zone (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1584253,00.html)
And interesting article - all though of course it will be seen as anti-Israeli propaganda. It does none-the-less give some insight into what the daily nature of occupation is about - and why I fully expect the withdrawl from Gaza to decrease Palestinian militancy in the long term.
The house that became a war zone
Chris McGreal
Tuesday October 4, 2005
The Guardian
The first soldiers to arrive on Khalil Bashir's doorstep in Gaza five years ago explained the new geography of his home in terms he understood only too well. His three-storey house was to be like the West Bank, the Israeli officer said, with its areas of divided security and administrative control.
The army designated the living room as "Area A", after the part of the occupied territories where the Palestinians have control, and told all three generations of the Bashirs, from 81-year-old Zanah to her five-year-old granddaughter, that they were confined there for most nights and sometimes for much of the day. It was the only part of the house they could still call their own.
English assassin
10-06-2005, 11:42
Last month, after the soldiers hauled off the machine guns and finally drove away, Mr Bashir ventured up the stairs of his home for the first time in five years. What he found was a relatively small thing compared with the shootings of his sons and the destruction of his orchards, but it left him flummoxed for the first time since the soldiers arrived: placed around the walls were the Bashirs' cooking pots, each with a pile of human excrement in the bottom.
"The moralistic army used our cooking pots as lavatories," Mr Bashir said. "They dominate my bathroom and they use the toilet all the time. So why did they behave in this way? They used our cooking pots and they left them behind deliberately. They gathered everything, even empty bottles, sandbags and took it with them. But they left this as a souvenir."
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Tribesman
10-06-2005, 20:13
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Hey come on , they can clean up the excrement the soldiers left behind , pity they can't clean up the bullet in his sons back .
King Henry V
10-06-2005, 20:48
Yep, another case of evil, Christ-murdering Jews torturing the innocent, freedom-loving Palestinians.:dizzy2:
King Henry V
10-06-2005, 20:49
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Hey come on , they can clean up the excrement the soldiers left behind , pity they can't clean up the bullet in his sons back .
They can always take it out~:handball:
Tribesman
10-06-2005, 22:12
They can always take it out
Yes Henry , removing a bullet from next to someones spine is so very easy , I wonder why the doctors didn't just dig it out ~:rolleyes:
Goofball
10-06-2005, 23:32
This is most definitely not a microcosm of the situation as a whole. Microcosms are by definition representative of a larger whole. If this were a true microcosm of the larger situation, the Palestinian father would have spent his time trying to figure out how he could somehow strap a few kilos of C4 to his son and sneak him into the middle of the group of soldiers. Actually, belay that last; he would more likely try to sneak his explosive-laden son onto the bus the soldiers' children took to school.
The Palestinian family in this story are reasonable, calm, almost saintly people who appear only to want peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
If that were truly the case will all Palestinians, there would be no conflict.
Sadly, this is not the case.
Azi Tohak
10-06-2005, 23:38
Newspaper: Guardian.
~:handball:
Azi
If that were truly the case will all Palestinians, there would be no conflict.
Sadly, this is not the case.
Hmm, perhaps not. Even if from 1948 onwards the Palestinians were Ghandiesque in their comportment, the intent of the Zionist and Jewish leaders, in their own words, was to take control of the entire country, by force if necessary.
That being said, the only difference would be that the Palestinians would have been peacefully living under Israeli subjugation instead of violently living under Israeli subjugation. The subjugation, however, would still have existed.
For my part, given human nature, I cannot imagine anyone living peacefully under such conditions. JFK said you can have freedom without peace - but not peace without freedom.
Goofball
10-07-2005, 00:15
Hmm, perhaps not. Even if from 1948 onwards the Palestinians were Ghandiesque in their comportment, the intent of the Zionist and Jewish leaders, in their own words, was to take control of the entire country, by force if necessary.
Makes a nice offset to the Palestinian leadership, whose stated goals in their own words have always been nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel, and the murder of every Jew in Israel (sometimes they even throw in some nice little phrases about the raping and subjugation of Jewish women, just for a little color).
No wonder they can't get along.
:dizzy2:
Here's our impasse Beirut: I know that both sides are at fault.
You don't seem to understand that.
Proletariat
10-07-2005, 00:29
Under the sea
Under the sea
Darling it's better
Down where it's wetter
Take it from me
Here's our impasse Beirut: I know that both sides are at fault.
You don't seem to understand that.
I'm well aware that both sides are at fault. But in my opinion one side is much more at fault than the other.
Goofball
10-07-2005, 00:31
I'm well aware that both sides are at fault. But in my opinion one side is much more at fault than the other.
Lemme guess: the side that is unilaterally giving up territory even as they continue to be attacked?
Lemme guess: the side that is unilaterally giving up territory even as they continue to be attacked?
(You do know how to turn a phrase. :bow: )
Yes, the side that is unilaterally giving back some of the land it took and is still unilaterally holding onto a whole whack more while it continues to unilaterally hold well over a million people under subjugation and unilaterally controls the borders and airspace of the land it unilaterally stole then unilaterally gave back.
Goofball
10-07-2005, 00:45
(You do know how to turn a phrase. :bow: )
Yes, the side that is unilaterally giving back some of the land it took and is still unilaterally holding onto a whole whack more while it continues to unilaterally hold well over a million people under subjugation and unilaterally controls the borders and airspace of the land it unilaterally stole then unilaterally gave back.
I say tomayto, you say tomahto...
~;p
To put the thread back on a seemingly more on topic discussion...
I saw some time ago a nice little piece in the news about a Palestinian family living inside the infamous fence. If it wasn't so serious I would laugh! To get out they passed a door in the fence that they and only they had a key to.:dizzy2: :dizzy2:
The sad fact was that they had to pass this door (it wasn't a gate) to do basically anything on their own land. And at times the door was forcibly shut, so they couldn't get to their water for isntance.
Tribesman
10-07-2005, 00:51
Oh well at least it cannot happen again , the Israeli courts have finally ruled that the army cannot establish military posts in civilian houses with civilians still living in them , it is using them as human shields which is a war crime .
They also banned using civilians as human mine detectors , which strangely enough is also a war crime .
I say tomayto, you say tomahto...
~;p
And all this time I thought it was just ketchup... ~D
Oh well at least it cannot happen again , the Israeli courts have finally ruled that the army cannot establish military posts in civilian houses with civilians still living in them , it is using them as human shields which is a war crime .
They also banned using civilians as human mine detectors , which strangely enough is also a war crime .
Won't it just prompt a kickout of the civilians?
Crazed Rabbit
10-07-2005, 01:08
Yes, the side that is unilaterally giving back some of the land it took and is still unilaterally holding onto a whole whack more while it continues to unilaterally hold well over a million people under subjugation and unilaterally controls the borders and airspace of the land it unilaterally stole then unilaterally gave back.
Israel is hardly holding on to any more land. They did not steal the land, they got them after the Arab states, who completely surroung Israel, declared war on Israel a number of times.
