NationStates Jolt Archive

Many of us know the old saying, spoken from Golda Meir that, "There will only be peace once Palestinian mothers love their children more than they hate ours." Well Palestinian supporters or opponents of Israel (the two don't have to always over-lap) often claim that she was grossly exaggerating how the average Palestinian felt, and that she was blowing a view 'only extremists' held out of proportion.

Wouldn't it be nice?

Reality, however, had other plans for this debate. With the publishing of this new poll, taken Jan 29th - 31st 1009 by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre, we can clearly see that more than 50% of Palestinains support suicide-bombing operations against Israeli civilians. The support for suicide bombing against civilians stands around 55% for all Palestinians, around 52% for West Bank Palestinians and around 60% for Gaza Palestinians.

Though this will not garner me up much support on NSG (like I need it), my opinion is that if the majority of a country actually polls as supporting terrrosism, they won't recieve much support from the civilized world, nor should they. Those who support suicide bombings on civilians are nothing more than barbarians.


http://media.economist.com/images/20090214/CFB840.gif

http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13110485

So would I if I was a Palestinian.

How would you handle the situation?

I believe. I probably would have guess it to be the case too.

Go figure, you support the guys who are trying to get what you see as an oppressive regime out of your land. You like the guys that avenge your fallen brothers. You like the guys who "fight the power".

I can understand why they would. I dont think they should, but I can understand.

Those who support suicide bombings on civilians are nothing more than barbarians.


I wonder if you feel the same way about supporters of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is a rather silly poll. I mean, why would an Israeli supporter support suicide bombings against Israel?

I wonder if you feel the same way about supporters of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So typical of you. Ignore everyting about the OP, and try to threadjack it into an area you think you can beat me on.

Nice try. Start your own thread on the bombing of Japan.

So typical of you. Ignore everyting about the OP, and try to threadjack it into an area you think you can beat me on.

Nice try. Start your own thread on the bombing of Japan.

It's a good point.

Though this will not garner me up much support on NSG (like I need it)

Hehehe.

So typical of you. Ignore everyting about the OP, and try to threadjack it into an area you think you can beat me on.

Nice try. Start your own thread on the bombing of Japan.
The only reason we support the Israelis bombing the Palestinians is because they're Jewish and we don't want to condemn them after they got fucked up 65 years ago. Seriously, the Israelis are no better.

So would I if I was a Palestinian.
Well good thing you are not or else there would be one more dead Palestinian. :rolleyes:
How would you handle the situation?
Which exactly?
I believe. I probably would have guess it to be the case too.

Go figure, you support the guys who are trying to get what you see as an oppressive regime out of your land. You like the guys that avenge your fallen brothers. You like the guys who "fight the power".

I can understand why they would. I dont think they should, but I can understand.
Simply understanding why people become emotional and do stupid shit doesn't mean it right, nor does it mean we should support it and nor does it mean the majority of Palestinians should be emotional barbarians and support blowing themselves up in market places where women and children are buying fruits. . .

I have an idea.

Let's repress them more. THAT'LL teach em to stop using terrorism!

DO I support Suicide bombers ? No

If I were a Palestinian ? likely Yes.

The only reason we support the Israelis bombing the Palestinians is because they're Jewish and we don't want to condemn them after they got fucked up 65 years ago. Seriously, the Israelis are no better.
The Israelis have my support because they have repelled waves of invasions which have tried to literally wipe them from existence. They have survived, expanded and even progressed in the face of this opposition. Palestinians decided to reject the two-state solution and invade Israel with other Arabs. When they lost, they bitched and moaned and have been bitching and moaning since then. Now that I see, factually, that the majority of them support suicide bombings I will likely not be shedding many tears for them.

In context:

The military operations and negotiations
This JMCC poll found that Israel’s war on Gaza contributed to an increase in support for military action against Israel. The percentage of respondents who believe that locally-made rockets help achieve the Palestinian national goals rose from 39.3% last April to 50.8% in this poll, with a decrease in the percentage of respondents who believe that the rockets harm national interests from 35.7% last April to 20.8% in this poll.

In the same trend, the percentage of those who support military operations against Israel targets as an appropriate response under the current political conditions increased from 49.5% last April to 53.5% in this poll. Moreover, this poll found that the percentage of supporters of bombing operations against Israeli civilians increased from 50.7% to 55.4% for the same period.
According to the JMCC poll results, the war led to an increase in the percentage of those who oppose peace negotiations. Nearly 41% (40.9%) of respondents polled opposed peace negotiations compared with 34.7% in a JMCC poll conducted last November.

So, when we look at the actual study (http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2009/67_jan_english.pdf), we can see that this attitude is a direct result of Israeil attacks.

Now, if the point is to achieve peace in the Middle East, shouldn't Israel then stop such military actions?

Which exactly?


Let me rephrase, do you think Israel should give any land to the Palestinians? Also, what do you think of Israel's military tactics?

Oh, and to the question, I deplore and condem any attack on innocent civillians. Although, why sucide bombers are seen as somehow morally worse than, say, sniper attacks on civillians, as the OP implies, I have no idea where that viewpoint comes from and don't support that either.

The Israelis have my support because they have repelled waves of invasions which have tried to literally wipe them from existence. They have survived, expanded and even progressed in the face of this opposition. Palestinians decided to reject the two-state solution and invade Israel with other Arabs. When they lost, they bitched and moaned and have been bitching and moaning since then. Now that I see, factually, that the majority of them support suicide bombings I will likely not be shedding many tears for them.
It's funny that you pretend you did before.

Oh wait, no. Funny isn't the word. Um...

Right. I meant, "a lie".

So typical of you. Ignore everyting about the OP, and try to threadjack it into an area you think you can beat me on.

Nice try. Start your own thread on the bombing of Japan.

Holy dodging evasion, Batman!

Yes, the final line in your own post is no longer part of your post. And discussion of your post is now threadjacking. Evasion? Moi? Why, no! ;)

I wonder if you feel the same way about supporters of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I would.

Oh, and to the question, I deplore and condem any attack on innocent civillians. Although, why sucide bombers are seen as somehow morally worse than, say, sniper attacks on civillians, as the OP implies, I have no idea where that viewpoint comes from and don't support that either.

Do Israeli snipers deliberately shoot random civilians, who they know are innocent?

I would.
Threadjacker. Terrorist!

When they lost, they bitched and moaned and have been bitching and moaning since then.

Yeah, how dare they complain about violations of thier human rights and occupations! Don't they know they deserved it for what they did thirty years ago, when some of them weren't even born!

Do Israeli snipers deliberately shoot random civilians, who they know are innocent?

Unfortunately, yes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1580582/Gaza-residents-tell-of-sniper-attacks-on-homes.html

Do Israeli snipers deliberately shoot random civilians, who they know are innocent?

I don't know, do they?

But you miss my point which was: All attacks on civilians are unjustified, and it doesn't matter if a bomb or sniper rifle is used. I wasn't bringing an Israeli/Palestinian thing into it at all.

Damnit, I voted before I read all the options. I mean to vote I am generally neutral: No

How can I save my little boy from oppenheimers deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the russianspalestinians love their children too
from: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/sting/russians_20132086.html

I see myself on Israel's side (this tends to happen when the fiancee lives there) and am against this senseless war...Please, United Kingdom, take this country back!

I don't know, do they?

But you miss my point which was: All attacks on civilians are unjustified, and it doesn't matter if a bomb or sniper rifle is used. I wasn't bringing an Israeli/Palestinian thing into it at all.

You implied that TAI finds terrorism morally abhorrent but is ok with Israelis shooting random civilians who are known to be innocent, I find that highly unlikely that this is TAI's position.

In context:



So, when we look at the actual study (http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2009/67_jan_english.pdf), we can see that this attitude is a direct result of Israeil attacks.

Now, if the point is to achieve peace in the Middle East, shouldn't Israel then stop such military actions?
Excellent try, but it doesn't change anything in regards to my OP. Even before the war, the majority of Palestinians (in your own quote) supported suicide bombings. Since the war that majority has increased, but it was still a majority before, nonetheless.

