Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Voss on May 19, 2002, 02:30:04 PM
-
While, we stage attacks in Afghanistan and gain assistance from Pakistan, Pakistan terrorists have struck at India. India now looks at the U.S. as hypocritical on terrorism. Why? Well, I bet the way we dropped the ball with Arafat has something to do with it.
While, everyone worries about Iraq and Hussein's attempt to develop nukes, Pakistan and India both already have them.
I don't trust the Arab states at all, and I smell a rat. We have gotten so stupid recently. We deny screeners to profile? WTF is up with that? We won't call Arafat a terrorist? Stupidity!
We're getting setup for a big hurt, and all of our self-imposed handicaps are going to bite us on the butt.
-
Wait untill it`s too late.
All you palestinian lovers will be shocked when the bomb You hear about in the news isn`t in Netanya but in Austin or Denver.
Make them belive that You accept their cause,and justify their ways of fighting,because that`s the only way they can fight the oppressors and it will be no time before some amazinhunks here will think that is a working way of getting things trough.
I`m so mad I don`t even wanna type here anymore....3 dead so far after Netanya attack...:mad:
-
good point Voss
btw why do not use same quesion like in AH
when you run home with mega gang bang on your butt, we all say, that you should ask yourself, what got you to that situation...
What got they (US,UN,ME) into their situation ?
How many people have to die before we will looking for problems and analyze them back in time?
instead of pointing finger on .....
-
Bradahold, ritha fely tro samentypo polgirees gramintn somanitd gramoholo sputz. Nadolop nexurio "Plodh! Plodh! Plodh!" exerdife ferchur "Joban! Joban! Joban!" emederiot fracklem? Plachilo, govar didulm b deribul. Honbur morpuid whilpit sodak estular. "Plodh" va doridut frip mog handster "Joban" holg novinor siplolo ximonop. Wabgag frabvue.
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
good point Voss
btw why do not use same quesion like in AH
when you run home with mega gang bang on your butt, we all say, that you should ask yourself, what got you to that situation...
What got they (US,UN,ME) into their situation ?
How many people have to die before we will looking for problems and analyze them back in time?
instead of pointing finger on .....
When a girl is raped, is the first question you ask her "why did you get into that situation"?
You are a diddlying idiot :) <- see, I used a smiley...draw your own conclusions from that.
It is always wrong to try to shift blame and guilt from the rapist, or the terrorist, or the murderer, to the rape victim, the innocent civilian or the murder victim.
-
It is always wrong to try to shift blame and guilt from the rapist, or the terrorist, or the murderer, to the rape victim, the innocent civilian or the murder victim.
In the two days leading up to this attack, an Arab Israeli woman was shot dead when the car she was travelling in overtook a line of cars, an Arab Israeli man was shot dead after trying to drive his car across a ditch dug to cut off a village where his relatives live, a 15 year old Palestinian child was killed by an Israeli shell that "went astray", and a Samaritan man was shot for refusing to stop when shouted at by Israeli soldiers. He was profoundly deaf and didn't hear them.
Now, are you going to shift blame from the IDF, which shot all these innocent people?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
In the two days leading up to this attack, an Arab Israeli woman was shot dead when the car she was travelling in overtook a line of cars, an Arab Israeli man was shot dead after trying to drive his car across a ditch dug to cut off a village where his relatives live, a 15 year old Palestinian child was killed by an Israeli shell that "went astray", and a Samaritan man was shot for refusing to stop when shouted at by Israeli soldiers. He was profoundly deaf and didn't hear them.
Now, are you going to shift blame from the IDF, which shot all these innocent people?
You obviously have problems understanding the concepts of intent, law, criminal and terrorist. The short answer would be, I doubt there is any blame to shift in your examples.
I also strongly suspect there is more to these "stories" than you seem to indicate. In fact, all your examples seem very thin on details. There are probably alot more factors that you have either left out, or are unaware of. Please do elaborate a bit further...
The Arab Israeli woman shot while her car was overtaking a line of cars. What was the line of cars doing? Was it at a checkpoint? Who was in the car with her? Who shot her? IDF or Settlers? Or Palestinians? Why? Was she in violation of any laws or orders from Israeli security forces? Was it a lawful shooting according to Israeli law?
Arab man shot while trying to drive his car across a ditch. Who shot him? IDF or Settlers? What was the situation like? Was he in violation of any laws or orders from Israeli security forces? Was it a lawful shooting according to Israeli law?
The shell that went astray, sounds like an accident. Any indication that the IDF soldiers had any intent to kill him? Any criminal culpability?
As for the last one...did the IDF soldiers know that he was deaf? Was he in violation of any laws or orders from Israeli security forces?Was it a lawful shooting according to Israeli law?
-
The Arab Israeli woman shot while her car was overtaking a line of cars. What was the line of cars doing?
Travelling along the road. In my experience, cars tend to bunch up behind slower moving vehicles, unless on a dual carriageway.
Was it at a checkpoint?
No.
Who was in the car with her?
Her mother and her sister. She was 47, so presumably her mother was in her sixties or older, her sister anywhere between 30 and 60.
Who shot her? IDF or Settlers? Or Palestinians?
The IDF at first said Palestinians had shot her, later admitted it was their own soldiers.
Why?
You tell me. The IDF shoots about 200 - 300 Palestinian civilians a year.
Was she in violation of any laws or orders from Israeli security forces?
Not that anyone is aware of. She wasn't a wanted suspect, if that's what you are hinting at.
Was it a lawful shooting according to Israeli law?
Israeli law doesn't apply in the territories, so who knows. Currently only a tiny percentage of shootings by soldiers are investigated by the IDF, there is no outside investigation.
It probably wasn't legal under Israeli military law, but without an investigation no one will know.
Arab man shot while trying to drive his car across a ditch. Who shot him? IDF or Settlers? What was the situation like? Was he in violation of any laws or orders from Israeli security forces? Was it a lawful shooting according to Israeli law?
IDF again. What do you think my last setence meant?
"Now, are you going to shift blame from the IDF, which shot all these innocent people?"
He was trying to cross a ditch in his car. He was spotted, and an Israeli patrol fired at his car. They claim to have fired wrning shots first.
Again, Israeli law doesnt apply. Again, probably ilegal under Israeli military law, won't be investigated.
The shell that went astray, sounds like an accident. Any indication that the IDF soldiers had any intent to kill him? Any criminal culpability?
Lot of accidents around the IDF.
Strangely, they never shoot a settler by accident, their shells never go astray and hit settlements, settlers are never shot for driving too fast, or getting out of their car too quickly at roadblocks.
As for the last one...did the IDF soldiers know that he was deaf?
No, aparently deaf people are extremely rare in Israel, because deaf people have been shot on several occasions for refusing to obey shouted commands. Not deaf settlers of course.
I think the tactic you've used is usually applied in court with questions like:
How short was your skirt?
Did you have knickers on?
Were you drunk?
How many men have you had sex with?
It is always wrong to try to shift blame and guilt from the rapist, or the terrorist, or the murderer, to the rape victim, the innocent civilian or the murder victim.
You obviously have problems understanding the concepts of intent, law, criminal and terrorist. The short answer would be, I doubt there is any blame to shift in your examples.
An innocent civilian is innocent regardless of the laws imposed on him. Jews murdered by the Nazis were murder victims, whatever Nazi law said. Members of the einsatzgruppen were murderers, whatever Nazi law said.
Laws don't change morals.
Israel is occupying the West Bank and Gaza. The IDF is there to enforce that occupation. These people were going about their legitimate business when they were shot by the occupying power. It doesn't matter what the ocupying power's laws say, that's still wrong.
After all, I'm pretty sure a Palestinian court would rule the suicide bombers are carrying out legitimate attacks. That wouldn't be right either.
The IDF is an army of occupation. They use typical tactics of violence and intimidation to enforce that occupation. I don't know if you are old enough to have seen the CBS footage from 1987, of IDF soldiers holding down a Palestinian youth whilst they used rifle buts to smash his arms. That incident followed Rabin's calls to "break the bones" of the demonstrators.
The IDF shoots Arabs even when there is no risk from them. Read the reports from human rights organizations, and even from the US state department. They give a long list of beatings, destruction of property, collective punishment, and shootings. Read the Mitchell report, which shows that a Palestinian is more likely to be shot dead by the IDF if the IDF are not under armed attack than if they are.
-
Which really means...
"Is Israel worth World War III?"
-
Israeli military law is also Israeli law. Somehow you seem to forget that.
And I still think that there are more to your stories than you care to admit. For example, I dont think an Israeli soldier decided to just shoot a woman in a random car, "just because" or whatever. IDF soldiers dont just roam the streets in various Palestinian towns killing people for the heck of it, regardless of what the Palestinian propaganda machine is trying to have you believe.
An innocent civilian is innocent regardless of the laws imposed on him. Jews murdered by the Nazis were murder victims, whatever Nazi law said. Members of the einsatzgruppen were murderers, whatever Nazi law said.
Laws don't change morals.
This is a question that is far more complicated than you would seem to realize. Anyway, it deserves alot more discussion than just your rather cavalierly approach to it. We can go into that one if you want, your call.
As for the footage of IDF soldiers breaking the arms off some Palestinian. I think I saw that one, but I think they were using rocks and not their rifles. Or perhaps we are talking about two different occations.
As for your "analysis" on the "tactic" I apparently use, and how it "is usually applied in court with questions like how short were your skirt etc". Well, let me just say that your legal knowledge or various previous analysis so far has ...eh ...not exactly impressed me that much. In fact, it is painfully obvious that you really have no idea what you are talking about in that area. So please allow me to take this "analysis" of yours and bunch it together with your "the IDF is an occupation army" or "Israeli law does not apply on IDF soldiers in the west bank" and write it off as yet another failed attempt at legal argumentation fom your side.
-
Hortlund, why do you start off with lines like this:
It is always wrong to try to shift blame and guilt from the rapist, or the terrorist, or the murderer, to the rape victim, the innocent civilian or the murder victim.
and then do just that, by shifting the argument to legal technicalities?
Not happy arguing the moral case for Israel's actions?
And I still think that there are more to your stories than you care to admit. For example, I dont think an Israeli soldier decided to just shoot a woman in a random car, "just because" or whatever. IDF soldiers dont just roam the streets in various Palestinian towns killing people for the heck of it, regardless of what the Palestinian propaganda machine is trying to have you believe.
No, of course not. No armies ever behave like that.