Yet, even though they just gave away-as in no deal, no bargaining to get the PLO to concede anything-the whole Gaza strip, and are still being attacked they have to give away all land that they didn't control as of 19848, huh? Israel could give go back to its 1948 borders and it wouldn't matter. The 'subjugation' doesn't matter, the terrorists will keep on attacking until Israel is completely destroyed. They target only women and children, yet you continue to support them.
And gee, if they didn't control the borders, guess who'd pour into Israel? Friendly arab labourers? No, the suicide bombers would pour in.
Crazed Rabbit
Tribesman
10-07-2005, 01:16
They target only women and children, yet you continue to support them.
Oh dear oh dear Rabbit , have you been listening to Gawain ?
Try reading the IDF website , a purely unbiased source ~;) that rips your statement to pieces .~D ~D ~D
The 'subjugation' doesn't matter, the terrorists will keep on attacking until Israel is completely destroyed. They target only women and children, yet you continue to support them.
Crazed Rabbit
I'll happily give you a week to find even one phrase of one post in one thread posted by me anywhere, anytime, that says that I support terrorists attacking women and children.
And when you don't, I will accept your apology with grace and goodwill. ~;)
Gawain of Orkeny
10-07-2005, 01:55
I'll happily give you a week to find even one phrase of one post in one thread posted by me anywhere, anytime, that says that I support terrorists attacking women and children.
Since he never accussed you of that I would say it is you who owe him the apology.
They target only women and children, yet you continue to support them.
Oh dear oh dear Rabbit , have you been listening to Gawain ?
Try reading the IDF website , a purely unbiased source that rips your statement to pieces .
For once Id like you to post the relevant passages instead of you incesant go look BS. The point is the Palestinians target women and children with no military target in sight.
I'm well aware that both sides are at fault. But in my opinion one side is much more at fault than the other.
Well that seems to be unamimous. The difference again is how can you back the side that targets women and children ? Do any of you who back the Palestinians think if the shoe were on the other foot Israel would still be here today?
Crazed Rabbit
10-07-2005, 04:22
First find where I said you support terrorists.
And when you don't, I will accept your apology with grace and goodwill.~;)
I said you support them, i.e. the Palestinians, despite the Palestinians support of; terrorism, the charter of their 'governing' body including the goal of a destroyed Israel, the goal of widely popular Hamas to actively annihilate Israel.
Your support is not of terrorists directly, but you support the supporters of terrorism, while degenerating the Israels for trying to survive.
Crazed Rabbit
Crazed Rabbit
10-07-2005, 07:10
Well, I found some interesting stuff and was torn between creating a new thread that'd probably turn into yet another Israel-Palestine thread or just double posting in the one already made. You can see my choice.
It seems that Hamas, those peaceful, tolerant people who only want to blow up everyone who's the slightest bit different, now want to ban dancing and want to take all rights from gays.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1814968,00.html
The argument put forth was a most eloquent one, an argument that will undoubtedly cause babies to cry for its straigtforwardness and beautiful construction:
“A man holds a woman by the hand and dances with her in front of everyone. Does that serve the national interest?” Dr Zahar [Hamas' Terrorist in Chief-Ed.] said on the Arabic website Elaph.
A most pointed question. How does dancing serve the national interest? I can't see how it does. For that matter, how does me eating birds made of marshmellow fluff on Easter serve the national interest? Deep questions to ponder.
“If so, why have the phenomena of corruption and prostitution become pervasive in recent years?”
To those misguided fools who'd say that dancing is in the national interest, Dr. Evil, er...Dr. Zahar offers a stern and effective rebuttal. A rise in prostitution is most certainly not acceptable, unless of course it is done in the correct, 'marry' a woman for the night, way. If, continuing my earlier example, eating marshmellow fluff birds is in the national interest, why has obesity risen in recent years?
Hmm? Answer that one, you tool of the marshmellow fluff bird industry!
Crazed Rabbit
P.S. Anyone else find it slightly disturbing radical Muslims want to ban dancing that was viewed by medieval Europeans - not the most tolerant of promiscuousness behavoir - as acceptable? In fact, they want to ban almost all dancing that has occured for thousands of years.
Soulforged
10-07-2005, 07:18
It seems that Hamas, those peaceful, tolerant people who only want to blow up everyone who's the slightest bit different, now want to ban dancing and want to take all rights from gays.I see emotional appeals ahead...
A most pointed question. How does dancing serve the national interest? I can't see how it does. For that matter, how does me eating birds made of marshmellow fluff on Easter serve the national interest? Deep questions to ponder.The question over nationalism sentimentalism is always obscure and open to new considerations, everything could be considered of certain national value for the nationalist in every nation.
To those misguided fools who'd say that dancing is in the national interest, Dr. Evil, er...Dr. Zahar offers a stern and effective rebuttal. A rise in prostitution is most certainly not acceptable, unless of course it is done in the correct, 'marry' a woman for the night, way. If, continuing my earlier example, eating marshmellow fluff birds is in the national interest, why has obesity risen in recent years?I don't know what any of this posted has anything to do with the problems of jurisdictions and domination in the middle east. This is for another thread perhaps: "The strange way of thinking of those evil people..." or something suitable.
Ser Clegane
10-07-2005, 08:15
First find where I said you support terrorists.
And when you don't, I will accept your apology with grace and goodwill.~;)
I said you support them, i.e. the Palestinians, despite the Palestinians support of; terrorism, the charter of their 'governing' body including the goal of a destroyed Israel, the goal of widely popular Hamas to actively annihilate Israel.
Your support is not of terrorists directly, but you support the supporters of terrorism, while degenerating the Israels for trying to survive.
Crazed Rabbit
In your whole post the broader term "Palestinian" is not used once, while the last sentence is
They target only women and children, yet you continue to support them.
The "them" can actually only refer to the "they" at the beginning of the sentence (with some goodwill it might also refer to the "women and children" but I somehow doubt that you had that in mind).
Even in the sentence previous to the last one, the "terrorists" are the subject of the sentence.
So at least technically you indeed accused Beirut of supporting the terrorists that target women and children - IMO an apology might be a fine idea...
Tribesman
10-07-2005, 08:55
P.S. Anyone else find it slightly disturbing radical Muslims want to ban dancing that was viewed by medieval Europeans - not the most tolerant of promiscuousness behavoir - as acceptable? In fact, they want to ban almost all dancing that has occured for thousands of years.
Nutters on all side Rabbit .
Would you like a quote from a Christian church leader , who is also a leading domestic and international politician , where he condemns dancing as sinful , he even says that Line Dancing leads to lustful thoughts and encourages promiscuity , ban it , ban it all :dizzy2:
now want to ban dancing and want to take all rights from gays.
Of course his views on dancing a very mild compared to his views on the damn sodomites~:eek:
Papewaio
10-07-2005, 09:33
I think that was a matter of tit for tat in a war of escalation... I don't think the US was the first nation in WWII to target cities and hence women and children with bombing raids. And it certainly wasn't the first nation (nor did it) attack women to bet on the sex of unborn children and then slit open their mothers womb to find out who had won...