Oh, and to the question, I deplore and condem any attack on innocent civillians. Although, why sucide bombers are seen as somehow morally worse than, say, sniper attacks on civillians, as the OP implies, I have no idea where that viewpoint comes from and don't support that either.
What did I say in the OP about sniper-attacks on civilians?
Let me rephrase, do you think Israel should give any land to the Palestinians? Also, what do you think of Israel's military tactics?
Israel should let the Palestinians have the Gaza strip and the West Bank as their state, once they, the Palestinians, accept the three non-negotiable demands of Mrs. Clinton and the American envoy to the Middle-Eastern peace-process.

1. A disavowal of terrorism.

2. Accepting Israel's right to exist.

3. Going along with previous agreements signed by the PLO, which would imply acceptance of a two-state solution.

Israel, when it comes to tactics is damned if you do damned if you don't. It tried to not be as aggressive in Lebanon with Hezbollah and that didn't turn out so well. So this time it tried to just go all out and that didn't turn out so well. (Not tactically, but in the sense of public-opinion)

Though this will not garner me up much support on NSG (like I need it), my opinion is that if the majority of a country actually polls as supporting terrrosism, they won't recieve much support from the civilized world, nor should they. Those who support suicide bombings on civilians are nothing more than barbarians.

Are you aware that Israel organized a large-scale military incursion into the Caza Strip in December-January?

Are you aware of the civilian death toll and the damage to the infrastructure, and the possible Israeli war crimes?

Are you really surprised at the attitudes that close to the war? Do you honestly believe that it's lasting and/or representative? If so, you're very naive.

2. Accepting Israel's right to exist.


Unfortunately, this simply will not happen with Hamas.

Unfortunately, yes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1580582/Gaza-residents-tell-of-sniper-attacks-on-homes.html
That is just what word of mouth is saying.

For all we know it could have been a fire-fight going on and there was an accidental stray bullet. Or perhaps the dad could have been a insurgent, or perhaps it really was an Israeli sniper targeting little children (a bit far-fetched. . . and when I say a bit I mean really), but really, how do you know? Are you prepared to just take as "unfortunately, yes" the word of mouth of just some random Palestinians?

What did I say in the OP about sniper-attacks on civilians?


You said:
Those who support suicide bombings on civilians are nothing more than barbarians.

The fact that you said "suicide bombings" and not "attacks" implied that those who used suicide bombs were somehow worse that those who used any other sort of attack on civilians. Perhaps that wasn't your intention?

Are you prepared to just take as "unfortunately, yes" the word of mouth of just some random Palestinians?

I am, because I dont think Israeli soldiers are any better.

They have their reasons to be bitter too. But their actions are still repulsive at times.

You implied that TAI finds terrorism morally abhorrent but is ok with Israelis shooting random civilians who are known to be innocent, I find that highly unlikely that this is TAI's position.

Well no; his position is that he supports military actions by Israel which, inevitably, lead to loss of innocent lives.

Much the same way he would support the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

To him, supporting the killing of innocent civilians only seems to be wrong when Palestinians do it. His allegedly absolute moral statement - "Those who support suicide bombings on civilians are nothing more than barbarians" - comes from a position of hypocrisy. He behaves as if loss of innocent life is something he abhors so very much, but he supports it and will dismiss it as "a different situation;" or "collateral damage," or "can't make an omelette without making some eggs," or offer passing, desultory acknowledgment of how "tragic" or "unfortunate," yet ultimately necessary those deaths would be. Certainly, he doesn't call Israelis or Americans "barbarians" for supporting, indirectly or directly, the deaths of innocents.

But he doesn't need your support, you know. He's so awesome he is superior to NSG. He only comes here to inform us of the debate he has already won. Any discussion that disagrees is threadjacking. ;)

Perhaps that wasn't your intention?

I think youre reading way to much into it. I think 'suicide bombing' was specifically said because thats the attack that the topic is on.

Are you aware that Israel organized a large-scale military incursion into the Caza Strip in December-January?

Are you aware of the civilian death toll and the damage to the infrastructure, and the possible Israeli war crimes?

Are you really surprised at the attitudes that close to the war? Do you honestly believe that it's lasting and/or representative? If so, you're very naive.

Already got to that. Too late:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14546858&postcount=29

Well no; his position is that he supports military actions by Israel which, inevitably, lead to loss of innocent lives.

Much the same way he would support the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

To him, supporting the killing of innocent civilians only seems to be wrong when Palestinians do it. His allegedly absolute moral statement - "Those who support suicide bombings on civilians are nothing more than barbarians" - comes from a position of hypocrisy. He behaves as if loss of innocent life is something he abhors so very much, but he supports it and will dismiss it as "a different situation;" or "collateral damage," or "can't make an omelette without making some eggs," or offer passing, desultory acknowledgment of how "tragic" or "unfortunate," yet ultimately necessary those deaths would be. Certainly, he doesn't call Israelis or Americans "barbarians" for supporting, indirectly or directly, the deaths of innocents.

But he doesn't need your support, you know. He's so awesome he is superior to NSG. He only comes here to inform us of the debate he has already won. Any discussion that disagrees is threadjacking. ;)

I think an arguement can be made that civillian casualties in warfare, if not intentional, is different from intentionally targeting civillians.

But thats a debate for a Dresden/Hiroshima thread.

Whoops, voted the wrong option. Should be 'Neutral: No'.

I am, because I dont think Israeli soldiers are any better.

They have their reasons to be bitter too. But their actions are still repulsive at times.
While I never said it wasn't possible, I am saying I find it very unlikely. Do you think, that in the middle of a major war for Israel, where their goal is to destroy the infrastructure, leadership and military of Hamas, Israeli soldiers would break from their formations and objectives, put themselves in harms way and just go out and set out to snipe babies?? Again, there is a possibility but without any evidence except select word of mouth stories, I think it's ridiculous.

It's typical dehuminazation of the enemy propoganda, in my opinion.

I think an arguement can be made that civillian casualties in warfare, if not intentional, is different from intentionally targeting civillians.

So different that supporting one makes one a "barbarian," but the other is just fine and dandy?

Look, if you KNOW that a military action will kill an amount of innocent civilians, that it is pretty much inevitable, and you support it anyway - how is that even different?

But thats a debate for a Dresden/Hiroshima thread.

On the contrary, we are asked to conclude that a majority of Palestinians are "barbarians" because of this flimsy moral pretext. That moral pretext is fair game for discussion.

It's typical dehuminazation of the enemy propoganda, in my opinion.

And calling people barbarians, and declaring you'll 'no longer' shed tears for them isn't?

I think youre reading way to much into it. I think 'suicide bombing' was specifically said because thats the attack that the topic is on.

Whoops, yeah that kinda makes more sense:p

So different that supporting one makes one a "barbarian," but the other is just fine and dandy?

Intent matters.

Look, if you KNOW that a military action will kill an amount of innocent civilians, that it is pretty much inevitable, and you support it anyway - how is that even different?

Warfare is inevitable. Sometimes warfare must happen. The best one can do is try and minimize civillian casualties as much as possible. Accidently killing 5 civillians is entirely different from intentionally killing 20+.

I never 'support' military action, just resign myself to it and accept that it has to be done in some circumstances.


EDIT: To put it another way. Is the man who commits premeditated murder against his friend because he suspects he is sleeping with his wife just as bad as the guy* who accidently shoots his friend in a hunting accident?

*In this situation, lets say that guy is not Cheney. Otherwise that might change our answer :p

While I never said it wasn't possible, I am saying I find it very unlikely. Do you think, that in the middle of a major war for Israel, where their goal is to destroy the infrastructure, leadership and military of Hamas, Israeli soldiers would break from their formations and objectives, put themselves in harms way and just go out and set out to snipe babies??

I think that in a war where soldiers have lost or had family members injured by rocket attacks, if a bitter soldier saw a Palestinian man he might take the shot.

EDIT: Ill agree that the children bit sounds a bit far-fetched, however, and mostly just "OMG ISRAELIS KILL TEH BABIES!"

Besides, we all know Israelis, being Jews, wouldnt snipe babies. They would capture them. How can they preform blood libel ceremonies without infants?

Already got to that. Too late:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14546858&postcount=29

So you are surprised then?

I wouldn't be. Continued occupation and repression will do that to people.

And why should a country that continues an illegal occupation recieve support from the civilized world? Why won't you say that those who support a continued occupation are nothing more than barbarians?