The Israeli army is composed of conscripts. Some of them are drawn from the extremist settlements, places where Baruch Goldstein is revered as a hero. Some support far right parties that want to expel all Arabs. Many want revenge on the Arabs for suicide bombings.
Put these men in uniform, give them guns, and implement a policy whereby they will not even be investigated for shooting civilians and see what happens.
regardless of what the Palestinian propaganda machine is trying to have you believe.
I dont actualy read any Palestinian propoganda sites, because they will obviously be biased. I prefer to use Israeli and independant sources, such as the US state dept. etc.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Which really means...
"Is Israel worth World War III?"
It's past that Sandman, if we withdrew all support this minute, the nutbags would still want us dead.
Question is, Is the survial of America worth WW3?
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Bradahold, ritha fely tro samentypo polgirees gramintn somanitd gramoholo sputz. Nadolop nexurio "Plodh! Plodh! Plodh!" exerdife ferchur "Joban! Joban! Joban!" emederiot fracklem? Plachilo, govar didulm b deribul. Honbur morpuid whilpit sodak estular. "Plodh" va doridut frip mog handster "Joban" holg novinor siplolo ximonop. Wabgag frabvue.
Well said sir.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
It's past that Sandman, if we withdrew all support this minute, the nutbags would still want us dead.
Question is, Is the survial of America worth WW3?
Wow... this post is absolutely dripping with fatalism. :(
-
We still have 'Nukes'..... It would be a waste of Taxpayers money not to use them....
-
Bah, we dont need to worry too much about india and pakistan. They both have nuclear weapons, but if they DO use them, they'll only be using them on each other.
As for the war on terrorist, we ARE hypicrites. We have troops in afganistan, yet complain when israel does the same thing. The whole situation in the middle east is f***ed, and we need to stay out of it.
Or, conspire with the major nuclear powers to turn the place into a giant glass parking lot, and split up the oil.;)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
This is a question that is far more complicated than you would seem to realize.
Ever heard of mercy or emotion ?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Hortlund, why do you start off with lines like this:
quote:
It is always wrong to try to shift blame and guilt from the rapist, or the terrorist, or the murderer, to the rape victim, the innocent civilian or the murder victim.
and then do just that, by shifting the argument to legal technicalities?
Not happy arguing the moral case for Israel's actions?
There is a difference that seems to escape you. Continuing with the rape analogy; What you are saying is basically that there was a rape (terrorist attack), but you then continue with telling the rape victim that she has got herself to blame for being raped (Israel brought the attacks on herself because [insert favorite terrorist supporter argument here]).
What I am doing is saying that there never was any rape (murder of innocent Palestinian) in the first place, just consensual sex (if the IDF soldiers were acting within the boundaries of the law, or if it was an accident, then there is no blame to shift).
Over to the moral side of this. We can go into the moral case-argument if you want.
Let me start off by claiming the moral high ground.
Israel is a democracy. Palestine is not a democracy, he** its not even a state.
Israel has a legal system similar to the ones we have in the western world overseeing its police and military, safeguarding the rights of the individual. The Palestinians have Yasser Arafat overseeing the Palestinian police and various armed entities, safeguarding the rights of himself and his cronies.
Israel guarantee its citizens basic human rights. This concept is unknown for most Palestinians in relation to their own "government", they cling to these rights in relation to Israel whenever there is an IDF soldier within 10 miles though.
Both sides have been criticized by amnesty international for violating human rights. The Israelis because of various violations against Palestinians. The Palestinians because of various violations against Palestinians.
Israel uses its military and police to try to protect its citizens against attacks. Palestine uses its police and paramilitary organizations to murder Israeli citizens and soldiers and/or to support and aid various terrorist organizations.
No, of course not. No armies ever behave like that.
Most Arab armies do. Take a look at Iraq or Iran or Syria or Libya. Many African armies do too. Take a look at Congo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Sierra Leone…you name it.
No modern army from the western world does however (with western world I mean western Europe, USA and Canada). Most probably this has got to do with our different view on the rights of the individual, and our respect for the basic human rights.
The Israeli army is composed of conscripts. Some of them are drawn from the extremist settlements, places where Baruch Goldstein is revered as a hero. Some support far right parties that want to expel all Arabs. Many want revenge on the Arabs for suicide bombings.
Put these men in uniform, give them guns, and implement a policy whereby they will not even be investigated for shooting civilians and see what happens.
Simply not true. The Israelis investigate every shooting of civilians. As for the rest of your theories, they are irrelevant, flawed and biased.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Ever heard of mercy or emotion ?
Yes...?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes...?
So you know we don't allways have a rational behaviour.
In this case I would have showed mercy to the victim first and after I would have questioned the fact
You see what I mean ?
Israel is a democracy.
Well it's questionable IMO ...
What about the Shas party ?
Are they democrat ?
You will answer that don't have majority ... but I'm not sure that's Sharon coalision will last long without Shas party ...
Palestine is not a democracy, he** its not even a state.
It's up to Isreal ...
I don't know why Isreal can exist with Zionist and why Palestine shouldn't exist because of the Hamas for exemple ...
I don't seen any difference between zionist and Hamas ...
-
Originally posted by straffo
I don't seen any difference between zionist and Hamas ...
Do you see any difference between their actions? Seen many Israeli women strap on explosive vests and blow up palestinian schoolchildren lately?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Do you see any difference between their actions? Seen many Israeli women strap on explosive vests and blow up palestinian schoolchildren lately?
There's just a (about ) 50 years difference ...
-
So 50 years ago "zionist" women strapped on explosive vests and blew up Palestinian schoolchildren?
-
So for you there is a difference between zionist and palestinian ?
Both were using terrorism as a way to get what they wanted .
Now explain me the difference between killing a british soldier and a Israely kid.
In both case a life was wasted by criminal but judging by your post one is right the other is a crime.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Now explain me the difference between killing a british soldier and a Israely kid.
In both case a life was wasted by criminal but judging by your post one is right the other is a crime.
A British soldier is a combatant, an Israeli kid is not.
In certain situations killing combatants is both allowed and encouraged. Killing non-combatants is never, ever, under no circumstance allowed, but sometimes accepted under certain conditions (collateral damage).
I'm not saying that the Jewish attacks inside Palestine before Israel was created was legal in any way, nor am I saying that any such attack aimed at civilians should be described as anything but a terrorist attack.
HOWEVER there is a world of difference between deliberately targeting civilians and targeting soldiers. Somewhere in that difference you will find the illusive line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist".
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
A British soldier is a combatant, an Israeli kid is not.
And so their live is expandable ?
We are speaking of terrorism not "conventional" (*) war
In certain situations killing combatants is both allowed and encouraged. Killing non-combatants is never, ever, under no circumstance allowed, but sometimes accepted under certain conditions (collateral damage).
my A** a live is a life PERIOD they weight the same.
I'm not saying that the Jewish attacks inside Palestine before Israel was created was legal in any way, nor am I saying that any such attack aimed at civilians should be described as anything but a terrorist attack.
hu ? what a strange day if we can agree on one point ...
HOWEVER there is a world of difference between deliberately targeting civilians and targeting soldiers. Somewhere in that difference you will find the illusive line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist".
I still don't see any difference ,if any side use terrorism it make no difference between them both are terrorist.
I repet that using terror as weapon make no difference between zionist and hamas.
Depending on your cultural background it make you accept or not the tool (terrorism) used but it won't change the nature of what you are : a terrorist (even if only one side use this term).
(*) whatever this term hide
-
Originally posted by straffo
A British soldier is a combatant, an Israeli kid is not.
And so their live is expandable ?
We are speaking of terrorism not "conventional" (*) war
[/b]
The term combatant refers to someone having picked up weapons and entered the war of his own free will. Killing and dying pretty much comes with the territory after that.
In certain situations killing combatants is both allowed and encouraged. Killing non-combatants is never, ever, under no circumstance allowed, but sometimes accepted under certain conditions (collateral damage).
my A** a live is a life PERIOD they weight the same.
[/b]
Yes, I agree. A life is a life, and the value of each human life is the same.
But you misunderstand what I wrote. In certain situations (think war) it is allowed to kill other combatants (preferably from the other side), it is even encouraged (since if you dont, they will probably kill you). This is what we call war. In a war, people die.
HOWEVER there is a world of difference between deliberately targeting civilians and targeting soldiers. Somewhere in that difference you will find the illusive line between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist".
I still don't see any difference ,if any side use terrorism it make no difference between them both are terrorist.
[/b]
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that if one side use terrorist attacks (i e deliberately target non-combatants), then both sides are terrorists? Where is the logic in that?
-
Ok, it's long time since I entered last time in this Rep-propagand-'o-club forum, my fault to enter again ;)
First of all want to say thank you to Otto for his smart post :rolleyes:
We still have 'Nukes'..... It would be a waste of Taxpayers money not to use them....
We was missing this kind of contribution for the discussion.
Then, dear Steve (Hey, ready for the new buffs?? :cool: ), I want to point that in a situation like Middle-West, with more than a generation involved in this never ending "almost-war", counting all the responsabilities of western countryes in closing the eyes or, worse, have helped the Israel nation, for a real or supposed feel of guilty for the holocaust (more real than supposed), is'nt easy to make differences between one or the other.
Both of thems are guilty, IMHO, and both are stuck in this situation, with powers pushing stronger in this times to made the things worse.
Who pays this is, as always, the innocents, from both parts.
And we pay with our innocents the fact to have choose one of the two contenders as our "friend" (we pay this in misinformation, too).
In misinformation, yes, we have the news full of info about the terrorists blowing themselves in middle of civilians, but nothing about settlers or IL soldiers killing palest. civilians.
I was very surprised when I saw the numbers of civilians deads in a year, some time ago (was near the end of intifada II ) the source cited was the UN, but was in a TV channel.
They said about 250 israel civilians dead for terrorist act...
In the same period there were 1.800 Palestinians civilians dead...
I bet you will argue the "arab" ones were all terrorists, well, ok, stick with that... wait the next 9-11 keeping your eyes closed. :(
Meanwhile I want to clarify that I still have doubt about the above numbers, because was a TV channel to say that, and I dont trust TV or others propaganda-prone medias.....
YOU DO? :D
On a final note, to all those ready to write some arsh answer like the following ones:
"go away!!" - " This is a US BBS !!" - "Better you keep staying away from this forum" - and the always precious "we save your arse in WW2!!!"