I also suggest you watch footage of Okinawa and US Marines pleading with women and children not to jump from sea cliffs... compare that with the Japanese war of aggression before and during WWII.
In your whole post the broader term "Palestinian" is not used once, while the last sentence is
The "them" can actually only refer to the "they" at the beginning of the sentence (with some goodwill it might also refer to the "women and children" but I somehow doubt that you had that in mind).
Even in the sentence previous to the last one, the "terrorists" are the subject of the sentence.
So at least technically you indeed accused Beirut of supporting the terrorists that target women and children - IMO an apology might be a fine idea...
I'm just messing with him. I know Crazed Rabbit didn't mean it that way. But his style of writing is endemic to many who speak about the Palestinians and jump back and forth between "Palestinian" and "terrorists" in their conversation like it's understood by all that they are one and the same.
Ser Clegane
10-07-2005, 11:59
Oops ... sorry.
I guess I tend to be more thin-skinned when I post from work ~:)
Perhaps everybody could just ignore my previous nit-picking post ~D :bow:
No-no. I think you were spot on. :bow:
I'm just having a little fun at someone else's grammatical expense.
Tribesman
10-07-2005, 12:14
For once Id like you to post the relevant passages instead of you incesant go look BS.
Hey Gawain I would have thought that with your intense interest in the Israel palestine situation you would have the IDF and Knesset websites on your list of favourite links .
Then again I suppose you find it easier to get views that match your assumptions from the usual right wing blogs that you frequent .
http://www1.idf.il/dover/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=22&docid=37572.EN
http://www.knesset.gov.il/main/eng/home.asp
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1998/6/Government
Try saving them , they are easily navigable and contain a wealth of information , of course they are Israeli sources so may be slightly biased , but I am sure you don't mind that , if you want some balance I can give you the Palestinian Authority ones as well .
Gawain of Orkeny
10-07-2005, 14:47
Your site shows that by far the majority of Israeli Casualties are civilians. Remember my point isnt that they only target civilians but that they do target them. Not only that they are the main targets. This is why the Palestinians are the worse of the two. There is absolutley no excuse for this type of terrorism.
Geoffrey S
10-07-2005, 15:02
Your site shows that by far the majority of Israeli Casualties are civilians. Remember my point isnt that they only target civilians but that they do target them. Not only that they are the main targets. This is why the Palestinians are the worse of the two. There is absolutley no excuse for this type of terrorism.
Lumping all Palestinians among terrorists again, are we? Beirut made a pretty clear point about this, that there is a tendency either intentionally or through a bad choice of words to consider all Palestinians as terrorists or responsible for the terrorists.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-07-2005, 15:07
Most of human kind shrinks away from the horrors of war -- thankfully.
Are attempts to label some folks civilian and others legitimate military targets artificial? Almost certainly. Yet the effort is an attempt to minimize the horrors of war -- and it is a noble effort.
Historically, war is not conducted that way. The model that dominates history is that practiced by most of you in RTW. Defeat your opponent, preferably in a way that allows for total destruction of their military. Then capture their civilian population, rape the women for your pleasure and to breed more soldiers for you, kill all the elderly and any man/woman who represents a conceivable threat, sell the rest into slavery to grow your own power.
This is inherently repulsive on a moral level, but on the level of practical logic devoid of morality it makes perfect sense. Do not merely defeat an enemy, but extirpate them root and branch so that they may never again be a threat nor exact revenge. Terrorism simply seeks to use the more "civilized" approach to war against itself for those who are squeamish about such things -- since the terrorists themselves harken to the older "law" that the only good enemy is a dead one and that there are no "civilians."
Seamus
Gawain of Orkeny
10-07-2005, 15:14
Lumping all Palestinians among terrorists again, are we?
Are you?
Geoffrey S
10-07-2005, 15:23
Are you?
Not to my knowledge. I thought "are we?" at the end of a sentence was a common phrase in English, also to be used when only a single person is meant and the writer is not actually including himself among a group; if I'm mistaken please let me know and I'll try not to make that mistake again.
Tribesman
10-07-2005, 16:03
Your site shows that by far the majority of Israeli Casualties are civilians. Remember my point isnt that they only target civilians but that they do target them. Not only that they are the main targets.
Its not my site , it is the Israeli Defence Forces site .
And no it was Rabbit that said they only target civilians not yourself .
It shows that on the Northern front they don't seem to be targeting civilians at all and correspondingly the majority of the casualties are military , in some years exclusively military .
So that shows a problem with blanket statements doesn't it .
Out of interest would you like to hazard a guess at the proportion of Palestinians killed and wounded who were not terrorists , or the proportion who are women and children .
Oh and before you say that the Israelis don't deliberately target civilians perhaps you might want to check first ~;)
Some very interesting developments recently , though of course those claims must be biased , as they originate from the IDF , the Israeli courts and the Knesset~D ~D ~D
Gawain of Orkeny
10-07-2005, 16:26
Out of interest would you like to hazard a guess at the proportion of Palestinians killed and wounded who were not terrorists
You would have a hard time proving whether they were or were not terrorists.
Oh and before you say that the Israelis don't deliberately target civilians perhaps you might want to check first
You may find some isolated case somewhere but its certainly not the day to day agenda of Israel as it is for Hammas for example. Maybe you would like to be more specific.
So that shows a problem with blanket statements doesn't it .
Well thats not saying much is it. We all know blanket statements are just that.
English assassin
10-07-2005, 16:32
I think all blanket statements are wrong, myself.
~;)
Goofball
10-07-2005, 16:55
Lumping all Palestinians among terrorists again, are we? Beirut made a pretty clear point about this, that there is a tendency either intentionally or through a bad choice of words to consider all Palestinians as terrorists or responsible for the terrorists.
While I realize that all Palestinians are not terrorists, one can make a reasonable case that the majority of Palestinians support terrorism.
I point to the recent elections in which Hamas candidates were elected by the Palestinian people to 77 out of 118 seats.
And in case we need a little reminding of what Hamas is all about, here is a little snippet from their charter:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
Nice...
Now, I know all of the terrorist apologists will start talking about how Hamas runs schools and hospitals and gives to the poor.
Blah, blah, blah...
They also recruit, train, equip, and aim suicide bombers.
That kind of detracts from their philanthropic image.
I point to the recent elections in which Hamas candidates were elected by the Palestinian people to 77 out of 118 seats. In isolated Gaza, not in the West Bank where the majority of the Palestinians reside.
Tribesman
10-07-2005, 17:13
I point to the recent elections in which Hamas candidates were elected by the Palestinian people to 77 out of 118 seats.
Maybe you should point to it Goof , as as far as I recall the Hamas share of the vote dropped from 30% to 26% and they were elected to 28 seats out of 104 .~:confused:
Goofball
10-07-2005, 17:22
In isolated Gaza, not in the West Bank where the majority of the Palestinians reside.
My mistake.