I wonder if you feel the same way about supporters of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Well to be fair, if we didn't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it most likely would've resulted in a land war with Japan, and since the whole "Either succeed or die trying (either by dying on the battle field or killing yourself) mentality existed (and probably still do) in Japan's culture at the time, Japan would've thrown everything at the Allies, resulting in the death of thousands if not millions. In short, the nuking of those two cities, while horrible and tragic, may have prevented a larger tragedy from occurring.

Well to be fair, if we didn't nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it most likely would've resulted in a land war with Japan, and since the whole "Either succeed or die trying (either by dying on the battle field or killing yourself) mentality existed (and probably still do) in Japan's culture at the time, Japan would've thrown everything at the Allies, resulting in the death of thousands if not millions. In short, the nuking of those two cities, while horrible and tragic, may have prevented a larger tragedy from occurring.


God damnit, I dont want to get into this debate and threadjack, but Japan was ready to surrender. A land war wouldnt have been required. We just wanted to flex our muslces to Stalin.

Unfortunately, this simply will not happen with Hamas.
It could, if the right moderate faction came along. There's been moderate voices arguing just that before, but they tend to be made irrelevant or killed.

While I never said it wasn't possible, I am saying I find it very unlikely. Do you think, that in the middle of a major war for Israel, where their goal is to destroy the infrastructure, leadership and military of Hamas, Israeli soldiers would break from their formations and objectives, put themselves in harms way and just go out and set out to snipe babies??
With the lack of objectives during the recent war, and the heavy cover that the Israelis had, it wouldn't be to put themselves in harms way to do it. And the wanton destruction that has been widely reported, including ethnic slurrs spraypainted on vandalized Palestinian homes and the disregard for international laws (including the laws of war) that the IDF have demonstrated, not to mention the fact that at the soldiers were encouraged to "show no mercy" and 'reminded' that the "population is not innocent" by actors both within and outside the armed forces, and the media blackout enforced by the military in contravention of the orders of the Israeli Supreme Court...

Yeah, it's absolutely a possibility.

And calling people barbarians, and declaring you'll 'no longer' shed tears for them isn't?
As far as I know, that's not anything new...

Look, if you KNOW that a military action will kill an amount of innocent civilians, that it is pretty much inevitable, and you support it anyway - how is that even different?
Because a military action is designed to protect the lives of the people on your side. The Palestinian actions do not protect Palestinians in any way; they are designed solely to hurt the other side, without any positive goal.

God damnit, I dont want to get into this debate and threadjack, but Japan was ready to surrender.
That's not true. A sizable faction of the military wasn't even ready to surrender AFTER the atomic bombings.

Because a military action is designed to protect the lives of the people on your side. The Palestinian actions do not protect Palestinians in any way; they are designed solely to hurt the other side, without any positive goal.

Yeah I'm sure they just do it for the lulz. :rolleyes:

Of COURSE they intend it to ultimately protect their people. Both sides. Unfortunately, it's all just killing, however some people wish to dress it up.

That's not true. A sizable faction of the military wasn't even ready to surrender AFTER the atomic bombings.
So the a-bomb didnt do anything. Their government and leaders were ready to surrender.
Yeah I'm sure they just do it for the lulz. :rolleyes:

Palestine is 4chan and suicide bombing is trolling.

Many of us know the old saying, spoken from Golda Meir that, "There will only be peace once Palestinian mothers love their children more than they hate ours."

...whilst her state was busy poking them with a stick

'Look how angry they are' *poke *poke

'look at the rage'*poke *poke


The Israelis have my support because they have repelled waves of invasions which have tried to literally wipe them from existence.

Funny, because a while back I seem to remember you going on about your wee excursion down there and the 'surly' looks and using that to justify your nonsense.

You neglect entirely the colonisation of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, and the 'slow drip' ethnic cleansing of the latter.....But context wouldn't suit now, would it....

This is a rather silly poll. I mean, why would an Israeli supporter support suicide bombings against Israel?

Political dynamite for whoever is running Israel but an golden opportunity for the opposition. We just witnessed a glimpse of that during the recent Gaza battles and the outcome of the Israeli elections. Surely no politician will admit that openly but we all can sense it. This phenomena (One man's tragedy is another man's opportunity ) is not exclusive to only Israeli politics though.

An attack on Israeli soil also strengthens the whole concept of America aiding Israel with 3 billion dollars a year on Israel's defense (30 billion dollars in 10 years time). The moral issue can be used against an unwilling/unsupportive American president by humiliating him (always will be him) with news about "terrorists" (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter) sponsored by Israel's oil rich neighbors are blowing themselves in Israel. How can America turn away from the only Democratic nation in the Middle East which upholds Western values? It would be politically courageous for an American president to start flexing America's leverage over Israel. No, better to keep it quiet and read the same lines your predecessors have read about the Middle East.

Yeah I'm sure they just do it for the lulz.
They do it to vent their anger.
Of COURSE they intend it to ultimately protect their people.
No. Absolutely nothing that the Palestinians do ever has the effect of protecting any Palestinians.
Unfortunately, it's all just killing, however some people wish to dress it up.
The Israelis have been quite successful in bringing their own casualty rate down. They don't care how much that costs in terms of Palestinian casualties; unfortunately, neither do the Palestinian leaders.
So the a-bomb didnt do anything.
It did a great deal, changing the faction that wanted to fight to the death from the overwhelming majority to a minority who could with difficulty be outfought (there was a pitched battle in the Imperial Palace the night the Emperor recorded the surrender speech, diehards wanting to capture the recording and prevent its broadcasts; their leaders had also arranged for kamikazes to crash into Macarthur's ship if it came to Tokyo to accept the surrender, but these leaders were persuaded to commit suicide rather than order attacks against the express wishes of His Majesty).
Their government and leaders were ready to surrender.
Before Hiroshima? No, not at all. They were still demanding terms like retention of all prewar territories (Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan, Micronesia) and retention of all armaments (soldiers to demobilize, but to surrender their weapons to their own officers, not to foreigners).

They do it to vent their anger.

Uh huh.

No. Absolutely nothing that the Palestinians do ever has the effect of protecting any Palestinians.

I didn't say it wound up protecting anyone. I said that was the intent.

Because, before you changed the goalposts, that's what you were talking about:


Because a military action is designed to protect the lives of the people on your side.

"designed to protect" =/= "actually protects"

And you'll notice Israeli military actions don't really have the effect of protecting Israelis. Not when more Israelis die by friendly fire than enemy action. It just goes to show - people might think they're doing it for some positive goal, on both sides, regardless of the fact that military action doesn't have a positive outcome.

Looks like the to nuke or not to nuke debate has started.


The only thing I really remember about it was that the USA wanted an unconditional surrender including the removal of the emperor, but the Japanese were not going to remove him. They would not even consider surrendering if they had to remove their emperor. In the end nukes were dropped and the Japanese were allowed to keep their emperor.

Uh huh.

Yep. Upholding their sense of "honor" is major part of their motivation also: they think that not "fighting back" would look cowardly.

I didn't say it wound up protecting anyone. I said that was the intent.

But it isn't. They are not so stupid as to believe that their actions have some magical power to keep bullets away. They know perfectly well that nothing they do lessens the ability of the Israelis to do harm to Palestinians.

And you'll notice Israeli military actions don't really have the effect of protecting Israelis.

Sure they do. Rocket attacks have ceased almost entirely. And no Palestinian group has managed to infiltrate a suicide bomber in over a year. Israelis used to lose a lot of people to terrorist attacks, but they don't anymore-- that's how they manage to lose the PR arguments about "proportional responses".

The only thing I really remember about it was that the USA wanted an unconditional surrender including the removal of the emperor
We never said we insisted on removing the emperor; the point was, it would be ENTIRELY UP TO OUR DISCRETION whether or not the emperor stayed, or under what conditions if he did stay. It is widely believed (among some historians: other historians hotly dispute this) that we did send Japan some signals that we were not, in fact, intending to remove the emperor completely (although of course his role under US occupation was drastically diminished).
But before Hiroshima, the Japanese were demanding much more than just leaving the emperor in place: they were demanding that their whole system be left intact, and in control of all the territory they had held before. This was absurd, and was never going to be granted.