I anticipate the answer:
:D
-
Hey Naso, yeah, you know I'll try out the new 4xJu88 option...I wish we had had that one at Sicily :cool:
Problem with your numbers is that the 1800 number includes terrorists, civilians and people who generally have got themselves to blame.
You have suicide bombers, pregnant women on the way to the hospital, 15 yr old kids throwing rocks at tanks, people trying to run through roadblocks and palestinian policemen gunning it out with IDF all lumped into one category called "civilians". Clearly some are, some are not. You might want to think about that before comparing the numbers.
It would be better if they were separated into combatants and non-combatants. Actually it would be really interesting to see those numbers.
And the next 9-11 is just a question of time, whether we keep our eyes open or not. People tend to forget that.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The term combatant refers to someone having picked up weapons and entered the war of his own free will. Killing and dying pretty much comes with the territory after that.
You make a difference where I don't make any .
When you die because of terrorism (having or not a gun) you are a victim ...
Concerning free will have you seen some ArabSat channel ?
Hamas TV (whatever is it's real name) do a very good job at diabolising (sp?) Isreal and doing mass brain wash of palestinian kids ...
Yes, I agree. A life is a life, and the value of each human life is the same.
But you misunderstand what I wrote. In certain situations (think war) it is allowed to kill other combatants (preferably from the other side), it is even encouraged (since if you dont, they will probably kill you). This is what we call war. In a war, people die.
Allowed or not legal or not the outcome is the same : lifes are wasted ...
I 'm not a dreamer , I won't see the day were all human on earth will stop to kill each other and stay in peace...
and no I've no solution either...
I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that if one side use terrorist attacks (i e deliberately target non-combatants), then both sides are terrorists? Where is the logic in that?
Hum ... I'll try to explain my position better :
I cannot support the Isrealy when the attack the Palestinian nor I support the Palestinian when they bomb the Israely .
For me both are using Terror and so are terrorist (I think it's a logical point of view)
One side use a "conventional" way the other use an "undercover" way but the result is identical => nothing move stabilisation in this region won't come faster ...
And finally both side are guilty
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And the next 9-11 is just a question of time, whether we keep our eyes open or not. People tend to forget that.
I certainly am not forgetting it. I am currently avoiding any travel to the US (except the Con, of course) and I am glad that my wife and kids have no reason to go there. I just read that 25 "extremists" have entered the US illegally, intent on conducting terrorist operations in the US.
I have a nasty suspicion that the US is about to experience a taste of what it must be like to live under the constant threat of suicide bombers, as they do in Israel.
-
I dont know why all this recall me the period end'43 - '45, when my country was split in two, with in the north a small part (the fascists) still fighting side to side with our former allied, and another small part in the same territory, fighting what they called a "freedom war" against them, and a bigger part of population triyng to survive in a "neutral mode".
We know who won, and our "partigiani" are now the symbol of freedom fighters, while the "Repubblichini" (fighting for the "Repubblica di Salò") were the collaborationists of the german occupation forces.
But in those times, the media used the word "Terrorists" to define the partigiani and big operations were fielded by germans and repubblichini to catch the "terrorists", and there was always some "collateral damage" :rolleyes: in the battle
Like in the "Via Rasella - Rome" bomb, that killed 33 german soldier and a civilian, followed by the shooting of 254 people (politic prisoners, common prisoners and jews) for retaliance (spell??) common know as "Eccidio delle Fosse Ardeatine".
Back on this times, and those places, just for an exercise, imagine one of those 1.800 deads....
He was in his house near an IL settlement, early in the morning he ear a big engine outdoor of his house, he look out and a big Caterpillar is approaching, he go out, screaming WTF!?! and at the last moment notice some armed settler escorted by some soldier... too late.. one of the settlers open fire and kill him.
The wife and the children escape from the backdoor while the Cat push down the little house...
The settlers needed some more land for relatives just arrived from the former URSS republics.
This event was filed as an aggression by a terrorist to a settler stopped by self-defence, and the destruction of the house was justified because the house was abandoned.
The wife escaped in Europe, to her brother that work here, they lost theyr country, and decided to live in an European country, where they discover what REAL democracy is.
It's just one history... just one, maybe a special one, but is enough to made someone wonder if what we ear in our fat and rich country is the only thruth.
who knows, better to go there and see by our own eyes, then talk. :)
-
I certainly am not forgetting it. I am currently avoiding any travel to the US (except the Con, of course) and I am glad that my wife and kids have no reason to go there. I just read that 25 "extremists" have entered the US illegally, intent on conducting terrorist operations in the US.
I have a nasty suspicion that the US is about to experience a taste of what it must be like to live under the constant threat of suicide bombers, as they do in Israel.
I know what you mean. The thing that really scares me...I mean really scares me, you know the kind of ice cold fear that hits you in the gut like a ton of bricks...is the threat of bio weapons.
The arabs have access to it, and they are the only ones mental enough to try to use it too.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I know what you mean. The thing that really scares me...I mean really scares me, you know the kind of ice cold fear that hits you in the gut like a ton of bricks...is the threat of bio weapons.
The arabs have access to it, and they are the only ones mental enough to try to use it too.
I do think you are going "un peu vite en besogne" (*)/ a bit to fast ...
For exemple the 1st use of gaz as a terror weapon was not by Arabs(**) I can be wrong.
And if I'm no mistaken the case of use of Anthrax in USA no one was caught by police and found guilty ...
so it can be domestic terrorist...
(*) dunno the english equivalent
(**) I've just a question : for you wich country are Arab country ?
-
Well, I guess we are toejam out of luck then Straffo, because I dont understand one word of French :)
I think the anthrax attacks in the US was by a lone -obviously deranged- US citizen. He probably works at a bio weapons research facility too.
First use of gas as terror weapon, I have no idea, but I think it might be the Germans or the British.
Arab countries:
Any country containing lots of sand, which is ruled by leaders claiming to be moslems and inhabited by people wearing rags around their heads. There they spend lots of time face down on small rugs facing a city where there is a large stone which everyone wants to travel to and kiss once a year.
-
Originally posted by straffo
For exemple the 1st use of gaz as a terror weapon was not by Arabs(**) I can be wrong.
You are not wrong, the first use I know was in the colonial war Italy conducted in Lybia, using some sort of gas against villagers in 1908 or so (as a side notice we were the first to bomb civvies from a plane in those times, what a think to be proud, eh? :rolleyes: )
:(
-
Straffo, you may not have heard (as many other people outside the US probably haven't) that the Anthrax- particularly the strain found in the mail room of the state dept (I think, someone else can clarify it for me) was a strain that was traced to our own military.
So it's quite possible all Anthrax threats/actual cases were home grown domestic terrorists in the states.
I think it'd be quite difficult for them to smuggle bio weapons into the US due to the very volitile state they are in. They have be kept certain temps, or at certain pressures otherwise they die or activate...
Either way, I dunno how much of a threat bio weapons are inside of the states. (seriously, I dunno)
Also Straffo, if you mean to say the first use of gas bio weapons wasn't by the Arabs, you are right... it was by the Germans in WWI using Mustard Gas. (some evil sheeit right there) EDIT: Or Naso is right... but still the Germans did use Mustard gas in WWI! :-)
-SW
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Arab countries:
Any country containing lots of sand, which is ruled by leaders claiming to be moslems and inhabited by people wearing rags around their heads. There they spend lots of time face down on small rugs facing a city where there is a large stone which everyone wants to travel to and kiss once a year.
LOL Steve, I hope you are joking :)
This is one of the most "Luogo comune" * based definition that I ever read, fantastic!!! :)
* dunno exact translation of "luogo comune", but mean when you use a big part of prejudice, mixed with lot of ignorance to made a vaste generalization. ;)
Like when here in Italy the sweeden are defined like "a bunch of tall, blonde haired and blue eyed vikings, wearing strange helmets with horns, with tall, blonde, blue eyed and easy girls, used to take a bath in every fountain in an Italian city, and used to hunt latin lovers during holidays" ;) :D
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, I guess we are toejam out of luck then Straffo, because I dont understand one word of French :)
Np:) sometime I don't either :D
I think the anthrax attacks in the US was by a lone -obviously deranged- US citizen. He probably works at a bio weapons research facility too.
First use of gas as terror weapon, I have no idea, but I think it might be the Germans or the British.
Oce again different background at work :)
I was thinking of the Japanese attack in the metro by the Aoum sect.
Arab countries:
Any country containing lots of sand, which is ruled by leaders claiming to be moslems and inhabited by people wearing rags around their heads. There they spend lots of time face down on small rugs facing a city where there is a large stone which everyone wants to travel to and kiss once a year.
Ouch , that's a lot of places in the world :) ...
I think that even mongolia will correspond to the description :D
Saoudia fit too and actually thy can be considered as allied ... even if I consider them more as retarded than allied.
And btw don't be so quick to judge the Arabs they given us a lot of things in the past and Arab poetry is still on the top of poetry.
Even if there is a lot of "middle age" arabic country today ...
@Naso : St Exupery said "the first to put a weapon in a plane was a criminal ..."
@SW : I was not aware that it was traced back to your own military :( I was just formulating an hypothese.
Internal or external terrorist are in the very same league for me : they should be punished ...
-
Originally posted by Naso
Like when here in Italy the sweeden are defined like "a bunch of tall, blonde haired and blue eyed vikings, wearing strange helmets with horns, with tall, blonde, blue eyed and easy girls, used to take a bath in every fountain in an Italian city, and used to hunt latin lovers during holidays" ;) :D
that must be a correct definition as we french use the same :)
-
Originally posted by Naso
LOL Steve, I hope you are joking :)
This is one of the most "Luogo comune" * based definition that I ever read, fantastic!!! :)
* dunno exact translation of "luogo comune", but mean when you use a big part of prejudice, mixed with lot of ignorance to made a vaste generalization. ;)
Like when here in Italy the sweeden are defined like "a bunch of tall, blonde haired and blue eyed vikings, wearing strange helmets with horns, with tall, blonde, blue eyed and easy girls, used to take a bath in every fountain in an Italian city, and used to hunt latin lovers during holidays" ;) :D
Heh, yeah, I wasnt too serious with the definition of Arab nations. Your description of us Swedes are not too far from the mark though, at least that part about hunting latin lovers is true ;)
(every summer Sweden is invaded by tens of thousands of foreigners, mostly from the Med-area, all of them trying to get inside the pants of our girls. Apparently there is some wide-spread belief about our girls.)
-
Originally posted by straffo
And btw don't be so quick to judge the Arabs they given us a lot of things in the past and Arab poetry is still on the top of poetry.