I just reread the article I was using for a source and you are correct. I was guilty of reading a little too fast and perhaps seeing what I wanted to see.
I stand corrected.
My mistake.
I just reread the article I was using for a source and you are correct. I was guilty of reading a little too fast and perhaps seeing what I wanted to see.
I stand corrected. That doesn’t change the fact that the Hamas is increasingly popular. Which is indeed worrying.
That doesn’t change the fact that the Hamas is increasingly popular. Which is indeed worrying.
I think that we can all agree to that.
And Goof I doubt that anyone actually apologizes for Hamas. Most people I hear talk about them, and have no personal connection with them (not being Palestinian for instance), say that as a reason for why people support them.
Imagine you are being opressed, then someone comes by and tell you that they have schools and hospitals. You of course become happy since three of your children are sick and have been that way for years. Then later the same man tells you that he and his organisation fight against the percieved opressor. At that point most people do not think how that fight is done.
It is not surprising that Hamas is most popular where the toughest situation for the Palestinians have been, Gaza. Densely populated, very small and with a visible Israeli presence and obvious destruction.
I dislike Hamas just as much as the next guy, but that does not mean I can't see where it comes from. And no, I don't know what will end the conflict as you can be sure that Hamas won't stop. Hopefully the withdrawal from Gaza will cause a fall in the support for Hamas in Gaza and elsewhere... But I don't think so.
Geoffrey S
10-07-2005, 23:35
I dislike Hamas just as much as the next guy, but that does not mean I can't see where it comes from. And no, I don't know what will end the conflict as you can be sure that Hamas won't stop. Hopefully the withdrawal from Gaza will cause a fall in the support for Hamas in Gaza and elsewhere... But I don't think so.
I agree. Hamas feeds off the feelings of the unhappy Palestinian masses. No way they'll let a Palestinian state have the chance to develop, which is a situation where they'll lose support; Hamas and other terrorist groups thrive on the chaos caused by conflict with Israel, any time when another group is at the helm of the Palestinian people and things get better is bad for them. The withdrawl from Gaza is certainly not going to stop Hamas from causing unrest.
Tribesman
10-07-2005, 23:56
Hopefully the withdrawal from Gaza will cause a fall in the support for Hamas in Gaza and elsewhere... But I don't think so.
Well their share of the vote declined by over 10% so maybe there is a little hope .
Then again the next generation of voters may be more radicalised than the current one .
It may well work out that the clever ******** hearts and minds policy of healthcare and education provision will pay off in increasing their support .
I suppose there is always the slim chance that they may moderate their stance in the way that many of the other Palestinian parties/groups have , but that at the moment seems a very slim chance .
While I realize that all Palestinians are not terrorists, one can make a reasonable case that the majority of Palestinians support terrorism.
Ahh, but that would require a reasonable definition of terrorism. And I'm sure yours and theirs are not the same. While all may agree that a bomb on a school bus is terrorism, what about a bomb at an army checkpoint? You may think that is terrorism, I can assure you they do not.
And to say that the majority of Palestinians support the "bomb on a schoolbus" form of terrorism (not that you said that) is the same as saying all Jewish people are lawyers and bankers out to screw gentiles.
Goofball
10-08-2005, 00:26
Ahh, but that would require a reasonable definition of terrorism. And I'm sure yours and theirs are not the same. While all may agree that a bomb on a school bus is terrorism, what about a bomb at an army checkpoint? You may think that is terrorism, I can assure you they do not.
And neither do I. Soldiers are fair game. But don't whine when gunships put a couple of Hellfires through the front window of the terrorists' houses in reprisal. And if the terrorists' wives and children happen to be home at the time, tough shite. They know the risks involved with living with/harboring a terrorist.
Proletariat
10-08-2005, 00:27
And to say that the majority of Palestinians support the "bomb on a schoolbus" form of terrorism (not that you said that) is the same as saying all Jewish people are lawyers and bankers out to screw gentiles.
Then why don't they do anything about it? You know, since the majority of Palestinians are so against this type of thing.
Leet Eriksson
10-08-2005, 00:49
Hell prol, if i armed my kid with C4 and told everyone and their mother about it, the isrealis would be knocking at my door.
The terrorists are not that stupid. They don't go and announce it at the neighbourhood. Alot of palestinians themselves work for the isreali army to point out terrorists, i dare say 90% of the population inform isreali soldiers of suicide bombers daily in palestine.
And neither do I. Soldiers are fair game. But don't whine when gunships put a couple of Hellfires through the front window of the terrorists' houses in reprisal. And if the terrorists' wives and children happen to be home at the time, tough shite. They know the risks involved with living with/harboring a terrorist.
I have to admit to being very... curious, about your statement of children knowing the risks of living with terrorists.
:tiny: "Dad, I realize I'm only five, but I think we need to talk about your lifestyle."
Or is the five year-old harboring him?
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 02:08
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38103000/jpg/_38103604_baby300ap.jpgAnd then we have this for the little girls
http://www.theculture.net/barbie/dynamicbarbie2.jpg
Tribesman
10-08-2005, 02:20
But don't whine when gunships put a couple of Hellfires through the front window of the terrorists' houses in reprisal. And if the terrorists' wives and children happen to be home at the time, tough shite. They know the risks involved with living with/harboring a terrorist.
So say , just for example , instead of a hellfire through a front window of a terrorists house you drop a 1000lb bomb on an apartment block to target one terrorist is that OK ?
Of course the 17 other people killed 12 of whom were children all knew there was a terrorist living in one of the flats , as did the 176 people who were wounded .
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 02:23
So say , just for example , instead of a hellfire through a front window of a terrorists house you drop a 1000lb bomb on an apartment block to target one terrorist is that OK ?
Of course the 17 other people killed 12 of whom were children all knew there was a terrorist living in one of the flats , as did the 176 people who were wounded .
So did we terrorize the French in WW2 by bombing their cities ? Heck we werent even at war with them. Or did we ever decalre war on Fichy France. Now what we did to the Germans and Japanese makes the Israelis look like peace nicks.
Tribesman
10-08-2005, 02:27
So did we terrorize the French in WW2 by bombing their cities ? Heck we werent even at war with them. Or did we ever decalre war on Fichy France. Now what we did to the Germans and Japanese makes the Israelis look like peace nicks.
So you are saying that terror bombing is OK Gawain ?
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 02:37
So you are saying that terror bombing is OK Gawain ?
What is terror bombing? I would call the bombing of Dresden terror bombing and one of the most horrific war crimes ever perpetrated. Good thing we won the war. However if you attack a military target and civilians die that the price of war. Many of those in Palestine know who the terrorists are. They also know they are targeted by the IDF. If their smart they will stay away from or turn these people in not hang out with them. The only ones who can stop the terror are the Palestinian people. Once more I ask you , if the shoe were on the other foot do you think Israel would still exist today? That should answer the question what side is the more moral.
Tribesman
10-08-2005, 02:49
If their smart they will stay away from or turn these people in not hang out with them.
Ever lived in an apartment block Gawain ? How many of your neighbours would you have known ?
