New un resolution

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 14 2002,17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you mean that you do not have to take care when it comes to taking out a target? The ends justify the means?<span id='postcolor'>

Mishaps and mistakes in war don't unjustify the means.

Protecting oneself from agressors that don't give a damn about who's around them doesn't unjustify the means.

Thinking that war does not endanger the civilians around which the terrorists surround themselves doesn't mean I've got to die instead.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 14 2002,16:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Thats all well and good and a great ideological thought, but it has absolutely no basis in the real world. Such "care" would be impossible."

So you mean that you do not have to take care when it comes to taking out a target? The ends justify the means?<span id='postcolor'>

Thats not what I said at all is it?

But thinking that no civilian casualties are possible is naive. And what do you do when the terrorists or beligerants take refugee in civilian population centers? What do you do when they use civilians to mask their presence? To use as a shield? To be supported by those civilians?

If Isreal was indiscriminately eliminating civilians as you all seem to imply and think, there would be a lot more casaulties then there are.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Isreal was indiscriminately eliminating civilians as you all seem to imply and think, there would be a lot more casaulties then there are.<span id='postcolor'>

That would be a stupid thing to insinuate, plus having the fallout of enraging the Palestinians even further. What I'm concerned about is the fact that they are operating on a very shaky rules of engagement. Its not that they go out to hunt civilians, they just fire before identifying the target. Giving a 18 yr old the power of god, (A gun!, and then tell him that everyone's out to get him, he will be trigger happy, and I don't blame him.... but its still wrong, and in some cases murder. Someone needs to look at this and quickly, because not only does it end with the deaths of innocents, the rest of the world does not take such action lighty.

[Longinius 1]

"But thinking that no civilian casualties are possible is naive. And what do you do when the terrorists or beligerants take refugee in civilian population centers? What do you do when they use civilians to mask their presence? To use as a shield? To be supported by those civilians?"

There is a difference between hiding behind civilians while you attack and being near civilians when you drive your kid to school. Targeting a suspected terrorist while in the presence of his family IS wrong. Especially if your attack will wipe out anyone close to him. You can say whatever you want but to me destroying a vehicle to take out a terrorist, when his children and wife is in the car, is NOT taking care when it comes to selecting targets.

Because if it is, then any target is legit even if civilians are close by. And don't tell me that was their only chance to get the guy, I doubt he lived in his daughters backpack.

"If Isreal was indiscriminately eliminating civilians as you all seem to imply and think, there would be a lot more casaulties then there are. "

I never implied that. The casualty rate among civilians is extremely high though (on both sides of course). But what do you expect when firing rockets and grenades into residential areas?

[theavonlady 2]

I've got to call it a day (actually, a night - 21:50 here). I found my compilation of credits to the BBC at http://www.honestreporting.com/Awards/award2001.asp#bbc

The last 4 paragraph's, which I mentioned elsewhere, show BBC's true colo(u)rs.

Goodnight!

==============================

========== THE WINNER: ==========

BBC - BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

==============================

The ignoble winner of the Dishonest Reporting "Award" 2001 is the BBC, for consistently demonstrating fierce anti-Israel bias.

In May 2001, BBC fabricated a film clip in an attempt to show Israeli brutality. When Israelis struck a Palestinian base in Gaza, there were no pictures of victims -- since Israel struck at empty buildings. But BBC editors inserted a film clip of Israeli victims of Palestinian terror arriving at an Israeli hospital, to suggest that these were victims of Israeli attack. The newsreader in London, a former BBC correspondent in Israel herself, ended the segment with "These are the pictures from Gaza."

In June 2001, BBC's flagship "Panorama" program

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt) tried to portray Ariel Sharon as a war criminal, in connection with the Lebanese Christian massacre of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatilla in 1982. An Israeli commission of inquiry decided that Sharon was not responsible for any direct involvement, but BBC asked: "In the light of developments in international war crimes prosecutions... [should] the evidence lead to indictments for what happened in the camps."

Much of BBC's case rested on the view of War Crimes Judge Richard Goldstone, who subsequently accused the BBC of badly distorting the context of his words: "I agreed to speak to [the BBC] as an expert on the law in general, on command responsibility, but I said I would not in any way comment on any liability, criminal or civil, of Ariel Sharon and I didn't do so. I haven't yet seen the program, but if it comes across that way it's incorrect... I certainly didn't comment on the responsibility of Sharon." (Jerusalem Post)

Further, BBC's duplicity in handling the Israeli-Arab conflict was evident in its refusal to label Palestinian atrocities against Israeli civilians as "terrorism." In correspondence with HonestReporting, BBC admitted to a double standard, saying:

"It has long been the policy of the [bBC] domestic service to refer to terrorists in Northern Ireland of any religious persuasion as [terrorists], but the policy of the World Service is not to refer to anyone in those terms."