Yep. Upholding their sense of "honor" is major part of their motivation also: they think that not "fighting back" would look cowardly.

So they just do it because they're angry, but they think they're fighting back?

So they think they're fighting back, but this is somehow different from believing your actions do anyone any good?

But it isn't. They are not so stupid as to believe that their actions have some magical power to keep bullets away. They know perfectly well that nothing they do lessens the ability of the Israelis to do harm to Palestinians.

They do? By all means, show some support, some indication that they know this. Apparently no one has told them they are just venting their anger.

Sure they do. Rocket attacks have ceased almost entirely.

Oh joy. War on terror is a success, because it's been almost a whole month without any more rocket attacks. I'm sure we'll see an end to that whole Israeli-Palestine thing now, thanks to the efficacy of military action!

We never said we insisted on removing the emperor; the point was, it would be ENTIRELY UP TO OUR DISCRETION whether or not the emperor stayed, or under what conditions if he did stay. It is widely believed (among some historians: other historians hotly dispute this) that we did send Japan some signals that we were not, in fact, intending to remove the emperor completely (although of course his role under US occupation was drastically diminished).
But before Hiroshima, the Japanese were demanding much more than just leaving the emperor in place: they were demanding that their whole system be left intact, and in control of all the territory they had held before. This was absurd, and was never going to be granted.

Now I am going to have to dig out and book or something a reread. gah. you're an ass.:p I am not in college anymore, I shouldn't be reading.

Are there any data sets for the opinions of Israeli citizens who think Palestinian civilian causalities are necessary collateral damage to protect Israel?

Or for any other civilian group in conflict? The level of civilian support, say, for the UDF or IRA during the height(s) of the Troubles?

Or the level of support among Colonial citizens for attacks upon British soldiers during the American Revolutionary War?

...whilst her state was busy poking them with a stick

'Look how angry they are' *poke *poke

'look at the rage'*poke *poke

Note that this was the very same Golda Meir who signed the papers for Operation Wrath of God, which basically said "Who cares if they actually had anything to do with Munich or not? If they're Palis, fuckin' waste 'em all!" And the results spoke for themselves.

Oh joy. War on terror is a success, because it's been almost a whole month without any more rocket attacks. I'm sure we'll see an end to that whole Israeli-Palestine thing now, thanks to the efficacy of military action!

It just means the Palestinians have realized the futility of trying to stand up for themselves, peacefully or violently and have all pulled down their pants and bent over begging Israelis to fuck them like the good little kaffir bitches they are.

BARBARIANS? Open your eyes! Who was it that killed more than 1700 Palestinians in less than 1 week!? Who is on the offense here? Israel broke the ceasefire, and attacked Gaza, saying that Hamas broke it. It was a squadron of israeli soldiers that killed 12 or so hamas gunmen. THAT, my friend, is an attack.
Also, where did you get this poll? Give me a valid link, at least, and i hope i dont see "www.i-love-israeli-propaganda.com". We as the oppressed want nothing but peace. The extremists are the ones that want "jihad" or war. 50 years of rape and murder of women and children says something. We are as civil as we can be. We cant help it if we are forced to defend ourselves. Rather than thinking about the result of a suicide bombing, think about why a person in their right mind would want to blow themselves up! Ask anyone who watches israeil state media, all generals claim they attempt to "minimize the population of palestinians to reduce terrorist attacks by targeting civilians." This is a WAR CRIME PEOPLE. THEY ARE USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND CLUSTER BOMBS. WHERE IS THEIR HUMAN DECENCY? WHO'S THE TERRORIST? ISRAEL IS COMPLAINING ABOUT HAMAS ROCKETS EQUIVALENT TO TIN CANS WHEN THEY ARE ATTACKING GAZA WITH HIGH TECH TANKS AND F-16 FIGHTERS.

BARBARIANS? Open your eyes! Who was it that killed more than 1700 Palestinians in less than 1 week!? Who is on the offense here? Israel broke the ceasefire, and attacked Gaza, saying that Hamas broke it. It was a squadron of israeli soldiers that killed 12 or so hamas gunmen. THAT, my friend, is an attack.
Also, where did you get this poll? Give me a valid link, at least, and i hope i dont see "www.i-love-israeli-propaganda.com". We as the oppressed want nothing but peace. The extremists are the ones that want "jihad" or war. 50 years of rape and murder of women and children says something. We are as civil as we can be. We cant help it if we are forced to defend ourselves. Rather than thinking about the result of a suicide bombing, think about why a person in their right mind would want to blow themselves up! Ask anyone who watches israeil state media, all generals claim they attempt to "minimize the population of palestinians to reduce terrorist attacks by targeting civilians." This is a WAR CRIME PEOPLE. THEY ARE USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND CLUSTER BOMBS. WHERE IS THEIR HUMAN DECENCY? WHO'S THE TERRORIST? ISRAEL IS COMPLAINING ABOUT HAMAS ROCKETS EQUIVALENT TO TIN CANS WHEN THEY ARE ATTACKING GAZA WITH HIGH TECH TANKS AND F-16 FIGHTERS.

You're just anti-semetic. Everyone knows Palestinians are insectoid hiveminds out to suicide-bomb the world into extinction and establish a Global Caliphate.

It is interesting to note the major philosophical differences between Gaza and the West Bank, one of the reasons I believe peace in Palestine will require separate Palestinian states.

I'd also remind people the majority of American supported the Iraq war, it doesn't make them war mongerers, it makes them human and susceptible to emotion

The Palestinian people are screwed. Hamas views them as tools. If Hamas can get Isreal to attack (intentionally or accidentally. doesn't matter which) the Palestinian people, Hamas can use the propoganda to stay in power, gain sympathy, and continue to fight Isreal.

The Isrealis don't really care about the Palestinian people. After all, it's not the Isrealis' job to protect the Palistinians. That would be like saying America's job is to protect Mexico or Jordon's job to protect Iraq.

The neighboring countries? Bits of both. They hate Isreal (holy crap! There is a nation nearby that's very different politically and culturally? That's would actually be scarier than you think), but don't have to care about the Palestinians.

The Isrealis are also screwed. Look weak in front of enemies that would love to see them gone or look like a bully in front of nations that aren't surrounded by their enemies. Yeah, they'd rather be the bully than, from their point of view, the victim.

You're just anti-semetic. Everyone knows Palestinians are insectoid hiveminds out to suicide-bomb the world into extinction and establish a Global Caliphate.
And it really shows where you stand that you fail to notice the troll, who is claiming that Israel is literally nuking the Palestinians into genocide. :rolleyes: You have, literally, zero credibility.
Note that this was the very same Golda Meir who signed the papers for Operation Wrath of God,
An excellent move on her part. Those who wished to target Israeli civilians (athletes) were to be returned in kind. Except the difference was that they were not innocent civilians but rather international terrosists.
which basically said
It 'basically' said what it said. Which was that those responsible for, or involved with the terrorist attacks in Munich, would be responded to in kind.

And it was highly sucessful:

While the first wave of assassinations from October 1972 to early 1973 caused greater consternation among Palestinian officials, it was Operation Spring of Youth in April 1973 that truly shocked the Arab world.[51] The audacity of the mission, plus the fact that senior leaders such as Yasser Arafat, Abu Iyad, and Ali Hassan Salameh were only yards away from the fighting, contributed to the creation of the belief that Israel was capable of striking anywhere, anytime.[52]

The operation also caused some of the less radical Arab governments to begin putting pressure on Palestinians to stop attacks against Israeli targets. Threatening to pull support for the Palestinians if they used their governments' passports during the course of attacks against Israel, some militants began to instead use forged Israeli documents.[54]


It just means the Palestinians have realized the futility of trying to stand up for themselves, peacefully or violently and have all pulled down their pants and bent over begging Israelis to fuck them like the good little kaffir bitches they are.
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/7/31/hearthatworl128620422483964303.jpg


And kaffir is a term used by Afrikaaner in South Africa, so excuse yourself.
BARBARIANS? Open your eyes! Who was it that killed more than 1700 Palestinians in less than 1 week!? Who is on the offense here? Israel broke the ceasefire, and attacked Gaza, saying that Hamas broke it. It was a squadron of israeli soldiers that killed 12 or so hamas gunmen. THAT, my friend, is an attack.
Also, where did you get this poll? Give me a valid link, at least, and i hope i dont see "www.i-love-israeli-propaganda.com". We as the oppressed want nothing but peace. The extremists are the ones that want "jihad" or war. 50 years of rape and murder of women and children says something. We are as civil as we can be. We cant help it if we are forced to defend ourselves. Rather than thinking about the result of a suicide bombing, think about why a person in their right mind would want to blow themselves up! Ask anyone who watches israeil state media, all generals claim they attempt to "minimize the population of palestinians to reduce terrorist attacks by targeting civilians." This is a WAR CRIME PEOPLE. THEY ARE USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND CLUSTER BOMBS. WHERE IS THEIR HUMAN DECENCY? WHO'S THE TERRORIST? ISRAEL IS COMPLAINING ABOUT HAMAS ROCKETS EQUIVALENT TO TIN CANS WHEN THEY ARE ATTACKING GAZA WITH HIGH TECH TANKS AND F-16 FIGHTERS.
Oh stop trolling. I'm quite sure that if the Israelis were using nuclear weapons to create a genocide of the Palestinians, there wouldn't be any Palestinians.