Oh but of course everyone knows everyones business don't they :dizzy2:
However if you attack a military target and civilians die that the price of war.
Oh so you agree with bombing buses , and people at bus stops now ?
The only ones who can stop the terror are the Palestinian people.
Absolute rubbish
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 02:54
.Ever lived in an apartment block Gawain ? How many of your neighbours would you have known ?
Sure I have and I knew almost everyone in my building. Also most of those taken out by the IDF are not some unknown terrorists but heads of these organizations and well known to those around them as such.
Oh so you agree with bombing buses , and people at bus stops now ?
Where did I say that?
Absolute rubbish
Its obvious Israel cant stop them. Tell me . Do you believe the American people could stop the war in Iraq?
The problem is that the leaders often move about, live in different houses and flats very often. Why do you think there is a need to bomb them right away in that house with a big bomb?
The people in thebuilding haven't been livingwith the guy for months or even weeks. Chances are that they DON'T know he and his friends are Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Hizbollah/whatever or even that there is a new person moving in. And moving out isn't much of a choice either as there is a serious lack of housing (it doesn't help that they can't afford to rebuild the buildings blasted to bits). But you can be sure that they will support them more after having been bombed like that. I'm pretty certain that if some country's military bombed you (as in personally) you would be pretty mad. I would...
Tribesman
10-08-2005, 03:03
Where did I say that?
Right there....However if you attack a military target and civilians die that the price of war.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 03:09
Right there....However if you attack a military target and civilians die that the price of war.
So now bus stops and people on buses are military targets?
I'm pretty certain that if some country's military bombed you (as in personally) you would be pretty mad. I would...
Yup. And Im pretty sure that this is why many Germans were mad at America in WW2. This is war even if its not declared. I see no one has the balls to answer my question. If the shoe were on the other foot would Israel be around today. I fear we all know the answer to that question.
So now bus stops and people on buses are military targets?
If there is a single military person there you haven't got a case actually. Asit happens there often isn't, but we can all agree that it is over the top to bomb a bus full of civilians to get at that recruit over there. But we can't agree to bomb a complex of housing because it contains a military target.
Tribesman
10-08-2005, 03:20
So now bus stops and people on buses are military targets?
Oh dear oh dear , its quite simple .
When a bus stop is used as an assembly point for the pick up of batches of troops by military vehicles it becomes a military target , when civilian buses are used to transport troops they become military targets .
Though the former has now been stopped as the Israelis were getting a little concerned about the colateral damage they were recieving .
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 03:23
If there is a single military person there you haven't got a case actually. Asit happens there often isn't, but we can all agree that it is over the top to bomb a bus full of civilians to get at that recruit over there. But we can't agree to bomb a complex of housing because it contains a military target.
Well the terrorisrs seem to think that sice military service is mandatory in Israel that all Israelis are soldiers or potential soldiers and fair game. If a Palestinian kills some Jewish children they are glorified while if a Israeli soldier were to intentionaly target a child for no reason he would be brought up on chrages. Thers is so vast a difference between the way the two sides handle things I cant see any reason to back the Palestiians as long as they keep using these tactics.If they could stop the terrorism their problems would quickly be over. Stll waiting for an answer on my question.
If it was reversed the Hamas wouldn't be in charge and thus it is likely the Palestinians who would be fighting an enemy bitter with hate.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 03:28
If it was reversed the Hamas wouldn't be in charge and thus it is likely the Palestinians who would be fighting an enemy bitter with hate.
That dosent answer the question.
Tribesman
10-08-2005, 03:50
Well the terrorisrs seem to think that sice military service is mandatory in Israel that all Israelis are soldiers or potential soldiers and fair game.
False ~;) Ask the IDF or the government , you know where the links are now ~:cheers:
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 03:54
False Ask the IDF or the government , you know where the links are now
Im trying to give them the benifit of the doubt. Now if you want to claim they just kill them because thier jews its fine with me.
Tribesman
10-08-2005, 03:58
Ahh whats up Gawain , has tonights post-fest led to too many errors~;)
Hows the omlette coming along ~:cheers:
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 04:12
Ahh whats up Gawain , has tonights post-fest led to too many errors
Again since you are so elusive in your answers its hard to figure where your coming from. How is it you can never quote what you want to point out but just give a link to a huge site. And still you cannot answer my question because you know the answer. Obfuscate all you like.
Tribesman
10-08-2005, 04:38
Again since you are so elusive in your answers its hard to figure where your coming from. How is it you can never quote what you want to point out but just give a link to a huge site.
Because I say what I say , I don't need to quote other sources all the time for them to make my point for me . I do occasionally when I am too lazy to type , but not very often .
If you doubt that what I write is true then find facts from a reliable and proven source and show the errors . In your own words or in some you cut and paste , I don't mind which .
That is the fun in this sort of activity ~:cheers:
BTW mandatory service is nearly right , it is "universal" except for little things like religeon , marital status , profession , education , ethnicity , length of residency and such like .
And still you cannot answer my question because you know the answer.
What question ?
Don Corleone
10-08-2005, 05:35
Okay, I'm wandering in halfway. I've been through enough of these Israel v. Fatah/Hamas debates to think I know where this one is. Let me guess....
Gawain, Goofball, Crazed Rabbit et. al. making the point that Israel has a right to invade a household of innocents to stop a suspected terrorist.
Tribesman, Idaho EA and company making the argument that the IDF is a bunch of thugs and Hamas/Fatah are really a peace loving group.
Beirut popping in here and there to say he's on the side of the underdog, and in his mind, the Palestinian little man can do no wrong.
Proletariat occassionally making some wisecracks to try to admirably, but unsuccessfully attempt to diffuse the situation.
Have I missed anything or are we par for the course by now?
Proletariat
10-08-2005, 05:36
Other than giving me too much credit, no.
Strike For The South
10-08-2005, 05:37
I would say you are 2 under my friend
Now just for the sake of asking a question concerning the issue. Why is this statement absolute rubbish Tribesman
The only ones who can stop the terror are the Palestinian people.
Now while I will agree that it is not absolutely correct because it does not take into account the Israeli portion of things - to say its absolutely rubbish seems to be giving a pass to those who support Hamas terrorist wing.
Crazed Rabbit
10-08-2005, 06:22
Gawain, Goofball, Crazed Rabbit et. al. making the point that Israel has a right to invade a household of innocents to stop a suspected terrorist.
No, I haven't been making that point, nor have I seen anyone do so (in my quick overview). So far, its just the standard, 'Israel has a right to exist, is the good guy, and disengaging.'
The others have been harping on how Israel is evil, terrorism, while totally justified, is understandable.
I brought up an article about Hamas wanting to ban dancing, and pointed out they'd ban all dancing since the begining of history (and probably explode if they saw Mutiny on the Bounty).
Beirut and I had a misunderstanding about my saying he supported terrorism, whilst I clarified he only supported those who supported terrorism.
Other than that....:coffeenews:
Crazed Rabbit
Beirut popping in here and there to say he's on the side of the underdog, and in his mind, the Palestinian little man can do no wrong.