Ok, I can think of numbers 1,2,3 etc (back in 700-something was it) and algebra (gee thanks).
Anyway, what I meant was arab terrorist organizations.
-
(every summer Sweden is invaded by tens of thousands of foreigners, mostly from the Med-area, all of them trying to get inside the pants of our girls. Apparently there is some wide-spread belief about our girls.)
Yes, and that belief extends all the way to the US... it's like scripture... there's no possible way it can't be true!
-SW
-
Modern chemistry originated with the Arabs also. Al-kemi (Alchemy) was developed to its highest form by Arabs such as Geber and a guy named "False Geber" (Used Geber's name, but it wasn't him.) These guys developed many processes in chemical processing and WROTE IT DOWN, so others might learn from it. Compared to Europe during the same period (400 to 1000 a.d.) the Arabs were light years ahead.
-
Yes, and that belief extends all the way to the US... it's like scripture... there's no possible way it can't be true!
-SW
[/b]
Well, if its true it only applies to foreigners (dont count on it though). Swedish girls pants are among the hardest in the world to get into.
Why? Because the vast majority of Swedish girls are drop dead gorgeous, and they know it too...thats a bad combination.
Finnish girls pants on the other hand are among the easiest in the world to get into. But that's because the vast majority of Finnish girls are horribly ugly and they know it too...that is also a bad combination, but at least it is easy to get into their pants. Hmm..come to think about it, I think its an even worse combination than the one mentioned above. Add alcohol to the equation and you'll understand why so many Swedes wake up screaming on the Sweden-Finland ferries.
-
That's when knowledge and progress were at the core of their ideals MT. The problem with a fundamentalist shift and their idea of a return to that glory is it's self defeating. The reason for Arabia's wealth and power was that it was ahead of its time and moving forwards, not backwards.
What they instead move towards in no small irony is the backwards superstition and repressiveness of christian middle ages.
-
True Fatty. They were much more of a merchant society then, dare I say it, even capitalistic in many ways.
-
What you are saying is basically that there was a rape (terrorist attack), but you then continue with telling the rape victim that she has got herself to blame for being raped (Israel brought the attacks on herself because [insert favorite terrorist supporter argument here]).
What I am doing is saying that there never was any rape (murder of innocent Palestinian) in the first place, just consensual sex (if the IDF soldiers were acting within the boundaries of the law, or if it was an accident, then there is no blame to shift).
We're not talking about sex, we're talking about death.
The sex analogy doesn't work in the second case, because the Palestinians didn't consent to anything, and they ended up dead.
I don't believe individual Israelis brought anything on themselves. Israel as a nation is occupying and colonising Palestinian land. To expect the Palestinians to accept that peacefully is stupid. Colonistation involves war. Always has, always will.
I don't believe individual Palestinians brought anything on themselves (the ones in these cases). They were doing nothing wrong, and still got killed.
but you then continue with telling the rape victim that she has got herself to blame for being raped (Israel brought the attacks on herself because [insert favorite terrorist supporter argument here).
That is exactly what you are doing with the Palestinians. They wouldn't have been killed if the IDF wasn't so angry and jumpy.
You don't like shifting blame to the Israeli victims, but you do shift blame to the Palestinian victims.
Israel guarantee its citizens basic human rights.
It doesn't guarantee basic human rights to some groups based on ethnicity. Jews born in the occupied territories are guarnateed rights and citizenship, Arabs born in the ocupied territory are not.
It defines citizenship based on ethnicity.
It is also just about the only country in the world to officialy legalise torture of suspects. It also carries out extra-judicial killings, including in cases where arrest is an easier option.
It also holds foreign hostages to swap with it's own soldiers captured abroad. It also detains citizens and non citizens without trial for periods of 6 months, which can be extended.
The US state department describes Israel's human rights record as "poor"
In short Israel has a pretty good human rights reord for citizens and Jews, an appaling one for Arabs.
Israel uses its military and police to try to protect its citizens against attacks
And to occupy and enforce the colonization of the West Bank and Gaza strip.
Simply not true. The Israelis investigate every shooting of civilians. As for the rest of your theories, they are irrelevant, flawed and biased.
You really need to read up on some facts.
Concerning such confrontations, the GOI takes the position that "Israel is engaged in an armed conflict short of war. This is not a civilian disturbance or a demonstration or a riot. It is characterized by live-fire attacks on a significant scale
Israel's characterization of the conflict, as noted above, is overly broad, for it does not adequately describe the variety of incidents reported since late September 2000. Moreover, by thus defining the conflict, the IDF has suspended its policy of mandating investigations by the Department of Military Police Investigations whenever a Palestinian in the territories dies at the hands of an IDF soldier in an incident not involving terrorism. In the words of the GOI, "Where Israel considers that there is reason to investigate particular incidents, it does so, although, given the circumstances of armed conflict, it does not do so routinely.
From the Mitchell report
During the current Intifada, up until the end of January 2002, 21 cases were investigated by the IDF. In that time, the IDF killed more than 700 Palestinians, and wounded many thousands more.
So 50 years ago "zionist" women strapped on explosive vests and blew up Palestinian schoolchildren?
No, they didn't use suicide bombings. They did however intentionally target civilians.
The favourite tactic of the Zionist terrorists was to throw bombs from a car, usually into cafes or other crowded areas. They also carried out a terrorist bombing of the British embassy in Rome, and sent letter bombs to people in Britain. As well as murdering a UN envoy trying to broker a peace deal (Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte)
The best you can say about the IDF is it treats Arab lives casually.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The sex analogy doesn't work in the second case, because the Palestinians didn't consent to anything, and they ended up dead.
And again you manage to miss my point by about a mile. Lets try it this way.
You say that Israel brought the terrorist attacks on herself because of [insert various reasons].
I say that is just as bad as blaming the rape victim. You are focusing on the wrong part of the equation.
Rape:
It does not matter whether the girl was drunk or not, it does not matter what she was wearing etc, a no is still a no.
Israel:
It does not matter what Israel did in the past, it does not matter how Israel came to be, it does not matter how IDF soldiers behave in the West Bank etc, a terrorist attack is still a terrorist attack.
You then introduced four dead Palestinians into the discussion. Claiming that I was trying to shift blame from the IDF who killed them, to the pals themselves. But you seem to fail to realize that the situation is completely different from the rape analogy. A terrorist act is always a terrorist act, but the shooting of a civilian (even an innocent one) is not always a crime.
I don't believe individual Israelis brought anything on themselves. Israel as a nation is occupying and colonising Palestinian land. To expect the Palestinians to accept that peacefully is stupid. Colonistation involves war. Always has, always will.
I don't believe individual Palestinians brought anything on themselves (the ones in these cases). They were doing nothing wrong, and still got killed.
We went through this a week ago. If you feel confused over the "occupation and colonizing of Palestinian land"-facts again please go back and read that post again. I'll punt it for you.
The second part of your quote reeks of biased roadkill. But since you say that YOU dont believe that the pals in your example did anything wrong, I guess it's pretty pointless to argue around that. But apparently failing to follow a halt order from an armed soldier is not wrong in your book.
That is exactly what you are doing with the Palestinians. They wouldn't have been killed if the IDF wasn't so angry and jumpy.
And why are the IDF soldiers angry and jumpy?
Again, you approach the problem from the wrong end. The pals started this, and they can end it in a second by just laying off the suicide attacks inside Israel. But no, to you that would be "surrendering".
You don't like shifting blame to the Israeli victims, but you do shift blame to the Palestinian victims.
That is because it would be wrong to try to shift blame from a Palestinian suicide bomber to a Jewish mother with her infant son in a baby carriage.
It might not be wrong to try to shift blame from an IDF soldier to an armed Palestinian inside a refugee camp sniping at Israelis.
But somehow I get the sinking feeling that you disagree...
It doesn't guarantee basic human rights to some groups based on ethnicity. Jews born in the occupied territories are guarnateed rights and citizenship, Arabs born in the ocupied territory are not.
So now you are of the opinion that Israel, as the first country in the world, should start guaranteeing basic human rights to individuals outside its borders who are not Israeli citizens? The idea is absurd.
It defines citizenship based on ethnicity.
Alot of countries do that.
It is also just about the only country in the world to officialy legalise torture of suspects. It also carries out extra-judicial killings, including in cases where arrest is an easier option.
It also holds foreign hostages to swap with it's own soldiers captured abroad. It also detains citizens and non citizens without trial for periods of 6 months, which can be extended.
The US state department describes Israel's human rights record as "poor"
Have you read that rule? IMO that rule makes alot of sense. I'm referring to the "ticking-bomb"-law here. Anmyway, lets not forget what kind of people the Israelis are fighting against here. It's not exactly as if they were torturing catholic schoolgirls.
In short Israel has a pretty good human rights reord for citizens and Jews, an appaling one for Arabs.
..who are not Israeli citizens. <- you forgot to add that one to the end of that sentence.
You really need to read up on some facts.
[SNIP part of Mitchell report]
I guess it all comes down to your definition of "investigate"?
-
Steve, you portrait of the IDF and Israel as a group of saints martiryzed by the evil Palestinians girls and children, sound someway.... ehm.....
biased? :D
You are accusing someone of propaganda, by using the arguments of the counterpart propaganda....
No common ground, no understanding. :(
evil and good is in both part, the real problem is that the evil is gaining power in both parts more and more, and this is scaring.
As a allied of Israel the western countryes often tend to forget the wrong of Israel part and focus on the wrong of Palestinian part, and you seem a perfect example of this situation. :p
Before you jump accusing me to be biased, i repeat (and read my lips!! ;) ):
They are both wrong!!!!
Wrong by using the means they use, wrong for the objective of mutual annihilation, wrong for the unwillingness to understand or simple listen the reasons of the other, wrong to not have respect for the other.
wrong WRONG WRONG !!!!!
:)
-
Hahahaha :D
Well, I've never claimed to be the voice of unbiased objectivity now have I? :)
I did try very hard to be completely objective, unbiased and neutral in that other post though "a crash cource in Mid east history", but in posts like this one I have choosen my side.
And the line between "propaganda" and "fact" is sometimes very thin and illusive. And sometimes the only difference is your own viewpoints.
But you are right, I am not unbiased, I have little sympathy for the Palestinians, and I can give you plenty of reasons why. So I guess we should agree to disagree (I dont want to start a flame war against a fellow Ju88 pilot ;) ), you feel that both sides are wrong, I feel the Palestinians are wrong, and that the Israelis are "right", or at least doing the best they can to do the right thing.
