War on terrorism ineffective

[Innominate]

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.

[straffo]

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 ?

[Hortlund]

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.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by straffo


Ever heard of mercy or emotion ?

Yes...?

[straffo]

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 ...

[Hortlund]

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?

[straffo]

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 ...

[Hortlund]

So 50 years ago "zionist" women strapped on explosive vests and blew up Palestinian schoolchildren?

[straffo]

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.

[Hortlund]

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".

[straffo]

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

[Hortlund]

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?

[Naso]

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

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?? ), 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?

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:

[Hortlund]

Hey Naso, yeah, you know I'll try out the new 4xJu88 option...I wish we had had that one at Sicily

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.

[straffo]

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