Not at all. I am well aware that the "Palestinian little man" can do plenty wrong. I'm biased, not blind.
Beirut and I had a misunderstanding about my saying he supported terrorism, whilst I clarified he only supported those who supported terrorism
Actually, I only support those who don't support terrorism amongst those who do. Those who do support those who don't, I do. Those who don't but do, I didn't. Amongst those I do not - not support, I support those who try not to but still end up supporting me more than I support them.
So, apparently, I'm only half-happy when schoolbuses blow up. You can imagine my relief, I was beggining to feel bad about myself. ~;)
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 07:32
What question ?
Was it this one?
Once more I ask you , if the shoe were on the other foot do you think Israel would still exist today?
Or was it this one
I see no one has the balls to answer my question. If the shoe were on the other foot would Israel be around today
Or was it this one
Still waiting for an answer on my question.
Or any of the other times Ive asked this question on these boards. Im still awaiting your answer.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
10-08-2005, 13:54
you know, I like the ban on dancing, it helps me put it into context: they're like beardy, super vicious, far right Cromwell types.
Although Cromwell was beardless, just pretty bloody vicious, had a fair few proto lefties in his following but did things like ban Christmas celebrations, probably dancing too (if those are myths then please someone let me know).
Okay, I'm wandering in halfway. I've been through enough of these Israel v. Fatah/Hamas debates to think I know where this one is. Let me guess....
Gawain, Goofball, Crazed Rabbit et. al. making the point that Israel has a right to invade a household of innocents to stop a suspected terrorist.
Replace 'invade' with 'shoot', 'torture', 'use as human shields', 'bomb from F16s' and 'cripple economically' - then you probably have them about right.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 17:00
Replace 'invade' with 'shoot', 'torture', 'use as human shields', 'bomb from F16s' and 'cripple economically' - then you probably have them about right.
Get a life.~;)
Get a life.~;)
When taking one is so much easier ~;)
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 17:45
When taking one is so much easier
By both the Palestinans and Israelis unfortunatly.
Tribesman
10-08-2005, 18:55
Why is this statement absolute rubbish Tribesman
Because Red it is very specific , the use of the word ONLY completely ignores reality , therefore it is rubbish , since it is absolutely specific is is also absolutely rubbish .
I brought up an article about Hamas wanting to ban dancing,
Congratulations Rabbit , and care to guess which political leader and leader of a christian church would also like to ban dancing , hey he is also linked to terrorism , but of course you can ignore all thay can't you , as it does seem to negate the point that you are trying to make .
Tribesman, Idaho EA and company making the argument that the IDF is a bunch of thugs and Hamas/Fatah are really a peace loving group.
Has anyone ever implied that Don ?
Gawain , your question , what do you mean ?
If the Arabs had destroyed the State of Israel then of course it wouldn't exist .
If an oppresed people gain the upper hand then they are just as oppressive as their opressors were (One of your Presidents major concerns at the time of Partition which has proven to be mainly correct)
If the real extremists got into power in Palestine there would probably be no followers of Judaism residing ther , just as if the real extremists got into power on the other side there would probably be no non-Jewish people living there .
So what do you mean by your question ? What sort of shoe are you talking about , is it a nice comfortable sandal or an oppressive jackboot ?
Is it extremists or moderates you are on about ? If it is the former then guess what , they are crazy .
So if you want a proper answer then ask a propoer question with all the specifics neccesary to set the parameters for the response .
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 19:22
Why is this statement absolute rubbish Tribesman
Because Red it is very specific , the use of the word ONLY completely ignores reality , therefore it is rubbish , since it is absolutely specific is is also absolutely rubbish .
Rubbish yourself. In the end only the Pa;estinian people themselves can end the terrorism as it is their people who are doing it. That dosent mean all Palestinians are terrorists. But they are responsible for the actions of their people.
Gawain , your question , what do you mean ?
Its pretty simple. If at any time since the founding of Israel those who now call themselves Palestinians ever had the power to destroy Israel would they have done so? Would they ever think of giving any land gained in war with Israel back to Israel?
If the real extremists got into power in Palestine there would probably be no followers of Judaism residing ther , just as if the real extremists got into power on the other side there would probably be no non-Jewish people living there .
Were getting close to the point now. Which of these two scenarios is more likely? The Israelis seem to have a much better grip on their radicals than the Palestinians do. That is unless you consider the Israeli Liberals as radicals. Their out of hand and self destructive.
AntiochusIII
10-08-2005, 19:33
Rubbish yourself. In the end only the Pa;estinian people themselves can end the terrorism as it is their people who are doing it. That dosent mean all Palestinians are terrorists. But they are responsible for the actions of their people.So now, someone in the "same people" are responsible. Great. Good to know you've just justified the terrorists' vile acts against the United States as because our government (leaders of "our people" aren't they?) meddled in their affairs, invaded Iraq, etc.
Its pretty simple. If at any time since the founding of Israel those who now call themselves Palestinians ever had the power to destroy Israel would they have done so? Would they ever think of giving any land gained in war with Israel back to Israel?Switch the shoes, and I'd say all will act like this. But you must switch the shoes completely, which is impossible. That ultimately means nothing as you'd have to let the "Palestinians" be the ones who worshiped Jehovah and dispersed during Roman rule from Palestine in the first place. And you even have to rename them Jews. No point at all. They're no different to each other: humans, in different environments, but humans, nonetheless. Unless, of course, you are willing to step into outright racism.
Were getting close to the point now. Which of these two scenarios is more likely? The Israelis seem to have a much better grip on their radicals than the Palestinians do. That is unless you consider the Israeli Liberals as radicals. Their out of hand and self destructive.Again, switch the shoes completely. And no difference. If the Palestinians had a state and were not oppressed into a single goal of throwing off the oppression with no other concerns for the future (for there is no future other than oppression, if the goal fails) and no concern for the methods (for desperation brings the worst out of all humans) then they'd probably be in the same, or similar situation. And guess what? Put the Jews in the same situation as the Palestinians now, and I'm certain the nutjobs will reign supreme, too. Oh wait, go further, and put Americans there on the exact same situation, and Fred Phelps will be the most powerful man in the neighborhood.
Why is this statement absolute rubbish Tribesman
Because Red it is very specific , the use of the word ONLY completely ignores reality , therefore it is rubbish , since it is absolutely specific is is also absolutely rubbish .
So the Palenstine people can not end the terrorism that is being committed in their name?
Gawain of Orkeny
10-08-2005, 20:04
Switch the shoes, and I'd say all will act like this
Another obfuscater.
But you must switch the shoes completely,
Why. My question was pretty easy. Isreal has the power to take over all of Palestine if it so chooses and keep all the land it won in its wars. But they dont do it. Now once more if the Palestinains at anytime since the inception of Israel had the same power to destroy it would they? Is there any doubt as to the answer?
AntiochusIII
10-08-2005, 21:09
Another obfuscater.Another what?
