The Middle East part 2

[Bernadotte 0]

The IDF have now come to the conclusion that it was an accident not caused by the bulldozer or the fact that it ran her over...

...twice...

...but apparently caused by the debris the bulldozer was shifting (!).

Have they taken the debris into custody?

[Die Alive 0]

She was a drug user, they found track marks up and down her arms.

Quote[/b] ]So now disciplinary actions will be taken against the soldiers.

Israelis cleared in activist Corrie's death

-=Die Alive=-

[bn880 5]

What makes me think they will stop attacking if Israel withdraws? Nothing, Israel has more obligations than just withdrawing, like dismantling settlements, stopping assasinations etc. Look back a page or two to see the Hamas stance on the two state idea. They will stop attacking once they realize they aren't under Israeli or US mercy and control anymore. (which will probably happen when pigs fly)

doesn't it come to your mind that they are playing PR war as much as the otherside does. They could say they are pro-two-state solution, but they only say that for PR reason, while their true intent is to continue pushing the limits?

Doesn't it come to your mind that I'm right about who needs to be pressured here? The logic of asking for peace from occupied and terrorized people first is completely wrong.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ](which will probably happen when pigs fly)

let's not get to cynical shall we?

Why the heck not, this is complete bullshit, part of the reason Israel is allowed to pull off these in-humane acts is because of your dear leadership, if you want to call leadership.

[ralphwiggum 6]

although Hamas represents a small faction, it's action cannot be justified as much as those 1/3 of gov't's denial of peace process can it?

Being critical of a democratic institution like the Israeli government is very different from justifying the actions of Hamas.  I'm sure this is obvious to you but unfortunately it remains a rather difficult concept for many.

good point. the problem is that both sides, Israel and Palestine has problems keeping a small group of their side not to overreact.

Quote[/b] ]Futhermore, that 1/3 of the Israeli government does not deny a peace process. They simply wish to deny the Palestinians statehood in Judea and Samaria, what the rest of the world calls the West Bank. They want the land without the inhabitants and they will do anything to get rid of the inhabitants as long as it does not jeopardise the $3 billion that the US sends them each year. (Therefore, no deportations or mass exterminations.) Realising this is the first important step towards understanding what is really going on over there.

to me, denying current peace plan and its outcome is denying the whole thing.

Doesn't it come to your mind that I'm right about who needs to be pressured here? The logic of asking for peace from occupied and terrorized people first is completely wrong.

not really.

IMO, what Palestine lacks is the emotional support in terms of PR. Jewish people has sympathy due to their experience from Holocost, but Palestines have yet to gain that much sympathy from world opinion. Gahndi's non-violent protest may not be your choice of method, but I think Palestine, in terms of PR needs to seriously look at it. when PAlestines do nothing but Israel continuously attacks them what do you think will happen?

[bn880 5]

not really.

IMO, what Palestine lacks is the emotional support in terms of PR. Jewish people has sympathy due to their experience from Holocost, but Palestines have yet to gain that much sympathy from world opinion. Gahndi's non-violent protest may not be your choice of method, but I think Palestine, in terms of PR needs to seriously look at it. when PAlestines do nothing but Israel continuously attacks them what do you think will happen?

Oh well, it wouldn't be your first error (I mean time).

Well I agree about the PR issue, but that's another point in what I'm saying, people have no understanding of what Palestinians are going through. Like I said, a continuously beaten or wounded animal.

Another way to put it is: if you see someone holding another person at gunpoint and threatening to kill them, while the other person has only rocks to hrow, do you continuously harass the unarmed person because he has no sympathy from the crowd?

Just as a hint, you are suppost to negotiate with the one who is more of a threat and has more room to back off.

[ralphwiggum 6]

sure Mr. I-don't-think-US-is-in-saddam-airport and -lynch-not-injured.

Quote[/b] ]Another way to put it is: if you see someone holding another person at gunpoint and threatening to kill them, while the other person has only rocks to hrow, do you continuously harass the unarmed person because he has no sympathy from the crowd?

what will happen? eventually, the one with the gun will be dealt with. for someone who is getting pointed with a gun, it's a lot better not to try provoke the gun holder to fire, but create situation where gun holder is backed against to the point where he realizes that if he pulls trigger, he is pulling a trigger to his life. than the gun holder will back off.

[PitViper 0]

when PAlestines do nothing but Israel continuously attacks them what do you think will happen?

Why would Israel continually attack their militants if they are not bombing Israelis?      

Have they ever just attacked "palestinians" who haven't attacked them or been involving in planning or executing bombings?