BBC's coverage was so outrageous that it came under attack by a leading British politician, Iain Duncan Smith, head of the Tory party. "Surely it is time that our national broadcasters, not just, but including the BBC, stopped describing Hamas and Jihad with such euphemisms as radical and militant," Smith declared. "Let us call things what they are: they are terrorist organizations. Such fudging of what Hamas or Islamic Jihad are confers some sort of legitimacy on people who are terrorists."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi....120.stm

BBC's bias is perhaps summed up best by one of its own employees, Fayad Abu Shamala, the BBC correspondent in Gaza for the past 10 years. Speaking at a Hamas rally on May 6, 2001, he declared:

"Journalists and media organizations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."

In the face of this blatant violation of journalistic ethics, BBC mustered a pathetic response: "Fayad's remarks were made in a private capacity. His reports have always matched the best standards of balance required by the BBC."

If that is the standards of balance required by the BBC, then there is no doubt: BBC has justly earned the Dishonest Reporting "Award" 2001.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

It sounds very pragmatic, maybe too pragmatic to discuss the issue of civillian casualties with: "well it doesnt go without, that is unrealistic..."

In every ordinary governmental institution employees need to justufiy their deeds. That is true for example for the police which has to write daily reports, such as where and why they felt they had to interfere and why their level of agression was justified. I have heard of no case where an Israeli soldier had to justify for a deadly shot. For me this just doesnt harmonise with my perception of Israel being a sophisticated country.

Furthermore there are other things that I just dont understand. Why is the only proper road to Ramala blocked for jewish settlers only! However as far as I know is this road emtpy whereas palestinian civilians need to walk on a pretty dusty track and are constantly kept waiting at Check-points. The idea of two different identities living on the same spot with different rights is basically nothing else than Apartheid. Many measures that Israel has taken in the past were justified, but others werent. And this makes people assume that there is more than just the "we only react" behaviour.

However I am happy that for the first time is history the US had to go with the UN opinion and tolerate the idea of Palestine becoming a independant State. I hope the Israeli politicians can live with it (after all dont we say: "the smarter person in a conflict gives in") but I am sure this is the only way out.....

bla bla bla ...so be it!

BTW: I have the impression that people in Israel do indeed have very independant and sophisticated opinion on the conflict. And many of those interviewed do sound much smarted than most of the politicans from both sides

[ACEJim 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 14 2002,19:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've got to call it a day (actually, a night - 21:50 here). I found my compilation of credits to the BBC at http://www.honestreporting.com/Awards/award2001.asp#bbc

The last 4 paragraph's, which I mentioned elsewhere, show BBC's true colo(u)rs.

"Journalists and media organizations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."

In the face of this blatant violation of journalistic ethics, BBC mustered a pathetic response: "Fayad's remarks were made in a private capacity. His reports have always matched the best standards of balance required by the BBC."

If that is the standards of balance required by the BBC, then there is no doubt: BBC has justly earned the Dishonest Reporting "Award" 2001.<span id='postcolor'>

Honest reporting! LMAO! More like biased pro isreali propaganda reporting!

They even admit it! Look at their FAQ page!

What do we do?

MWI highlights media distortions which foster negative stereotypes of Israel, Judaism and Jewish history, which encourage anti-Semitism and endanger the security of Israel and the Jewish People, and which threaten the special U.S.-Israel relationship.

The BBC is internationally recognised as an impartial, unbiased source of news.

I can't believe you could even consider an organisation with such an overt political motive an objective source of news.

[ACEJim 0]

Read this page - http://www.honestreporting.com/Critiques/2002/18_report.asp

According to them, all of the major world news networks are anti-semitic.

BBC, MSNBC, CNN, Reuters...

Again, the old isreali trick of calling anyone who dares to criticise their policies racist reappears.

I wonder if the group of jewish soldiers who refused to ocupy palestine are racist too...

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

That website is rubbish.

[Akira 0]

Its time to see if the Palestinians are true to their word.

They said no peace talks until the Isrealis pull from Ramallah. The Isrealis are pulling back as I type.

Lets see if they can talk peace now.