Those who support suicide bombings on civilians are nothing more than barbarians.

Yes.

I wonder if you feel the same way about supporters of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes.

The Palestinian people are screwed. Hamas views them as tools. If Hamas can get Isreal to attack (intentionally or accidentally. doesn't matter which) the Palestinian people, Hamas can use the propoganda to stay in power, gain sympathy, and continue to fight Isreal.

And of course it definitely helps them when the West in general categorize all Palestinians as Hamas-loving suicide-bombing durka-durkas.

The Isrealis don't really care about the Palestinian people. After all, it's not the Isrealis' job to protect the Palistinians. That would be like saying America's job is to protect Mexico or Jordon's job to protect Iraq.

The Israelis see them at the very best- on a good day- as little more than kaffirs that are sitting upon the good shit their own settlers want. Every other day, they're terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and collateral damage. Usually all of the above.

The neighboring countries? Bits of both. They hate Isreal (holy crap! There is a nation nearby that's very different politically and culturally? That's would actually be scarier than you think), but don't have to care about the Palestinians.

They're having fun watching the Israelis doing it to themselves more than anything. The two Lebanon invasions were just the icing on the cake.

The Isrealis are also screwed. Look weak in front of enemies that would love to see them gone or look like a bully in front of nations that aren't surrounded by their enemies. Yeah, they'd rather be the bully than, from their point of view, the victim.

And yet they're determined to dig in to the same old same old that got them there in the first place, as the elections show. It's like the United States re-electing G.W. Bush for a third presidential term despite evidence of his economic mismanagement.

It is interesting to note the major philosophical differences between Gaza and the West Bank, one of the reasons I believe peace in Palestine will require separate Palestinian states.
Then the world has no one to blame but Hamas, who has hijacked the peace-process which was moving slow but steady into the direction of a two-state solution with the PLO. If Hamas and the PLO can't relax with each and work with each other, they are simply wasting time they don't have.

Then the world has no one to blame but Hamas, who has hijacked the peace-process which was moving slow but steady into the direction of a two-state solution with the PLO. If Hamas and the PLO can't relax with each and work with each other, they are simply wasting time they don't have.

I do not like you, The Atlantian islands. But I am going to agree with you, for the most part, on this issue.

I do not no ... but I have the luxury of being not there and have enough intellectual honesty to know that my opinion may change if my situation did

I do not like you, The Atlantian islands. But I am going to agree with you, for the most part, on this issue.

The average Palestinian is fucked. Hamas only gives a shit about them as for propaganda and recruitment purposes, Fatah didn't give a shit about anything besides lining their own pockets, the Israelis find them either a nuisance or a target, and the rest of the world at best gives lip service and does nothing for them or lumps them in with Hamas.

Are there any data sets for the opinions of Israeli citizens who think Palestinian civilian causalities are necessary collateral damage to protect Israel?
Or, perhaps more pertinently, data for the opinion on Arabs/Palestinians living in Isreal, and their attitudes to suicide bombings?

Israel, when it comes to tactics is damned if you do damned if you don't.


The tactics are only a small portion of it. The major gripes are:

1: The settlers who Israel gives free reign to do whatever the hell they want to seize Palestinian homes for their own and then back up with military force when the settlers get attacked.

2: Near complete lack of infrastructure to put the Palestinian people to work.

There are two ways to solve this problem. One is to declare the settlements persona non grata and announce a window for which they can return to Israel or forfeit citizenship. After the window expires, the Palestinians are free to do as they will to them. The same applies to anyone else who tries to build new settlements outside the preset borders. Let the settlers with their idiocy be the blood price for peace.

The other method would be to annex Palestine and be done with it.

But Israel will not do so. For one, leaving the land as a hotbed serves the interest of any political party. The settlers and supremacists are given free reign to do what they want, guaranteeing their support, while the militarists get placated with bombing campaigns now and again, and the occasional rocket serves as a rallying point to whoever beats the war drum the hardest.

So they think they're fighting back, but this is somehow different from believing your actions do anyone any good?

Well duh. When white people and their chosen allies do it, its totally ok!

They do? By all means, show some support, some indication that they know this. Apparently no one has told them they are just venting their anger.


Id like to see this too.

The tactics are only a small portion of it. The major gripes are:

1: The settlers who Israel gives free reign to do whatever the hell they want to seize Palestinian homes for their own and then back up with military force when the settlers get attacked.

2: Near complete lack of infrastructure to put the Palestinian people to work.

There are two ways to solve this problem. One is to declare the settlements persona non grata and announce a window for which they can return to Israel or forfeit citizenship. After the window expires, the Palestinians are free to do as they will to them. The same applies to anyone else who tries to build new settlements outside the preset borders. Let the settlers with their idiocy be the blood price for peace.

The other method would be to annex Palestine and be done with it.

But Israel will not do so. For one, leaving the land as a hotbed serves the interest of any political party. The settlers and supremacists are given free reign to do what they want, guaranteeing their support, while the militarists get placated with bombing campaigns now and again, and the occasional rocket serves as a rallying point to whoever beats the war drum the hardest.

Actually, Israel is between the devil and the deep blue sea on that one. If they attempt to actually control (or eliminate) the settlements, the situation could escalate to civil war - I'm not joking, the minority, ultra-conservative faction may well make this a casus belli.

Should they attempt to annex Gaza and the West Bank, they'll first have to eject BOTH HAMAS and Fatah, then deal with the international opinion shift against them (particularly the UN, which has some highly unrealistic demands of Israel already), THEN deal with the fact that they'll set their relations with the Arab world back to pre-Camp David levels.

From Israel's point of view, the status quo is superior to the likely changes.

Anybody who didn't know this already hasn't been paying attention. It's very old news.

Edit: And targeting non-combatants is simply murder and never justifiable.

Actually, Israel is between the devil and the deep blue sea on that one. If they attempt to actually control (or eliminate) the settlements, the situation could escalate to civil war - I'm not joking, the minority, ultra-conservative faction may well make this a casus belli.

Should they attempt to annex Gaza and the West Bank, they'll first have to eject BOTH HAMAS and Fatah, then deal with the international opinion shift against them (particularly the UN, which has some highly unrealistic demands of Israel already), THEN deal with the fact that they'll set their relations with the Arab world back to pre-Camp David levels.

From Israel's point of view, the status quo is superior to the likely changes.

Better the extremist nuts with the same religious beliefs as yours than the ones you couldn't give a single fingernail for eh? It's nice and convenient how the Israeli government is willing to cow to the whims of the ultraorthodoxy but are quite happy to bomb the shit out of just-as-fanatical Hamas.

Sure they do. Rocket attacks have ceased almost entirely. And no Palestinian group has managed to infiltrate a suicide bomber in over a year. Israelis used to lose a lot of people to terrorist attacks, but they don't anymore-- that's how they manage to lose the PR arguments about "proportional responses".
Rocket attacks ceased almost entirely before the latest incursion. They were down 98% leading up to it. Why? Cause the Palestinians were upholding their part of the truce brokered last July. It was only when the Israelis broke that truce did rocket attacks resume.
How about that? When there was a truce, one side actually tried to follow it.