[Tamme 0]

when PAlestines do nothing but Israel continuously attacks them what do you think will happen?

Why would Israel continually attack their militants if they are not bombing Israelis?      

Someone's a bit aloof here  

I think that the palestinians should stop attacking first. Then Israel wouldn't have any justification for their doings. If Israel stops first then I'm not sure if palestinians will.

[bn880 5]

when PAlestines do nothing but Israel continuously attacks them what do you think will happen?

Why would Israel continually attack their militants if they are not bombing Israelis?

Have they ever just attacked "palestinians" who haven't attacked them or been involving in planning or executing bombings?

So why are they occupying them, relocated them, and are stealing their land.

[bn880 5]

sure Mr. I-don't-think-US-is-in-saddam-airport and -lynch-not-injured.

Quote[/b] ]Another way to put it is: if you see someone holding another person at gunpoint and threatening to kill them, while the other person has only rocks to hrow, do you continuously harass the unarmed person because he has no sympathy from the crowd?

what will happen? eventually, the one with the gun will be dealt with. for someone who is getting pointed with a gun, it's a lot better not to try provoke the gun holder to fire, but create situation where gun holder is backed against to the point where he realizes that if he pulls trigger, he is pulling a trigger to his life. than the gun holder will back off.

Yeah and then if the one who has a gun pointing at them has no hope for life, no stability, and only dispair at the hands of the one who has the gun, he won't think clearly, just keep attacking even if he dies.

There is obviously no point in this discussion, logic and human hardship is too hard to understand by you and many around here, so forget it, the pathetic thing is 50% of Canadians are also unable to think as they know little of a hopeless life that Palestinians are faced with, and simply side with anyone that has a larger military and more business. Throw little catch phrases like terrorISM and they all herd up like sheep behind Bush and Sharon.

[ralphwiggum 6]

sure Mr. I-don't-think-US-is-in-saddam-airport and -lynch-not-injured.

Quote[/b] ]Another way to put it is:  if you see someone holding another person at gunpoint and threatening to kill them, while the other person has only rocks to hrow, do you continuously harass the unarmed person because he has no sympathy from the crowd?

what will happen? eventually, the one with the gun will be dealt with. for someone who is getting pointed with a gun, it's a lot better not to try provoke the gun holder to fire, but create situation where gun holder is backed against to the point where he realizes that if he pulls trigger, he is pulling a trigger to his life. than the gun holder will back off.

Yeah and then if the one who has a gun pointing at them has no hope for life, no stability, and only dispair at the hands of the one who has the gun, he won't think clearly, just keep attacking even if he dies.

maybe you did not get my point, or i didn't convey them across correctly (or both), but my point is that with rest of the world still keeping an eye on the situation(loosely speaking), Israel will not get far with aiming gun at the head of Palestinians. Just the fact that Oslo agreement was made shows that there is a small steps of progress. I really don't know how much it will take for that region to be peaceful, but I don't doubt that it will happen.

If people with stones were cornered by a guy with a gun, then why did Arafat sign the Oslo agreement? He could have attacked Israel.

There is hope, but the road to it is long and hard, and as USboldier11b said, each side needs to acknowledge they need to deal with own side's extremes.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Some slightly more positive news Hamas leader signals truce

Of course the main thing is not words but what will actually happen now, but that Hamas has said it will 'suspend fighting operations' is a positive development nonetheless.

[Bernadotte 0]

to me, denying current peace plan and its outcome is denying the whole thing.

But you're different.

For most Americans it's enough to think that all Israelis are engaged in the peace process, when in reality much of the Sharon government opposes the 2-state outcome and will work tirelessly to prevent it from happening.  This huge disconect between Israeli words and actions has been deceiving Americans for over 50 years.

The Qibiya massacre is a good example.  This West Bank town was raided by Israeli forces in 1953 as a reprisal for cross-border terrorist activity.  An IDF unit led by a young Colonel named Ariel Sharon blew up 50 homes with the people still inside them, killing at least 70 mostly women and children.  The UN condemned the attack, but Israel simply claimed that they did not know civilians were hiding in the homes (even though witnesses heard their screams).  The US believed it.

Get the picture?  All Israel has to do is claim ignorance and express regret and the US is quite happy to forgive, forget and send another $3 billion.

"Sorry, but we did not know that allowing a Lebanese Christian militia into a Palestinian refugee camp would result in a massacre."

"Sorry, but we did not know that dropping a 2000 lbs bomb on a crowded apartment block in Gaza would kill more than the Hamas target."