-
Hey mate, we are discussing, we are enough smart to not start a flamewar....
Well, unless we want to troll a bit ;)
I understand your position, BTW.
Peace :D ;)
-
You say that Israel brought the terrorist attacks on herself because of [insert various reasons].
I say that is just as bad as blaming the rape victim. You are focusing on the wrong part of the equation.
Agreed.
It does not matter what Israel did in the past, it does not matter how Israel came to be, it does not matter how IDF soldiers behave in the West Bank etc, a terrorist attack is still a terrorist attack.
Agreed.
You then introduced four dead Palestinians into the discussion. Claiming that I was trying to shift blame from the IDF who killed them, to the pals themselves. But you seem to fail to realize that the situation is completely different from the rape analogy. A terrorist act is always a terrorist act, but the shooting of a civilian (even an innocent one) is not always a crime.
If you send your army in to enforce colonization of occupied lands, people will get shot.
The motive is important. If Israeli soldiers were not occupying the West Bank, if Israeli settlements did not have free fire zones around them, people would not get shot.
We went through this a week ago. If you feel confused over the "occupation and colonizing of Palestinian land"-facts again please go back and read that post again. I'll punt it for you.
Why are you trying to shift to technical details again?
The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel. Even Israel says so, and no country recognizes them as part of Israel. They have indigenous inhabitants, the vast majority of whom are Palestinians. Most of the land is in the private ownership of Palestinians, hence Palestinian land.
Practically every country in the world recognizes that Israel is occupying those lands, even the US. Not Steve Hortlund, apparently.
The second part of your quote reeks of biased roadkill. But since you say that YOU dont believe that the pals in your example did anything wrong, I guess it's pretty pointless to argue around that. But apparently failing to follow a halt order from an armed soldier is not wrong in your book.
A deaf man not being able to hear deserves to be shot in your book?
To get back to your rape analogy, it's like saying a mute woman can't be raped because she can't say no.
None of these people were doing anything wrong. A deaf man was walking down the street. A woman was a passenger in a car, a man was driving his car, a child was sitting at home. But of course, they deserved it, didnt they?
And why are the IDF soldiers angry and jumpy?
Perhaps because they are an occupying army enforcing military law on 3 million people, and keeping those people penned up to facilitate the colonisation of their land.
Again, you approach the problem from the wrong end. The pals started this, and they can end it in a second by just laying off the suicide attacks inside Israel. But no, to you that would be "surrendering".
Both sides started it, not the Palestinians.
The Palestinians are occupied. Of course they can end this by surrendering. It won't end the occupation, or the illegal siezure of their lands, or their water rationing, or their being subject to Israeli military law.
Israel could end it just as easily by stopping trying to colonize the West Bank and Gaza. Then their troops wouldn't have to roam around the occupied land shooting at people, and deaf people wouldn't have to worry about being shot.
That is because it would be wrong to try to shift blame from a Palestinian suicide bomber to a Jewish mother with her infant son in a baby carriage.
It might not be wrong to try to shift blame from an IDF soldier to an armed Palestinian inside a refugee camp sniping at Israelis.
But somehow I get the sinking feeling that you disagree...
I'm not talking about the IDF shooting a man sniping at Israelis. I'm talking about them shooting innocent, unarmed people. The cases above, for example. Or the case from the 5th May, when a trank on an Israeli tank broke, and the soldiers shot dead a 30 year old woman, her 5 year old son, and her 3 year old son. The soldiers claimed the tank track breaking sounded like they were under attack, and open-fire regulations state that if they are under attack, they are to open fire on all possible hiding points around them, like houses, bushes etc.
Was the 3 year old guilty of anything? The five year old? The 30 year old picking grape leaves with her kids?
So now you are of the opinion that Israel, as the first country in the world, should start guaranteeing basic human rights to individuals outside its borders who are not Israeli citizens? The idea is absurd.
Israel signed the Fourth Geneva Convention, which guarantees basic rights to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is breaking the convention in several areas.
It's not just that Israel has a duty to ensure the rights of the Palestinians, as they are under their control, it's that Israel itself is actively violating those rights.
Have you read that rule? IMO that rule makes alot of sense. I'm referring to the "ticking-bomb"-law here.
You believe in torturing supects to gain information and confessions?
I made a mistake, Israel officialy banned torture in 1999, although it still goes on.
However, "ticking bomb" is a joke phrase. Torture was applied to about 85% of all Palestinian detainees to extract confessions.
Anmyway, lets not forget what kind of people the Israelis are fighting against here. It's not exactly as if they were torturing catholic schoolgirls.
Torture was, and still is, applied to suspects. You know, people brought in for questioning who may or may not be guilty of a crime. Crimes they were accused of ranged from planting bombs to throwing stones to spraying politcal slogans on walls.
..who are not Israeli citizens.
That's alright then. IF someone isn't a citizen, you can steal their land, torture them, deprive them of food and water, keep them under curfew, deny them political rights, etc.
Hey, wait a minute, the Palestinians are blowing up Israelis, who aren't their fellow citizens. That's alright too, is it?
I guess it all comes down to your definition of "investigate"?
Mine is the same as the IDF's, and the US state department. What's yours?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
If you send your army in to enforce colonization of occupied lands, people will get shot.
The motive is important. If Israeli soldiers were not occupying the West Bank, if Israeli settlements did not have free fire zones around them, people would not get shot.
True, but it is just as true that no people would get shot if the Palestinians decided not to venture into the free-fire zones, or if they decided to just get over themselves and get on with their lifes instead of having their own little intifada...
Why are you trying to shift to technical details again?
The West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel. Even Israel says so, and no country recognizes them as part of Israel. They have indigenous inhabitants, the vast majority of whom are Palestinians. Most of the land is in the private ownership of Palestinians, hence Palestinian land.
Practically every country in the world recognizes that Israel is occupying those lands, even the US. Not Steve Hortlund, apparently.
Well, the reason I'm back to the technical details again is because you keep using words like "occupation" and "colonization". And please… "most of the land is in the private ownership of Palestinians, hence Palestinian land." You know better than that. The notion is just as absurd as if someone claimed that some Skyscraper was Japanese land just because some Japanese guy owns the building. It's a bit more complicated than that.
How's this, I'll lay off the technical legal aspects of the conflict if you stop trying to claim that Israel is colonizing the west bank, or that it is Palestinian land or stuff like that. If you want to we can continue the legal/historical debate in the other thread. Your call.
A deaf man not being able to hear deserves to be shot in your book?
No, you must have misunderstood. I never said he deserved to be shot.
To get back to your rape analogy, it's like saying a mute woman can't be raped because she can't say no.
No, again you should try to steer clear of the legal aspects of just about anything it would seem. A person can be raped without having said no. And the analogy is so poor it should be taken out back and shot.
None of these people were doing anything wrong. A deaf man was walking down the street. A woman was a passenger in a car, a man was driving his car, a child was sitting at home. But of course, they deserved it, didnt they?
Again, without knowing the details of all the occasions you mentioned, let me ask again. How on earth do you reach the conclusion that failing to stop when an armed soldier orders you to stop "halt or I'll shoot" is not "doing anything wrong"?
Perhaps because they are an occupying army enforcing military law on 3 million people, and keeping those people penned up to facilitate the colonisation of their land.
If you keep post crap like this I will keep posting long legal arguments as to why the territory is not occupied in the sense you mean, nor is it being wrongfully colonized. Cant you just lay off the propaganda phrasings?
Both sides started it, not the Palestinians.
You need to brush up on your history. I recommend you read my thread "A crash course in mid east history". As for the most recent conflict, who started the intifada?
The Palestinians are occupied. Of course they can end this by surrendering. It won't end the occupation, or the illegal siezure of their lands, or their water rationing, or their being subject to Israeli military law.
AGAIN read my thread "A crash course in mid east history".
Israel could end it just as easily by stopping trying to colonize the West Bank and Gaza. Then their troops wouldn't have to roam around the occupied land shooting at people, and deaf people wouldn't have to worry about being shot.
Well, here you are wrong. The conflict would not just end if the Israelis gave up all claims on the West Bank. One of the Palestinian non-negotiable demands (at least it was when the Barak offfer was turned down) is that all Palestinian refugees must be allowed to return, and reclaim their lost property. That would mean that approx 3 000 000 Palestinian arabs would be injected into Israel. Acceptable? Right... And we all know what the Palestinian reaction is when the Israelis say no to a demand of theirs... more suicide bombers. Simple fact of the matter is that Israel is fighting for her very survival here. Not just over some piece of land.
I'm not talking about the IDF shooting a man sniping at Israelis. I'm talking about them shooting innocent, unarmed people. The cases above, for example. Or the case from the 5th May, when a trank on an Israeli tank broke, and the soldiers shot dead a 30 year old woman, her 5 year old son, and her 3 year old son. The soldiers claimed the tank track breaking sounded like they were under attack, and open-fire regulations state that if they are under attack, they are to open fire on all possible hiding points around them, like houses, bushes etc.
Was the 3 year old guilty of anything? The five year old? The 30 year old picking grape leaves with her kids?
We have already talked about this incident remember? But to answer your question, no, the 3 yr old was not guilty of anything, nor the 5 yr old, nor their mother. It was a tragic accident. Let me ask you the same question I asked you the last time you brought this up again. Do you think the IDF tank crew would have opened fire if they knew that the only people in that field were two kids and a mother? Here you will find the difference between the IDF and the Pals. The Pals deliberately aim their attacks on women and children. The IDF doesnt.
Israel signed the Fourth Geneva Convention, which guarantees basic rights to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is breaking the convention in several areas.
It's not just that Israel has a duty to ensure the rights of the Palestinians, as they are under their control, it's that Israel itself is actively violating those rights.
What was the name of that convention now again? If you insist on quoting legal documents at least quote them right. And AGAIN, you are in way over your head when you try to enter the realm of legal reasoning. So the Israelis have signed the fourth protocol of the 1949 convention. That does not automatically mean that it is applying to the situation on the West Bank. The international red cross might think it does, I know the Israelis does not. The particular protocol we are talking about is only applicable in a war. (If you dont believe me, check the name of the protocol :" Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949." Now, perhaps you want to get into another legal discussion here (since you have been doing oh, so well in those so far), if so just let me know. Before that though, please give me a definition of "war" (hint, it requires two nations) or "civil war" (is the convention applicable in a civil war?…hmmm)
You believe in torturing supects to gain information and confessions?