Why. My question was pretty easy. Isreal has the power to take over all of Palestine if it so chooses and keep all the land it won in its wars. But they dont do it. Now once more if the Palestinains at anytime since the inception of Israel had the same power to destroy it would they? Is there any doubt as to the answer?Yes there is: it had never happened. How can you claim absolute in something that never happened? How can you be so sure that if it was the Palestinians in charge, they would not "retreat from Gaza" when pressure becomes this high? You're also ignoring the fact that these Palestinians have not obtained neither their own sovereign state, nor full citizenship and rights of the citizens of the country of Israel. Which only spells oppression. You're claiming that if the Palestinians have the power, they would destroy Israel, while Israel isn't doing that; but you're ignoring the rest of the situation, completely. Are the Israelis being oppressed? Are they being pushed far below the line of poverty? Are their civilians dying everyday and are being considered "collateral damage" by the hands of an official military? I do not condone terrorism, but neither do I agree with oppression. That the land was officially taken to establish the country of Israel in 1948 against the will of the Arabs is past, and no good comes in debating over that.
Soulforged
10-08-2005, 23:07
Why. My question was pretty easy. Isreal has the power to take over all of Palestine if it so chooses and keep all the land it won in its wars. But they dont do it. Now once more if the Palestinains at anytime since the inception of Israel had the same power to destroy it would they? Is there any doubt as to the answer?Ha! Uses of hipotetical courses, not of much use to the critical concret situation Gawain.
Now once more if the Palestinains at anytime since the inception of Israel had the same power to destroy it would they?
Yes.
Now, before that high-horse of morality gallops into a holier-than-thou sunset, let it be oh so clear that the main tenet of the leaders of both Zionism and Israel itself (at its inception) was also the destruction of Palestine. That's not me saying that - they said it.
And look what happened - Palestine was very nearly destroyed and it's people subjected to decades of prison camp existence and human rights abuses that would have made Ghengis Khan proud. If there is any moral high ground on Israel's side, it's an ant hill the size of a walnut.
King Henry V
10-09-2005, 00:16
Are their civilians dying everyday and are being considered "collateral damage" by the hands of an official military?
No. Instead Israel's civilians are considered THE target.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-09-2005, 00:52
Now, before that high-horse of morality gallops into a holier-than-thou sunset, let it be oh so clear that the main tenet of the leaders of both Zionism and Israel itself (at its inception) was also the destruction of Palestine. That's not me saying that - they said it.
No thats you saying it. Its another one of those blanket statements. Again how is it they dont do it now and why on the face of gods green earth did they give back land they didnt have to?
Tribesman
10-09-2005, 01:09
So the Palenstine people can not end the terrorism that is being committed in their name?
Nope , it doesn't look like it Red . Maybe thats why the PA security services were having their little protest at the assembly the other day .
Now if Gawain had been correctly specific he would have said.... "only the Palestinian terrorists can stop the Palestinian terrorism" ....
But of course that differentiates between Palestinians and terrorists , and terrorism and Palestinian terrorism , and we wouldn't want to do that now would we ?
Thats better Gawain so your question is now two questions for a start .
If at any time since the founding of Israel those who now call themselves Palestinians ever had the power to destroy Israel would they have done so?
A very diverse group of people , some of whom would and some of whom wouldn't , so you are talking about the extremists arn't you ? Well thats simple and was covered by....If it is the former then guess what , they are crazy .
Unless you are saying that ALL Palestinians are extremists .
Would they ever think of giving any land gained in war with Israel back to Israel?
Of course they would , sometimes the land gained is just too expensive to hold onto and becomes a hinderance to both the economy and the security of the State . In which case it is abandoned in the interests of balancing the books and improving security . Sinai , Lebanon , Gaza and some of the West Bank being perfect examples . And Golan being a prime example of when they won't as that is vital for the economy , not for the security despite all the claims that state the latter .
Unless of course you are once again talking about the extremists , who on both sides not only do not want to give up a single inch of territory , they also want every inch of all of the territory . But of course....they are crazy .
So on to your statement to Antiochus...
Isreal has the power to take over all of Palestine if it so chooses and keep all the land it won in its wars.
No it hasn't , and it has proven that it hasn't .
But they dont do it.
Yes , because they cannot .
Unless of course by power you mean the ability to Nuke the whole area , then yes it has that power .
So.... My question was pretty easy. yes it was pretty easy when you go into specifics , you shouild try it more often ~;)
No thats you saying it.
Well, unless I'm the re-incarnation of both Theodore Hertzl and David-Ben Gurion, they said it, not me.
Again how is it they dont do it now and why on the face of gods green earth did they give back land they didnt have to?
Two words - American & Money.
So the Palenstine people can not end the terrorism that is being committed in their name?
Nope , it doesn't look like it Red . Maybe thats why the PA security services were having their little protest at the assembly the other day .
Now if Gawain had been correctly specific he would have said.... "only the Palestinian terrorists can stop the Palestinian terrorism" ....
But of course that differentiates between Palestinians and terrorists , and terrorism and Palestinian terrorism , and we wouldn't want to do that now would we ?
So your arguement that this statement is rubbish is based upon semantics?
Tribesman
10-09-2005, 02:16
It is a blanket statement and incorrect , if that is semantics then yes.
It is a blanket statement and incorrect , if that is semantics then yes.
Ah but I would argue that it is not incorrect - just not complete.
Are the Palenstine people supporting Terrorist groups such as Hamas?
Is there a ground swell of support for the terrorist from palenstine who committs an act of terror against the Israeli people?
Is the overwelming condemnation of the terrorist activity of groups like Hamas who advocate the destruction of Israel?
Personally I find both sides at fault - and both sides cause the violence in an ever ending vicous cycle. Neither side wants to stop the cycle so therefor it continues.
Israel is wrong in some of its approaches to the Palestine issue, but that does not justify the terrorist actions of groups like Hamas who instead of targeting the military or the government of Israel they target buses full of women and children.
Defending Palenstine is one thing - however it seems that you would like to negate the impact of the Palenstine People's support of terrorist groups such as Hamas.
Again the statement that Gaiwan stated of Only the Palenstine people can stop the palenstine terrorism is not completely correct - however its not rubbish if one takes out the word Only The Palenstine people can stop the terrorists themselves if they withdraw their consent by inaction of the terrorits actions.
Israel can help by insuring that they continue to change the matter in which they deal with the Palenstine people in a more humane way - and to return to the 1948 border argeement.
Tribesman
10-09-2005, 03:24
however its not rubbish if one takes out the word Only
ah I see , so I should edit Gawains posts for him instead of pointing out the faults in them .
Are the Palenstine people supporting Terrorist groups such as Hamas?
Not as much , their portion of the vote declined , but of course there was only an 85% turnout for the vote which is a ridiculously low figure~;)
and to return to the 1948 border argeement.
You damn pro-Palestinian terrorist supporter !!!!Whats wrong with returning to the '67 borders~D ~D ~D
however its not rubbish if one takes out the word Only
ah I see , so I should edit Gawains posts for him instead of pointing out the faults in them .