"Sorry, but we did not know that firing 6 hellfire missiles at a Hamas militant in the front seat of his car would kill his wife and infant in the back seat plus 7 bystanders."

etc... etc... etc...

How can it be terrorism?  Afterall, terrorists don't say sorry, do they?  Duhh....  

[FSPilot 0]

Tex USMC

Quote[/b] ]The indiscriminate nature of the attacks certainly would suggest otherwise. Firing high-explosive rockets at cars in crowded urban areas is not exactly conducive to minimizing civilian casualties. From simple observation it's fairly easy to come to the conclusion that, at best, the IDF doesn't care about collateral damage, and at worst, actually tries to squeeze a few civilians into the body count here and there.

Nobody's saying they're blameless. But they're still better than hamas.

Quote[/b] ]But let's face it, Israel's in the best situation to take the first step towards peace. They've got the upper hand, they've got the firepower, and they've got the infrastructure. The Palestinians on the other hand have no hope as it is, so why not fight?

I think that's what they're doing now. God willing they might have this problem solved, at least somewhat.

[PFC_Mike 2]

The Israelis do too kill civillians, but it's not their primary goal. If someone has spent most of their adult life attempting to maim and kill you, would you be bothered by taking out their families? Besides, I think that the Hamas leaders are using their young children as unwilling human shields. And as for the demolition of the homes of the families of terrorists, it's a deterrent. Would you blow yourself up if your family would become homeless and the slow members might get smushed? If you are Bn880, probably so, but you wouldn't be as gung-ho about it.

The most shameful party in the conflict is the Arab states that use it as an excuse for all of their problems while prolonging it by arming the intifada, and most importantly, denying any sort of refugee status for the "landless Palestinians"

[PFC_Mike 2]

Any explanation for the recent spate of failed assasinations? I think that the use of anti-tank missles may be an unecessarily costly choice, they are designed to penetrate armor. Whats wrong with a FFAR?

[Bernadotte 0]

If someone has spent most of their adult life attempting to maim and kill you, would you be bothered by taking out their families?

Yes.

[FSPilot 0]

The Israelis do too kill civillians, but it's not their primary goal.

I don't know if this was addressed to me or not, but in case it was I already said that.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Even using "an eye for an eye" ideology, what is happening is wrong. Hamas is taking an eye (given that it may be a civilian eye), but the IDF goes in and takes a whole limb. Killing Palestinian civilians in wreckless assaults is only going to piss them off more. Where's the logic in that?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

You damn liberals have to side with the terrorists dont you

USSoldier11B this isnt a Utopia we're living in you know!

The IDF is doing a good job killing terrorists who have evil in their hearts and like president Bush says you're either WITH US or AGAINST US.

Whats your solution? You think Israel should talk with terrorists? Israel has no choice but to reluctantly bring to justice those who have commited evil acts against them

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

not

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]USSoldier11B this isnt a Utopia we're living in you know!

.....if you read my posts you will recognize that.

1. I am not a liberal....well, maybe to a Montana Freeman.

2. I bash utopians with zeal.

However, I think the IDF has been wreckless lately, and killing civilians, although it will happen in conflict sadly, is bad mo-jo. I doubt most of those bystanders are much for or against much of anything, they are probably mostly scared and weary.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

.....if you read my posts you will recognize that

1. I am not a great supporter of Bush....well, not the man anyway

2. I dont bash liberals with zeal...

i actually agree with you and was sort of expressing my surprise that you -criticised the IDF-! which seems to be not too common nowadays in conservatives and those who generally support the Bush administration (+ FSPilots )

[Bernadotte 0]

Killing Palestinian civilians in wreckless assaults is only going to piss them off more. Where's the logic in that?

Two comments I heard recently that you might find interesting:

1.  An "expert" commentator on CNN said that the two sides are exhibiting the classic symptom of insanity - that is repeating the same action again and again while expecting a different result.

2.  An Israeli friend told me that Israeli society has become so socio-politically fragmented that if it weren't for the Palestinian conflict there would probably be a civil war.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

but do you really think the IDF expects to end terrorism with every new attack on hamas? And do Hamas expect to bring an end to the occupation (let alone bring down Israeli society) with every new terrorist attack?

I find it hard to believe that they do, its just a habit that is very hard to break. Neither side wants to appear weak or to be giving in to the other parties violations so each feels compelled or is forced by the circumstances to continue the cycle regardless of whether they think their next attack in particular will have any real effect on ending the situation.