In some circumstances, yes.
That's alright then. IF someone isn't a citizen, you can steal their land, torture them, deprive them of food and water, keep them under curfew, deny them political rights, etc.
Not really, but you dont have to defend their human rights either. As for the rest, read a book. Steal their land has not happened, deprived them of food and water has not happened either, the rest are issues of Israeli law.
rule of thumb: Break the law = face the consequences.
-
And the analogy is so poor it should be taken out back and shot
Yes, I agree your rape analogy is wearing thin. Comparing someone getting hot to consensual sex was about the most ridiculous analogy I've ever seen.
How on earth do you reach the conclusion that failing to stop when an armed soldier orders you to stop "halt or I'll shoot" is not "doing anything wrong"?
Because he didn't hear the order to stop. If you don't obey an order you don't hear, how is that wrong?
If you keep post crap like this I will keep posting long legal arguments as to why the territory is not occupied in the sense you mean, nor is it being wrongfully colonized.
Not being wrongfully colonized? Not occupied?
The US goernment seems to think so:
Question: Mr. Secretary, on the Middle East. Your speech in Louisville has been welcomed by Arab leaders who are very sensitive to the language that you used. You talked about Palestine. You referred to Israeli settlement of the West Bank as occupation. Are they right to notice a deliberate change of tone here?
Secretary Powell: I think they, both sides, Israelis and Arabs and Palestinians, have responded favorably to the speech, I'm pleased to say. What we tried to do in that speech is to lay down US positions that have existed over time, and lay them down in one comprehensive way and say to both parties, this is what you have to do to move this process along, and these are the realities.
There is nothing new with respect to the United States identifying the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories. They are occupied territories under UN resolutions. So there is nothing -- absolutely nothing new in that language, although people might not like to hear it come out of the mouth of the Secretary of State.
And with respect to settlement activity, that also has been a US position, and it is also a major feature of the Mitchell Plan, to go forward. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis have accepted a cessation of settlement activity as part of the Mitchell Plan.
From the US state department web site.
The UN seems to think so, the Eu, the member states of the Eu, etc.
Strangely, even the largest settlement development organization seems to think so. Go to the Amana.co.il website, where they will tell you about thei efforts in "colonizing" (their word) Judea and Samaria. They will boast about the number of houses they build, and their efforts to "turn the people toward colonization"
Well, here you are wrong. The conflict would not just end if the Israelis gave up all claims on the West Bank. One of the Palestinian non-negotiable demands (at least it was when the Barak offfer was turned down) is that all Palestinian refugees must be allowed to return, and reclaim their lost property. That would mean that approx 3 000 000 Palestinian arabs would be injected into Israel. Acceptable? Right... And we all know what the Palestinian reaction is when the Israelis say no to a demand of theirs... more suicide bombers
Non-negotiable? Negotiaton was underway, with the Palestinians complaining that Israel wouldn't declare an opening position on how many refugees it was willing to take back. Both sides agreed that alternatives, such as roperty within a Palestinian state, could be offered. The implication is, give the refugees some money, and give them the Israeli settlements for housing.
We have already talked about this incident remember? But to answer your question, no, the 3 yr old was not guilty of anything, nor the 5 yr old, nor their mother. It was a tragic accident. Let me ask you the same question I asked you the last time you brought this up again. Do you think the IDF tank crew would have opened fire if they knew that the only people in that field were two kids and a mother? Here you will find the difference between the IDF and the Pals. The Pals deliberately aim their attacks on women and children. The IDF doesnt.
THe best that can be said of the IDF is that they are indifferent to the fate of Palestinians. In some cases they have deliberately shot women and childen who were posing no threat.
What was the name of that convention now again? If you insist on quoting legal documents at least quote them right. And AGAIN, you are in way over your head when you try to enter the realm of legal reasoning. So the Israelis have signed the fourth protocol of the 1949 convention. That does not automatically mean that it is applying to the situation on the West Bank. The international red cross might think it does, I know the Israelis does not.
Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
UN resolution 465
The whole world calls it the Fourth Geneva convention. Should they change or should you?
As you say, the Red Cross also thinks the 4th Geneva Convention applies to the occupied territories, as does the US government, the UN, the EU etc.
Even Israel doesn't contend that the convention doesn't apply:
The principle of international humanitarian law which prohibits the forcible transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state which it has occupied as a result of the resort to armed force is not relevant to the issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. This principle, which is reflected in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, was drafted immediately following the Second World War. As the International Red Cross' authoritative commentary to the Convention confirms, the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, including endangering its separate existence as a race, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war. This is not the case with regard to the West Bank and Gaza. The attempt to present Israeli settlements as a violation of this principle is clearly untenable.
From the Israeli foreign ministy web site.
They are not claiming the convention doesn't apply, just one part of the convention. The logic behind it is twisted, to say the least.
The Czechs, Poles and Hungarians are no more seperate races than the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are certainly being displaced by Israeli colonization.
The particular protocol we are talking about is only applicable in a war. (If you dont believe me, check the name of the protocol :" Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949."
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: I to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, and 143.
Article 6
As you can see, article 49, the one in question, applies even after the end of the war. Perhaps you should read the whole convention rather than basing your arguments on the title?
Now, perhaps you want to get into another legal discussion here (since you have been doing oh, so well in those so far
See above
Before that though, please give me a definition of "war" (hint, it requires two nations) or "civil war" (is the convention applicable in a civil war?…hmmm)
I really think you should read the convention.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
Article 2
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Article 4
Are the Palestinians Israeli nationals? No
Do they find themselves in the hands of a Party or Occupying power? Yes
Again, don't take my word for it. The UN, the US, the ICRC, the EU etc all say the convention does apply. Even Israel isn't denying it applies.
Not really, but you dont have to defend their human rights either. As for the rest, read a book. Steal their land has not happened, deprived them of food and water has not happened either, the rest are issues of Israeli law.
Where do you think the land for the settlements, their access roads, free fire zones, agricultural land etc has come from?
It has been requisitioned from Palestinians who owned it. Under international law, which Israel has signed up to, that's illegal. Taking something that doesn't belong to you, and is prohibitted by law, is called stealing.
Many Palestinians are now in urgent need of food aid, because Israeli blockades have prevented food from entering towns, so yes they are being deprived of food. They are also subject to week long curfews, which again denies them access to food.
Water is rationed, and the IDF regularly cuts off supplies. During operation defensive shiled, they destroyed pumping stations and shot holes in almost all the roof top water tanks in the towns they occupied.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Because he didn't hear the order to stop. If you don't obey an order you don't hear, how is that wrong?
Yet again you seem eager to prove your own ignorance. It is wrong in the same way as it is wrong to break the law, even if you were unaware of the fact that you were breaking the law. You should try it sometime, perhaps the judge can explain it better than me. Try this: break the speed limit somewhere, then claim that you had no idea the speed limit was so low, see how far that will get you.
Not being wrongfully colonized? Not occupied?
The US goernment seems to think so:
LOL yeah, so what? Mr Powell seems to have been busy building his coalition against the Al Quaida :)
There is nothing new with respect to the United States identifying the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories. They are occupied territories under UN resolutions.
<-notice this phrasing. Now go read a book on international law, and try to learn the difference between international law and a UN resolution. And please read a book this time, dont just buzz around the internet to look for answers (but we have covered that before).
I have tried to explain this to you before (to no avail apparently) but heck, lets try it again. International law is one of the most complicated areas of law there is. The line between politics and international law is razor thin at best. Sometimes it is impossible to tell where it is. As an example, you might want to read the Nicaragua vs USA case at the international court of justice (ICJ Rep. 1984). In that case the US was in clear violation of international law (it is illegal to mine harbors and arm/train/fund insurgents in another country), but still Nicaragua lost that case (complicated again, among other things it has to do with questions of jurisdiction for the court).
You can take any international dispute you want, and I can guarantee you that you will be able to find support for both sides both in international law and in various UN resolutions. It is too complicated to just find some quote on some website and use that quote for whatever purpose. You have to understand the hierarchy of legal sources.
There are numerous UN resolutions regarding Israel and the West Bank. The important ones (Security counsel resolutions are generally more important than General assembly resolutions) all state that (and please pay attention now) Israel is not entitled to annex any of the territory it overran in 1967. Is Israel annexing anything? No.
There are also UN resolutions (from the General assembly) which states that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination. Two things are important to remember here.
1) These are General assembly resolutions (normally just as binding as a piece of toilet paper) and
2) The do not specify what territory the Pals have the right to self-determination in (that means the Israelis can say, ok, you guys get the Gaza strip).
COMPLICATED huh?
Strangely, even the largest settlement development organization seems to think so. Go to the Amana.co.il website, where they will tell you about thei efforts in "colonizing" (their word) Judea and Samaria. They will boast about the number of houses they build, and their efforts to "turn the people toward colonization"
Yeah, great case for the colonization.. "look, here is a website where some settlers say that they are colonizing the west bank. It must be a legal fact then".
Non-negotiable? Negotiaton was underway, with the Palestinians complaining that Israel wouldn't declare an opening position on how many refugees it was willing to take back. Both sides agreed that alternatives, such as roperty within a Palestinian state, could be offered. The implication is, give the refugees some money, and give them the Israeli settlements for housing.
Negotiation was underway…sure…did it get anywhere? Its just as easy negiotiating with a wall. Accept the simple fact that when it comes to water rights, refugees, settlers and Jerusalem the Israelis and the Pals will never reach any agreement. The rest is ludicrous "Israel should give the refugees money AND the Israeli settlements to live in" ..yeah, right. I'm sure the settlers wont have any problem with that.
In some cases they have deliberately shot women and childen who were posing no threat.
Sources?
Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
UN resolution 465 [SNIP various ramblings]
See above regarding the complexity of international law, and your attempts at mastering it.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: I to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, and 143.
Article 6
As you can see, article 49, the one in question, applies even after the end of the war. Perhaps you should read the whole convention rather than basing your arguments on the title?
Hmm..did we just fall back into the "Is Israel occupying the West Bank"-question again?
As I said, these questions are more complicated than you might want to admit.
I really think you should read the convention.
Trust me, I have.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.
Article 2
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Article 4
Are the Palestinians Israeli nationals? No
Do they find themselves in the hands of a Party or Occupying power? Yes
Again, don't take my word for it. The UN, the US, the ICRC, the EU etc all say the convention does apply. Even Israel isn't denying it applies.