Actually, Israel is between the devil and the deep blue sea on that one. If they attempt to actually control (or eliminate) the settlements, the situation could escalate to civil war - I'm not joking, the minority, ultra-conservative faction may well make this a casus belli.


They don't have to control or eliminate the settlements. Just abandon any and all state support for them. The ultra-conservatives are free to try and make their greater Jewish state there if they want, but they're also free to get slaughtered without the state of Israel lifting a finger to help them.

Of course, you're right that the ultra-conservative nuts probably wouldn't stand for this either, and you'll get some nut or a two waiting for an opportunity to assassinate whoever leads Israel so someone more radical can get into power.

The problems with annexation can be minimized if they made a serious attempt at integrating the Palestinian population, including building up infrastructure and vital services. But given that the most likely occupation forces, the IDF, have a significant portion of racist fucktards making up their infantry and officer corps, that's a losing proposition too.

Better the extremist nuts with the same religious beliefs as yours than the ones you couldn't give a single fingernail for eh? It's nice and convenient how the Israeli government is willing to cow to the whims of the ultraorthodoxy but are quite happy to bomb the shit out of just-as-fanatical Hamas.

One set of fucktards has the vote.

So they just do it because they're angry, but they think they're fighting back?

So they think they're fighting back, but this is somehow different from believing your actions do anyone any good?
Their conception of "fighting back" to DO HARM TO THE OTHER SIDE, not to do good for their own. When they launch a rocket into Sderot, that maybe kills a housewife in her garden or a kid on the soccer field, but more likely just puts a crater in a street, this does harm to Israelis, but does not shield any Palestinian children from air strikes or diminish the Israeli capacity to launch such air strikes, nor can I conceive of a style of magical thinking deluded enough to believe that harming random Israelis is going to cause some invisible bullet-proof shield to materialize around some Palestinians.

They believe that as long as Israelis do harm to them, it is their right, and even their duty, to do harm back to Israelis. This can be characterized as "fighting back"; but what it ISN'T is "resisting" or "defending against" the occupation, since nothing they do impedes the occupation or protects any Palestinians against it.

There are many things that can be said on the other side that I cannot argue with: the West Bank settlements are completely indefensible, legally or morally; the settlers commonly act as utter assholes, and the Israeli government does fuck-all about it, even when not actively supportive of the settlers; this is indisputable. And when Israel attacks the rocket-launchers or suicide-bomb-planners, or says they are taking out the smuggling tunnels or rocket manufacturing and storage sites, they also destroy a hell of a lot more, and kill a lot more people, and show no moral concern about the extent of such "collateral damage"; this, too, is indisputable.

But there are arguments commonly made on the pro-Palestinian side which are just utterly false, and which I can never stand to let slide. The Palestinians do not act to "defend" themselves. Their behavior is not "caused" by the occupation (rather the reverse: the occupation is caused by what their behavior was before; the million-dollar question is whether an end to the occupation would mean that the Palestinians would start to see the benefit of living in peace, or would mean that the intolerable pre-1967 situation returned). And it is not a "small minority" of Palestinians who support violence against civilians (the last poll I saw on this, from a few years back, had the percentage in the 60's, so this result is actually a downtick; pro-violence leaders have won strong majorities every time the Palestinians have gotten to vote, going back to 1920).
Rocket attacks ceased almost entirely before the latest incursion.

Rocket attacks peaked at 120 a day before the latest incursion.
Why? Cause the Palestinians were upholding their part of the truce brokered last July.

There was no "brokering" of a truce: Hamas unilaterally declared a cease-fire; Israel said it would not attack as long as Palestinians were not attacking; rocket attacks and cross-border raids did not completely cease, but were way down; Israel responded to some of the attacks, but not very often. Then in December Hamas unilaterally declared that the cease-fire was off, and started rocket launches at a frantic pace. Israeli right-wingers had long been claiming that the "cease-fire" was just a dodge, for Hamas to smuggle in and assemble a larger stockpile of rockets, and this turned out to be correct.

I am somewhat torn on the issue.

On one hand, the assorted Arab states, including the Palestinians, attacked Israel in 1948. They lost. Yes, they became occupied territories. Because they attacked and lost. I have trouble giving sympathy here...I liken it to the South in the US Civil War. You attacked, you lost. Deal with it.

On the other hand, everyone has the right to self-government if they so choose. The Palestinians have clearly chosen that, and should have it.

On the other hand, the Palestinians haven't exactly used the best tactics to achieve their goals.

On the other hand, neither have the Israelis.

On the other hand, I've run out of hands, and both sides are pretty much asshats.

Divide the state. Give Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians to run as one or more state in whatever manner they choose. Allow Israel to continue as a state. And both sides, grow up. "I was here first" just doesn't cut it.

To me, it really comes down to one pertinant fact: The Palestinians now have more to gain from peace than the Israelis do.

That wasn't always the case. I remember the periods in the '80's and '90's when it seemed a new atrocity was committed against innocent civilians in Israel every week. But the Israelis closed the borders; built the wall; imposed strict entry controls. And guess what? It worked. Israel is much safer now.

For there to be a final peace there, one side or the other is going to have to stop attacking. And Israel doesn't need to. One way or another, the Palestinians have lost this war.

To me, it really comes down to one pertinant fact: The Palestinians now have more to gain from peace than the Israelis do.

That wasn't always the case. I remember the periods in the '80's and '90's when it seemed a new atrocity was committed against innocent civilians in Israel every week. But the Israelis closed the borders; built the wall; imposed strict entry controls. And guess what? It worked. Israel is much safer now.

For there to be a final peace there, one side or the other is going to have to stop attacking. And Israel doesn't need to. One way or another, the Palestinians have lost this war.

Except of course even if the Palestinians somehow manage to override Hamas and lay down their arms, that'll leave the Kahanist settlers free reign to do the same shit they've been doing with implied government support.

Then the world has no one to blame but Hamas, who has hijacked the peace-process which was moving slow but steady into the direction of a two-state solution with the PLO.

Meanwhile, in reality....After Arafat died, two possible candidates arose for his office. One was Abbas, of the corrupt old guard, and the other Marhan Barghouti. The US told Barghouti that if he won, they'd isolate him even more thoroughly than they had Arafat. Abbas ran, won, and dissatisfaction with this let in Hamas. Having learnt sweet fuck all from this.......


The Bush administration, caught out by the rise of Hamas, embarked on a secret project for the armed overthrow of the Islamist government in Gaza, it emerged yesterday.

Vanity Fair reports in its April edition that President George Bush and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, signed off on a plan for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to remove the Hamas authorities in Gaza. The plan called for Washington's allies in the region to funnel arms and salaries to Fatah fighters who would lead a rising against Hamas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/04/usa.israelandthepalestinians


Their (..........) 1920)..

Yeah, colonising them always works, doesn't it.
(You left out 'Mufti' and 'OMG TeH NAZIS' btw)

I don't support it.
But then, I also don't support the death penalty, and some countries and populations out there think it's a splendid idea....

Though this will not garner me up much support on NSG (like I need it), my opinion is that if the majority of a country actually polls as supporting terrrosism, they won't recieve much support from the civilized world, nor should they. Those who support suicide bombings on civilians are nothing more than barbarians.

And the overwhelming majority of Israeli (as we just saw in the elections) support the massive bombings and war crimes on civilian population in Palestine. The fact that Israeli drops their bomb from stealth bombers instead doing suicidal attack is just the fact that this time they are Goliath, it doesn't change the result : massive death of civilian.

So, both side are barabian, and shouldn't receive any support from the civilized world ?

Or will the civilized world *impose* to them to make peace, for example by... not selling any weapon to Israel until it stops committing war crimes ?

Edit: oh, in fact, Israel using stealth bombers and tanks instead of suicide bombers does change the result : they kill much, much more civilian than the palestinian do.

I blame the problem on the invention of explosives. The Isreali weapon that killed a lot of Palestinians? Explosive projectiles. Weapon of choice for suicide bombers? Not rocks or sticks. It's explosives.