Ah but when you called it absolute rubbish - you were just as incorrect as you assumed he was.
Are the Palenstine people supporting Terrorist groups such as Hamas?
Not as much , their portion of the vote declined , but of course there was only an 85% turnout for the vote which is a ridiculously low figure~;)
Well nice selective answer - more detail is needed then just a mention of the voting record to show a decline in support. Should I say your comment is absolutely rubbish because of its faulty assumption here.
and to return to the 1948 border argeement.
You damn pro-Palestinian terrorist supporter !!!!Whats wrong with returning to the '67 borders~D ~D ~D
[/quote]
Well I could be serious with an answer here - but I suspect you already know why Israel should return to the 1948 map.
Tribesman
10-09-2005, 04:01
Well I could be serious with an answer here - but I suspect you already know why Israel should return to the 1948 map.
Yes , but you know they cannot unless the water supply is guaranteed .
more detail is needed then just a mention of the voting record to show a decline in support.
But thats democracy in action isn't it .~;)
What you mean details like the security services protesting to step up the fight against terrorism ? Mentioned it already .~:cheers:
Well I could be serious with an answer here - but I suspect you already know why Israel should return to the 1948 map.
Yes , but you know they cannot unless the water supply is guaranteed .
Hence a major stumbling block in the formation of an independent Palenstine State.
more detail is needed then just a mention of the voting record to show a decline in support.
But thats democracy in action isn't it .~;)
What you mean details like the security services protesting to step up the fight against terrorism ? Mentioned it already .~:cheers:
[/quote]
Thats close - but what I am looking for is news that the Palenstine People are activitly informing on the terrorist activities of several organizations. That they refuse to allow their children to be brainwashed with propaganda verus truth. That they decide to protest against Hamas and other organizations when a bomb goes off in a crowded Israeli cafe or bus. The vote and the security effort by the PA is a good start - but its not a refutation of terror organizations by the people.
However Israel has to do some things to help encourage the Palestine people to pursue this course.
Tribesman
10-09-2005, 10:23
but what I am looking for is news that the Palenstine People are activitly informing on the terrorist activities of several organizations.
Well plenty of evidence of that , just look at the bodies of "informers" turning up on a regular basis. A very risky business indeed , as it is anywhere else . Especially risky when you cionsider the minimal amount of protection either the Authority or the Occupier can give them . Plus of course the the fact that the people you are helping are just as likely to turn on you in the long term aswell .
That they refuse to allow their children to be brainwashed with propaganda verus truth.
Yep , provide decent education , decent schoolbooks and decent teachers .
If the only school in the area is built by a charitable organisation that is lnked to a political organisation that is linked to a terrorist organisation then of course the parents should send their children to another school , just as they should choose another healthcare facility if the available one has the same links .
But of course if it is the only one then they should deny their children any education or healthcare .:dizzy2:
So that raises another issue doesn't it . Providing alternative choices (at a very local level so that the the restriction of movement measures that are imposed do not remove the parents option of using another facility elsewhee on a reliable basis) .
There is the old saying "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" but if you are offered more than one horse you would have the option of inspecting its teeth wouldn't you .
So if you only have the "evil bastards" doing the "good" work in your area the only choice is to either deny your children the benefits of the "good" work (a very hard choice when it comes to healthcare) or to avail of what is there and tell your children that though they are doing good works they are really evil (that can be confusing for a child or even an adult for that matter).
There are of course in many areas a choice of facility built and run by other foundations and organisations , and they do prove to be more popular .
Though of course some of those are from the UN which some people seem to think is an "evil" organisation so that must be the same as the Hamas ones~D
So the thing is to fill the space where there is a vacuum before Dr. Evil sets up his nefarious hearts and minds program . Or where he has already set up provide a decent alternative .
That they decide to protest against Hamas and other organizations when a bomb goes off in a crowded Israeli cafe or bus.
There are protests and there is a large peace movement . Just as the same is true in Israel when the shoe is on the other foot , so to speak .
Goofball
10-11-2005, 16:50
So now bus stops and people on buses are military targets?
Oh dear oh dear , its quite simple .
When a bus stop is used as an assembly point for the pick up of batches of troops by military vehicles it becomes a military target , when civilian buses are used to transport troops they become military targets .
Fair enough. Then it also follows that when a civilian apartment block is being used to house terrorists, then that apartment block becomes a military target as well, no?
Tribesman
10-11-2005, 17:07
Yep Goof , so people should condemn both equally or condemn neither .
Goofball
10-11-2005, 17:36
Fair enough. I condemn neither.
Gawain of Orkeny
10-12-2005, 01:41
Goof that has to be one of the worst sigs Ive ever seen and so full of bull~D
Kaiser of Arabia
10-12-2005, 01:50
Yes.
Now, before that high-horse of morality gallops into a holier-than-thou sunset, let it be oh so clear that the main tenet of the leaders of both Zionism and Israel itself (at its inception) was also the destruction of Palestine. That's not me saying that - they said it.
And look what happened - Palestine was very nearly destroyed and it's people subjected to decades of prison camp existence and human rights abuses that would have made Ghengis Khan proud. If there is any moral high ground on Israel's side, it's an ant hill the size of a walnut.
On Palistine's behalf, things like September 11th happened. Palestine is a useless sandlot. Israel is one of the most technically advanced nations on earth. The Palestinian people have committed too many crimes against humanity to count, I daresay that it would not only be acceptable but it would be right if Israel were to remove them from their lands, if only to protect Israeli citizens. Palestine has been the number one producer of terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Is there any point to Palestine? No. Israel had enough land stolen from it (i.e. Sinai), why give up more?
Also, my old landlord was Palestinian and owned about 10 gas stations in North Jersey. A real jerk, if you ask me. :balloon2:
Wow, that was one hell of a post. :stunned:
Would you like a cigarette or are just going to shower off first?
Kaiser - I found your landlord!
His name is Gary. Gary Hamas Al-Jaqueda that is. Look at this guy, he's got terrorist written all over him. Oh the humanity... :fainting:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/palestinegas.jpg
I spoke to the defence dept. and the cruise missiles are ready when you give the I-say-so. Go get 'em lad!
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2005, 02:57
Kaiser:
Nobody stole the Sinai. It was sovereign -- albeit largely empty -- territory of Egypt from the independence of Egypt up through the 1967 "6-days" war, when Israel took control. It was returned, peacefully, to Egyptian sovereignty as a demilitarized zone following the Camp David Accords. From that point forward, support for the "sweep Israel into the sea" approach in Egypt has been minimal - despite Sadat's assassination by reactionaries in his own bodyguard for signing the deal.
Strategically, with Egyptian manpower off the table, the aggressively anti-Israel states in the Middle East have been aware that a conventional war against Israel would be futile. While this hasn't stopped terrorism, it did save a number of lives over the years -- they'd been fighting wars at least once every decade before.
Seamus
P.S. Don't "sugar-coat" your post next time. Let us know what you really feel.~;)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.