AGAIN, please give this line of reasoning up. Accept your limitations. This is just about as diddlying pointless as if I would start arguing over complex physical theories after browsing some websites and snatching a quote here and there. GIVE IT UP.
Read article 3 (the one you left out), and then shut up. (Hint Palestine is not a nation, there is no war, is there an armed conflict? Probably not because the Pals dont have enough features of a state and the convention was never meant to be used when battling terrorist organizations. Now please GIVE UP.
It has been requisitioned from Palestinians who owned it. Under international law, which Israel has signed up to, that's illegal. Taking something that doesn't belong to you, and is prohibitted by law, is called stealing.
*sigh*
Once again. If Israel has jurisdicition over a territory, then Israeli law applies. If Israeli law applies, then Israeli law decides what is legal/illegal.
Many Palestinians are now in urgent need of food aid, because Israeli blockades have prevented food from entering towns, so yes they are being deprived of food. They are also subject to week long curfews, which again denies them access to food.
Oh no..the humanity. Perhaps they should refrain from sending suicide bombers to blow up Israeli children then.
Water is rationed, and the IDF regularly cuts off supplies. During operation defensive shiled, they destroyed pumping stations and shot holes in almost all the roof top water tanks in the towns they occupied.
See above.
-
Yet again you seem eager to prove your own ignorance. It is wrong in the same way as it is wrong to break the law, even if you were unaware of the fact that you were breaking the law. You should try it sometime, perhaps the judge can explain it better than me. Try this: break the speed limit somewhere, then claim that you had no idea the speed limit was so low, see how far that will get you.
Ignorance of the law is not a defence, ignorance of the crime is.
Claiming you didn't know you had to stop when shouted at by a soldier is not a defence, not being able to hear the soldier shouting at you is. Are you really a judge?
You can take any international dispute you want, and I can guarantee you that you will be able to find support for both sides both in international law and in various UN resolutions. It is too complicated to just find some quote on some website and use that quote for whatever purpose. You have to understand the hierarchy of legal sources.
Ok, tell me what UN resolutions and what international laws support the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?
There are numerous UN resolutions regarding Israel and the West Bank. The important ones (Security counsel resolutions are generally more important than General assembly resolutions) all state that (and please pay attention now) Israel is not entitled to annex any of the territory it overran in 1967. Is Israel annexing anything? No.
Security council resolutions are binding upon member states, general assembly ones are not.
1.Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories of recent conflict.
UN security council resolution 242, reaffirmed in 338
Again, you need to read up on the history. Israel has annexed parts of Jerusalem and the Golan heights.
COMPLICATED huh?
Yes, certainly. Some bits aren't quite so complicated, however:
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory
by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in
which every state in the area can live in security.
242
(West Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel)
2.Achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem
242
1.Affirming once more that the fourth Geneva convention
relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war
of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories
occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem
465
2.Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the
physical character, demographic composition, institutional
structure of status of the Palestinian and other Arab
territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any
part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy
and practices of setting parts of its population and new
Immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation
of the fourth Geneva convention relative to the protection of
civilian persons in time of war and also constitute a serious
obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting
peace in the Middle East.
465
3.Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel
in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the
government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to
dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease,
on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and
planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since
1967, including Jerusalem.
465
Theres loads more, but the message is clear.
Yeah, great case for the colonization.. "look, here is a website where some settlers say that they are colonizing the west bank. It must be a legal fact then".
Amana are not "some settlers". Amana is funded by the Israeli government and has access to government owned land that has been siezed from Palestinians.
Negotiation was underway…sure…did it get anywhere? Its just as easy negiotiating with a wall. Accept the simple fact that when it comes to water rights, refugees, settlers and Jerusalem the Israelis and the Pals will never reach any agreement. The rest is ludicrous "Israel should give the refugees money AND the Israeli settlements to live in" ..yeah, right. I'm sure the settlers wont have any problem with that.
I'm sure the settlers will have a problem with that. Perhaps the IDF can patrol their streets to make sure they obey the law, and have one or two of their "accidents".
It's strange that you think it reasonable for 3 million Palestinians to live under military occupation to benifit a few hundred thousand colonists.
The alternative to not reaching an agreement is continued war. Thankfully, most Israelis have become fed up of that, and support for a pull out from the occupied territories is now well over 50%.
Sources?
Try BTselem.
Hmm..did we just fall back into the "Is Israel occupying the West Bank"-question again?
As I said, these questions are more complicated than you might want to admit.
As I said, given a choice between trusting the legal opinion of the UN, US, Eu, UK, ICRC, etc, I think I'll choose them over you. No offense.
Read article 3 (the one you left out), and then shut up. (Hint Palestine is not a nation, there is no war, is there an armed conflict? Probably not because the Pals dont have enough features of a state and the convention was never meant to be used when battling terrorist organizations. Now please GIVE UP.
Ok, Steve Hortlund is right, the UN, UK, EU, US etc etc etc are all wrong.
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
article 3
"international character". It doesn't say not between two countries. Given that you have 1 country, Israel, and it is operating in territory it doesn't own, against people who are not it's citizens, that gives it "international character"
Again, everybody else seems to accept these facts, only you deny them.
Now, I could be the stupidest person in the world, but if I'm arguing the UK, EU, UN, US, ICRC etc are right, and Steve Hortlund from Sweden is wrong, I know which side I'd put my money on.
Remember how you said international law was complex, and you can find different sources arguing different things? Find one credible source that says the fourth Geneva Convention doesn't apply in the West Bank and Gaza. I've provided many that say it does, from people like Koffi Anan, Colin Powell, the UN security council, the ICRC etc. You have proided the opinion of Steve Hortlund.
Once again. If Israel has jurisdicition over a territory, then Israeli law applies. If Israeli law applies, then Israeli law decides what is legal/illegal.
The highest level of law decides what is legal/illegal. For example, US federal law says some things are crimes, doesn't matter what state law says.
Israel has signed up to various international treaties, and agreed to be bound by those treaties. It agreed to be bound by the fourth geneva convention.
Steve, before you start shouting at me to give up again, you might question the fact that I have posted sources, of respected countries and organisations to support my point of view. Not my opinion, theirs. You have merely stated your opinions, and become increasingly patronising to anyone who won't accept them.
Oh no..the humanity. Perhaps they should refrain from sending suicide bombers to blow up Israeli children then.
Perhaps Israel should refrain from sending the IDF to drive them off their land.
In case you hadn't noticed, the two sides are at war over a piece of land. Expecting one side in a war not to fight back is a bit silly.
What the last couple of months have shown is that Israel can't really win that war. Defensive shield was supposed to bring several month respite, instead 27 Israelis have been murdered.
On top of that, the operation cost over 30 Israeli soldiers lives. Now the Israeli defence minister is wrning of a "wave" of suicide attacks.
All you bizarre legal theories don't really matter, and don't affect the facts, that 3 million Palestinians won't be displaced without a fight, and the more that is done to displace them, the more they will fight back.
In the end, the only thing that's going to work is a negotiated settlement, which will see Israel abandoning the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinians getting their own state. It's eally just a question of how many more people die before that happens.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Ok, tell me what UN resolutions and what international laws support the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?
I thought I had covered the international law aspect of it all? Go back and re-read the thread "a crash course in mid east history" you seriously cannot expect me to post all that again? Well, I guess I could just copy and paste it to this thread, but that sounds silly. As for the UN. The absence of binding UN resolutions ordering the Israelis to leave the West Bank might be an indication. OR the fact that the UN charter expressly forbids the UN from meddling with the internal affairs of any member state.
Amana are not "some settlers". Amana is funded by the Israeli government and has access to government owned land that has been siezed from Palestinians.
So what? That still doesnt change the fact that the legal aspect of this is a bit more complicated than taking random quotes from their website as any sort of evidence.
I'm sure the settlers will have a problem with that. Perhaps the IDF can patrol their streets to make sure they obey the law, and have one or two of their "accidents".
Nah, I dont think so. Any Israeli prime minister ordering the IDF to move in on the settlers has practically committed political suicide. It aint gonna happen.
It's strange that you think it reasonable for 3 million Palestinians to live under military occupation to benifit a few hundred thousand colonists.
Again, you fail to see the whole picture. Israel is not in the West Bank "just because" or because the government wants to aid the settlers struggle. Israel must have the west bank for its security. Same goes for the Golan heights. The security situation becomes untenable if the IDF would just pack up and leave. It aint gonna happen. Accept this fact and get on with your life.
The alternative to not reaching an agreement is continued war. Thankfully, most Israelis have become fed up of that, and support for a pull out from the occupied territories is now well over 50%.
That number seems to fluctuate alot. Anyway, as you might or might not know (regarding your previous track record when arguing the legal aspects of this conflict) what matters is who is elected. Not what the most current opinion polls say. If the Israelis want out of the West Bank, then I'm sure they'll vote for some candidate with that agenda in the next election.
As for the continued war. Israel is the only party with any reasonable chance of winning that war. I suspect they will soon begin with the asymmetrical response-tactics they used against the Egyptians after the six days war...
Try BTselem.
Try to post a link or a quote here instead.
As I said, given a choice between trusting the legal opinion of the UN, US, Eu, UK, ICRC, etc, I think I'll choose them over you. No offense.
None taken. You have proved time and time again that you dont fully grasp the legal aspect of this, why should I be offended over what you believe when you are so clearly wrong? The fun thing is that you really believe that the "legal opinion of the UN, US, EU" somehow backs your side of this argument. But as I said, the line between law and politics can be very hard to spot when you're dealing with international law.
Ok, Steve Hortlund is right, the UN, UK, EU, US etc etc etc are all wrong.
Nah, actually I think its more like "Nashwan is wrong because he is misunderstanding or misinterpreting what he reads on various websites"
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
article 3
Yes, so do you note that it means that the convention does not apply in those cases? Only the minimum provisions?
"international character". It doesn't say not between two countries. Given that you have 1 country, Israel, and it is operating in territory it doesn't own, against people who are not it's citizens, that gives it "international character"
Again, give up your pathetic attempts at legal reasoning.
Again, everybody else seems to accept these facts, only you deny them.
OR you are misinterpreting what others say on their websites, OR you read the websites of organizations that have an interest in interpreting the convention in one way or the other.