We need to somehow go back to the ancient way of warfare, when your weapons of choice were swords, bows and arrows, and plague-riddled corpses. Victory often involved Spartan-armored grunts and Egyptian-style chariot drive-by shootings. You won by outsmarting your opponent, not by blowing yourself up like a pussy that's afraid to actually fight your civillian targets or cheating by threatening to launch a few nukes and starting a nuclear free-for-all when things don't go your way.

Except of course even if the Palestinians somehow manage to override Hamas and lay down their arms, that'll leave the Kahanist settlers free reign to do the same shit they've been doing with implied government support.

Then the Israeli government would have to s*** or get off the pot. Either acknowledge the settlers or stop them. Right now they can get away with ignoring the problem and hoping the Palestinians will go away.

Suicide bombings are abhorrent, wherever, whenever & by whomever.

I'm absolutely shocked by this.

Stunned in fact.

Who would have believed that after military attacks were carried out against a group, the group's attitude is to favour military attacks in response.

Then the Israeli government would have to s*** or get off the pot. Either acknowledge the settlers or stop them. Right now they can get away with ignoring the problem and hoping the Palestinians will go away.

Perhaps the Israeli government hopes the settlers will make the Palestinians go away for them if they ignore the settler murder and terror tactics long enough without the hue and cry that would arise if they did it officially.

I'm absolutely shocked by this.

Stunned in fact.

Who would have believed that after military attacks were carried out against a group, the group's attitude is to favour military attacks in response.

Not exactly what the survey said, PM. It said they supported attacks on civilians. Military attacks would have a military purpose.

Perhaps the Israeli government hopes the settlers will make the Palestinians go away for them if they ignore the settler murder and terror tactics long enough without the hue and cry that would arise if they did it officially.

This would not surprise me.

Excellent try, but it doesn't change anything in regards to my OP. Even before the war, the majority of Palestinians (in your own quote) supported suicide bombings. Since the war that majority has increased, but it was still a majority before, nonetheless.

Actually, the study I quoted says nothing about suicide bombings. It talks about attacks against civilians. They are two different things. Since your quote about mothers seems to suggest that the topic is suicide bombings, I though twe were discussing those.

Are you now shifting the discussion to attacks against civilians?

That is just what word of mouth is saying.

For all we know it could have been a fire-fight going on and there was an accidental stray bullet. Or perhaps the dad could have been a insurgent, or perhaps it really was an Israeli sniper targeting little children (a bit far-fetched. . . and when I say a bit I mean really), but really, how do you know? Are you prepared to just take as "unfortunately, yes" the word of mouth of just some random Palestinians?

These are what's called ad hoc hypotheses, I think. That means that you have no evidence for them and you're just throwing them out there because they support your claim.

I don't just take their word. Which I why I support a full investigation into war crimes during the last Israeli conflict, just like Amnesty International. Maybe we can then find out why international observers found Israeli munitions in places like kids playgrounds.

Because a military action is designed to protect the lives of the people on your side. The Palestinian actions do not protect Palestinians in any way; they are designed solely to hurt the other side, without any positive goal.

Then why does Israel engage in military actions that create support for attacks against Israeli civilians?

Not exactly what the survey said, PM. It said they supported attacks on civilians. Military attacks would have a military purpose.
Meh. I went along this line This JMCC poll found that Israel’s war on Gaza contributed to an increase in support for military action against Israel. but yeh, I know what you mean.

I fully support the death of as many Israelis and Palestinians as it takes to achieve peace. I suspect that number is all of them. Israel is a fucked up situation that should of never been started. Since we lack time travel all we can do is stay out of it and wait for one side to genocide the other. There'll never be peace except the peace of the grave.

Not exactly what the survey said, PM. It said they supported attacks on civilians. Military attacks would have a military purpose.
Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't you. Not really the case with the Israelis.

http://i16.tinypic.com/81pszrn.jpg

These are what's called ad hoc hypotheses, I think. That means that you have no evidence for them and you're just throwing them out there because they support your claim.
Similarly, you were throwing out their ad-hoc hypotheses which had no evidence for them either.
Then why does Israel engage in military actions that create support for attacks against Israeli civilians?
It does not "create" the support, which has existed continuously for the last 90 years regardless. The Israelis are designed to reduce their CAPACITY to carry out attacks on civilians.

Similarly, you were throwing out their ad-hoc hypotheses which had no evidence for them either.

Um, no. They, the Palestinians, have evidence for their assertions that snipers shot civilians. Like dead bodies with bullets in them.

It does not "create" the support, which has existed continuously for the last 90 years regardless. The Israelis are designed to reduce their CAPACITY to carry out attacks on civilians.

Did you miss the study that was quoted several times in the thread? There is a direct link between the Israeli attacks and Palestinian support for attacks against Israeli civilians. It does create more support. If you would like to claim that it has also reduced capability, then please provide evidence for this claim.

whoops, I voted the wrong way. I wanted to vote I support Palestinians but not suicide bombings. Confusing poll.

And you should keep in mind, most Israelis supported the mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza. For the Muslim world, that was nothing short of terrorism and mass murder done for political gain - we don't buy the pretext of self-defense because the fact that the Gaza bombing came at the end of Bush's reign and right before Obama's, and the fact that it came right before the Israeli elections, is just too convenient. 900 out of 1300 of the dead were civilians - Israel, being the superior power, can avoid civilian deaths if it wants but it chose to target civilian infrastructure and then claim that "Hamas was using human shields" which has not been independently verified. Why buy everything the IDF says, when independent groups like Amnesty International, United Nations, and Human Rights Watch have charged Israel with war crimes and backed it up with evidence?

Both sides should stop supporting the murder of the innocents of the other side. Many Palestinians claim that since the land was stolen from them, and since Israeli civilians are required to serve in the army, it is just to kill Israeli civilians. This is false. Many Israelis claim that the land belongs to them, and so they can expel Palestinians from their homes without right, and can place all kinds of humiliating and oppressive measures on them for the sake of "self-defense" - this is false. When you steal people's land, and Israel continues to appropriate more land from Palestinians in the West Bank for settlement expansion, they aren't going to roll over and let you. And now Israelis think they are justified in killing 900 Palestinian civilians to crush resistance instead of actually providing a just solution, disbanding illegal settlements, opening the boarders, and allowing the Palestinians true self-determination.

What we need from America is pressure on both sides to curtail extremists. Israel does not curtail its extremists, just as the Palestinians don't. West Bank settling is done by people who believe God has allowed them to take land from gentiles so that Jews can live in the Holy Land promised to them - this is just as extreme as any Islamist ideology. Prominent Israeli Rabbis, like this guy (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull), have advocated mass murder, and yet they are still highly respected and allowed to spread their hatred across Israel. Both sides are struggling with extremism, but it is wrong that only Islamic/Palestinian extremism is criticized when Jewish/Israeli extremism is just as much an impediment to peace.

I don't support (and never supported and will never support) attacks of any kind against civilians. This includes bombings in populated areas, suicide bombings in marketplaces etc.

On the other hand, if bombing Gaza was no war crime because the death of civilians was a collateral damage in a legitimate strike against combatants, well, I guess that a suicide bombing in a marketplace would be legitimate too if an israeli soldier were caught in the blast radius.

I'd say that a suicide bombing, just like any other combat operation, is legitimate if it doesn't hit civilians and doesn't involve weapons forbidden by international conventions, like poisonous gases.

A lot of suicide bombers are people who are either recruited with promises of money (provided they blow themselves up), or are children, or mentally retarded people.

If it were actual adult, fully cognizant Hamas or Fatah soldiers, in uniform, and not being paid anything over and above their regular pay as soldiers, and if they confined their attacks to military targets (military vehicles, personnel, bases), then I would be fine with it - even if there was some collateral damage.

But they're never going to do that. A Hamas soldier might actually die or something.

I recommend all Palestinians that support suicide bombings strap up in thier living room and practice doing it.

I recommend all Palestinians that support suicide bombings strap up in thier living room and practice doing it.

Yeah, more practice. Obviously, they're not doing it right.

I recommend all Palestinians that support suicide bombings strap up in thier living room and practice doing it.

I recommend all Israelis who support airstrikes against densely populated areas to begin practicing with their colonies on palestinian territory, too. :p

I don't support (and never supported and will never support) attacks of any kind against civilians. This includes bombings in populated areas, suicide bombings in marketplaces etc.