Now, I could be the stupidest person in the world,
Nah, I think Masherbrum is holding that spot right now. Hmm..maybe thats not fair, I saw some pretty stupid persons on that Youth of Islam board too…I guess I'd have to pick one there.
but if I'm arguing the UK, EU, UN, US, ICRC etc are right, and Steve Hortlund from Sweden is wrong, I know which side I'd put my money on.
Well, the problem is that that's not what you are arguing. You are arguing around your own impression or interpretation of what they are saying. You may think that you are right and that you have support for your version in various quotes, but you dont. Because the law is more complicated than that, especially international law. Keep your money instead, do something useful with them.
Remember how you said international law was complex, and you can find different sources arguing different things? Find one credible source that says the fourth Geneva Convention doesn't apply in the West Bank and Gaza. I've provided many that say it does, from people like Koffi Anan, Colin Powell, the UN security council, the ICRC etc. You have proided the opinion of Steve Hortlund.
Have you? Or is that what you think that you have?
The highest level of law decides what is legal/illegal. For example, US federal law says some things are crimes, doesn't matter what state law says.
Exactly, and you do not know what this hierarchy is or how it works. You simply dont know which law is the highest one.
Steve, before you start shouting at me to give up again, you might question the fact that I have posted sources, of respected countries and organisations to support my point of view. Not my opinion, theirs. You have merely stated your opinions, and become increasingly patronising to anyone who won't accept them.
Nashwan, I'm not trying to be mean or patronizing or anything. I have tried to say that these things are really complex. I know people who have spend half their life pondering over these questions and still they cant say exactly what the law is in some cases. Most of these rules are open to interpretation, and I can understand how you feel that you have support by interpreting the conventions in one way or the other. But it is more complicated than that. You cant just open a lawbook and look at paragraph 1 where it says "It is forbidden to destroy property" and go "AHA, I'm right, here is the proof!", and then fail to keep reading down to paragraph 2 where it says "except in these circumstances …". This is pretty much exactly what you are doing right now with this Geneva convention discussion. You just cant grab some quotes from some website and paste it here as some kind of proof. You have to realize that it is more complicated than that. Let me try to give you an example. I understand that you feel that you are right, and I understand that you feel that you have found evidence on various websites that support your views. Now can you please acknowledge the fact that international law just might be more complicated than that. That sometimes it does not matter what a charter says because the charter might not be applicable, or that even if a charter by its wordings is applicable that doesnt mean that it is applicable. That is because the line between politics and international law is sometimes impossible to spot. Take your fourth Geneva convention and ask yourself how it has been applied in Afghanistan. Now, using your logic, and the logic presented on the websites you have quoted, that convention should really be applicable there too right? But yet somehow it isnt. That is because these things are more complicated than you think.
Now I have asked you time and time again to give up this legal analysis, but you just keep on with it. Cant you please acknowledge the fact that this is not your area of expertise? I mean, I dont go around telling people how to solve complicated mathematical problems or how to do some chemical analysis of some substance do I?
When you retreat to arguments like "your bizarre legal theories doesnt really matter" you are in fact saying that "hey, I havent got a clue here, maybe you are right about what the law says, but I dont care and it doesnt matter because the Pals are right and the Israelis are wrong". Fine, you can hold that opinion, but you have to realize that you have in fact accepted the fact that the Israelis have the law on their side in this conflict, and you are reduced to arguing that the Pals have the moral right or whatever.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Ignorance of the law is not a defence, ignorance of the crime is.
Claiming you didn't know you had to stop when shouted at by a soldier is not a defence, not being able to hear the soldier shouting at you is.
Failing to stop when a soldier orders you to is (most probably) a violation of Israeli law. If you are in violation of Israeli law, then the Israeli law enforcement has the right to use whatever means they deem are necessary and within the boundaries of the law. Thus, the soldiers shooting the deaf guy did not do anything wrong. This was the conclusion I wanted to reach with my example. The deaf guy was in violation of the law, but maybe he did not have intent. That is irrelevant right now however. A court might not have been able to convict him for any crime (since they would have a he** of a time proving any intent), but he was still in violation of the law, and thus the soldiers had the right to shoot.
Perhaps Israel should refrain from sending the IDF to drive them off their land.
In case you hadn't noticed, the two sides are at war over a piece of land. Expecting one side in a war not to fight back is a bit silly.
They are not at war. Israel is fighting terrorism. A war requires two nations. If the pals want to have a civil war, Im sure the IDF would be all too happy to crush the PLO. How long would that take? 2-3 days? But the Pals realize that they'll never win a war against Israel, so instead they use terror.
What the last couple of months have shown is that Israel can't really win that war. Defensive shield was supposed to bring several month respite, instead 27 Israelis have been murdered.
On top of that, the operation cost over 30 Israeli soldiers lives. Now the Israeli defence minister is wrning of a "wave" of suicide attacks.
You really shouldnt worry about the Israelis…they'll survive. Take a look at the frequency of suicide bombers before and after the offensive. Take a look at just exactly who the Israelis managed to capture or kill in that offensive. The Pal terrorist organizations wont survive another offensive like that.
All you bizarre legal theories don't really matter, and don't affect the facts, that 3 million Palestinians won't be displaced without a fight, and the more that is done to displace them, the more they will fight back.
Fine, so stop arguing over the legal aspects. The highlighted part speaks volumes about your knowledge in legal analysis. Its ok, and it was to be expected. Now just give that line of reasoning up. We can talk morals if you want, since that is pretty much all you have left after you have given up the "bizarre legal theories". I TOLD you it was complicated, and no fun either since the Israelis have the law on their side in this conflict.
In the end, the only thing that's going to work is a negotiated settlement, which will see Israel abandoning the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinians getting their own state. It's eally just a question of how many more people die before that happens.
I disagree. There are other options.
-
OR you are misinterpreting what others say on their websites, OR you read the websites of organizations that have an interest in interpreting the convention in one way or the other.
Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
UN resolution 465. Adopted unanimously (ie, including the US)
It doesn't require much interpretation to understand what they are saying.
Obiously international law is subject to politics, just as national law is in some countries. However, even America, which isn't exactly anti-Israeli, unequivicolay takes that position.
As guardian of the Geneva Conventions, the ICRC reminds all those involved in the current violence that the Fourth Geneva Convention remains fully applicable in and relevant to the Palestinian Occupied and Autonomous territories.
Again un-ambiguous.
The UK is firm in its view that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem
From the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth government webisite.
These are not misinterpretations on my part, they are clear declarations of the views of the respective organisations. Wether or not they are motivated by politics hardly matters, but I doubt most of them are.
Israel is the only party with any reasonable chance of winning that war. I suspect they will soon begin with the asymmetrical response-tactics they used against the Egyptians after the six days war...
Only problem with that is the asymetrical response has to be delivered against civilians. That's not acceptable to the international community, or even to large parts of Israeli society.
Again, give up your pathetic attempts at legal reasoning.
Are you incapable of have a debate without personal insults?
A court might not have been able to convict him for any crime (since they would have a he** of a time proving any intent), but he was still in violation of the law, and thus the soldiers had the right to shoot.
The open fire regulations the IDF operate under say they cannot fire unless they are under attack(or threat) or a member of the public is under attack.
Not that they can shoot people who disobey them.
But the Pals realize that they'll never win a war against Israel, so instead they use terror.
Like almost every defeated and occupied country before them. Like the Zionists too, in fact.
You really shouldnt worry about the Israelis…they'll survive. Take a look at the frequency of suicide bombers before and after the offensive. Take a look at just exactly who the Israelis managed to capture or kill in that offensive. The Pal terrorist organizations wont survive another offensive like that
Defensive shield came at the end of a month of attacks that left 65 dead civilians in Israel. However, look at the typical trends:
Oct 8
Nov 6
Dec 23
Jan 9
Feb 1
Mar 65 Defensive shield launched end Mar, continued throughout April
April 13
May 24
That's civilians inside Israel. I've left out Palestinian dead, and IDF casualties, which were of course much higher during the operation than normal.
April, the month when defensive shield took place, was the 4th highest of the current intifada, May, the month imidiately following, was the second highest on record.
The Pal terrorist organizations wont survive another offensive like that.
Note the bombing yesterday of the fuel depot. It nearly blew up the entire plant. It was a more sophisticated attack than normal, and would have been devestating, not just in casualties but economic terms. It supplies 70% of Israel's petrol, and has now been closed.
I disagree. There are other options.
None that will work. Israel has gone as far as it dares down the road of collective punishment.
Read the article I posted from the Israeli governments own website about the typical suicide bomber. It says they are poor, uneducated, and have a history of being victimised by the IDF.
In other words, more reprisals equal more suicide bombers.
-
Nashwan, I'm not trying to be mean or patronizing or anything. I have tried to say that these things are really complex. I know people who have spend half their life pondering over these questions and still they cant say exactly what the law is in some cases. Most of these rules are open to interpretation, and I can understand how you feel that you have support by interpreting the conventions in one way or the other. But it is more complicated than that. You cant just open a lawbook and look at paragraph 1 where it says "It is forbidden to destroy property" and go "AHA, I'm right, here is the proof!", and then fail to keep reading down to paragraph 2 where it says "except in these circumstances …". This is pretty much exactly what you are doing right now with this Geneva convention discussion. You just cant grab some quotes from some website and paste it here as some kind of proof. You have to realize that it is more complicated than that. Let me try to give you an example. I understand that you feel that you are right, and I understand that you feel that you have found evidence on various websites that support your views. Now can you please acknowledge the fact that international law just might be more complicated than that. That sometimes it does not matter what a charter says because the charter might not be applicable, or that even if a charter by its wordings is applicable that doesnt mean that it is applicable. That is because the line between politics and international law is sometimes impossible to spot. Take your fourth Geneva convention and ask yourself how it has been applied in Afghanistan. Now, using your logic, and the logic presented on the websites you have quoted, that convention should really be applicable there too right? But yet somehow it isnt. That is because these things are more complicated than you think.
Now I have asked you time and time again to give up this legal analysis, but you just keep on with it. Cant you please acknowledge the fact that this is not your area of expertise? I mean, I dont go around telling people how to solve complicated mathematical problems or how to do some chemical analysis of some substance do I?
When you retreat to arguments like "your bizarre legal theories doesnt really matter" you are in fact saying that "hey, I havent got a clue here, maybe you are right about what the law says, but I dont care and it doesnt matter because the Pals are right and the Israelis are wrong". Fine, you can hold that opinion, but you have to realize that you have in fact accepted the fact that the Israelis have the law on their side in this conflict, and you are reduced to arguing that the Pals have the moral right or whatever.