On the other hand, if bombing Gaza was no war crime because the death of civilians was a collateral damage in a legitimate strike against combatants, well, I guess that a suicide bombing in a marketplace would be legitimate too if an israeli soldier were caught in the blast radius.

I'd say that a suicide bombing, just like any other combat operation, is legitimate if it doesn't hit civilians and doesn't involve weapons forbidden by international conventions, like poisonous gases.

There is a difference in that suicide bombers do specifically target civilian casualties, it isn't just a matter of negligence. Israel's tendency to bomb the shit out of anything in the vicinity of a legitimate target doesn't really entail that the "collateral" is being specifically targeted.

Now, this doesn't make it any more acceptable, in my mind, but the two aren't exactly comparable in the way you seem to be implying.

There is a difference in that suicide bombers do specifically target civilian casualties, it isn't just a matter of negligence. Israel's tendency to bomb the shit out of anything in the vicinity of a legitimate target doesn't really entail that the "collateral" is being specifically targeted.

Now, this doesn't make it any more acceptable, in my mind, but the two aren't exactly comparable in the way you seem to be implying.

However - I think Ris makes an interesting point.

If a bomber targeted a military checkpoint/two soldiers on guard duty in the middle of a crowded area, inflicting large non-military casualties as well as succeeding in the goal of legitimately killing the soldiers, does that change the situation? Does that equal acceptable collateral damage also...?

However - I think Ris makes an interesting point.

If a bomber targeted a military checkpoint/two soldiers on guard duty in the middle of a crowded area, inflicting large non-military casualties as well as succeeding in the goal of legitimately killing the soldiers, does that change the situation? Does that equal acceptable collateral damage also...?

To me? No. Would consistency dictate, for a large number of individuals in the West and Israel, that it does? Yes. I think there is an important difference between specifically targeting civilians and simply not giving a shit. The former is criminal in intent, the latter is criminal in either negligence or incompetence (and, really, not being a vegetable, I know that the IDF is not incompetent).

Does that equal acceptable collateral damage also...?

Partially. Its certainly collateral damage to a legitimate military target. Its not acceptable however. Your getting into shades of grey here that can easily be argued but Israel has spent billions on more accurate, lower yield weapons specifically for the purpose of limiting collateral damage. They call homes of targets in advance and their neighbors and tell them an attack is on the way and to leave, i mean there is certianly a measurable effort on Israels side to reduce this serious issue. Suicide bombers in fact add shrapnel etc to do even more damage to bystanders and dont make any effort at all to mitigate collateral damage and in fact the more innocents killed the bigger the headlines and media coverage of their martyrdom.

Also to Hamas there is little difference between a Jewish citizen and a Jewish soldier, they are all targets to be anhailiated equally and they dont consider them innocent bystanders.

Partially. Its certainly collateral damage to a legitimate military target. Its not acceptable however. Your getting into shades of grey here that can easily be argued but Israel has spent billions on more accurate, lower yield weapons specifically for the purpose of limiting collateral damage. They call homes of targets in advance and their neighbors and tell them an attack is on the way and to leave, i mean there is certianly a measurable effort on Israels side to reduce this serious issue. Suicide bombers in fact add shrapnel etc to do even more damage to bystanders and dont make any effort at all to mitigate collateral damage and in fact the more innocents killed the bigger the headlines and media coverage of their martyrdom.

No. The IDF simply claims these things. Then they stop the press from covering it, so we have no way of finding out if they are telling the truth.

Also, the absurd combatant-civilian death ratios that the IDF itself has released would understandably lead one to believe that even if they are attempting to mitigate collateral damage and death they're either incompetent or negligent, both of which I covered in my previous response.

No. The IDF simply claims these things. Then they stop the press from covering it, so we have no way of finding out if they are telling the truth.

The US are the one selling Israel these weapons so its not exactly a secret. The advance phone calls to targets and their neighbors are well documented and both Hamas and Israel admit they happen. They both spin it differently but the facts are the facts. I can provide links if necessary.

The US are the one selling Israel these weapons so its not exactly a secret. The advance phone calls to targets and their neighbors are well documented and both Hamas and Israel admit they happen. They both spin it differently but the facts are the facts. I can provide links if necessary.

Yes. Provide links.

Also, the absurd combatant-civilian death ratios that the IDF itself has released would understandably lead one to believe that even if they are attempting to mitigate collateral damage and death they're either incompetent or negligent, both of which I covered in my previous response.

The ratio of civilian death to militant death ratio is far far better for the latest Israel/Hamas conflict then the ratio of militants to civilian death ratio of US Predator drones in Pakistan doing surgical strikes but noone is freaking out over that.

The ratio of civilian death to militant death ratio is far far better for the latest Israel/Hamas conflict then the ratio of militants to civilian death ratio of US Predator drones in Pakistan doing surgical strikes but noone is freaking out over that.

I've not heard nearly as much about it, but, then again, I have personal interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict, with the whole being Jewish and all. When my relatives live/have lived/plan to live in Pakistan, I expect I'll become more interested in the unacceptable casualty ratios there, as well.

Yes. Provide links.

The kinds of warning the Israelis give:

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=436790&publicationSubCategoryId=200

Israeli jets struck yesterday night a police station belongs to the deposed Hamas government in central Gaza Strip, but no injuries were reported, witnesses and security sources said.

The witnesses said that Israeli F-16 warplanes hovered over the central area of the Gaza Strip, and struck one missile at a police post that belongs to the Hamas police, adding the post was completely destroyed, but no injuries reported.

The Israeli warplane airstrikes on Hamas police station came hours after eight homemade rockets and mortar shells were fired from the Gaza Strip at Israeli communities in the vicinity of the enclave into Israel.

No one claimed responsibility for the rockets and mortars' attacks. However, Israel held Hamas movement, which rules the Gaza Strip, responsible for the attacks which were carried out from Gaza at Israel.

Earlier yesterday, Gaza Strip residents said they received recorded warning phone calls on their cell phones.

They said that an Israeli army spokesman said in Arabic that it was a warning message. All the residents living in the area near the border between the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah and Egypt has to move back to the northern part of the town.

Yes. Provide links.

This is the original source i read at the time about the phone calls much was written about it after putting spin on it but yes it happened.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5416012.ece

As far as weapons go, do you want a list of weapons that the Israeli Army has that are more accurate and lower yield then they used to be?

The kinds of warning the Israelis give:

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=436790&publicationSubCategoryId=200

Okay. There's one. It's only mentioned in one newspaper, but whatever.

So, how about all those attacks during the last offensive? Do we have any evidence for warnings before those attacks occurred?

This is the original source i read at the time about the phone calls much was written about it after putting spin on it but yes it happened.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5416012.ece

As far as weapons go, do you want a list of weapons that the Israeli Army has that are more accurate and lower yield then they used to be?

And when we look at your source we see this:

The messages vary, spreading fear and confusion, according to Sari Bashi, of the Israeli human rights organisation Gisha. Some tell people that they must leave their homes immediately to avoid being harmed; others are similar to the warning received by Mohammed. Some are direct threats: “Leave your house; it will be bombed soon.” The calls are causing such panic that the Palestinian phone company has issued its own recorded messages telling people to ignore the Israeli threats.

“This is psychological warfare,” Linda al-Ghais, 32, a microbiologist and mother of three living in Gaza City, said. “We don’t know if it’s true or not, if they’ll bomb us or not. Everyone is very frightened.”

Mohammed thought that the calls may be an attempt by Israel to cover itself in the event of civilian homes being hit. “They are doing this to show they are taking care in case civilians are hit, but clearly they are not taking care. Hundreds of people have died, many of them civilians and even children,” he said.

An Israeli military spokesman declined to comment on the calls.

So, if they were supposed to prevent civilian deaths, why do they cause fear and confusion?

Why don't they tell th epeople where they can go for safety?

Why are the casualty figures so high?

Why doesn't the IDF want to coment on these calls?

Okay. There's one. It's only mentioned in one newspaper, but whatever.

So, how about all those attacks during the last offensive? Do we have any evidence for warnings before those attacks occurred?

How many do you want? It's official Israeli policy and has been for some time.

At what point will we post enough links, and you'll say, "ok"?

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/65825.html?wlc=1235589523

It's all over the Internet - not just one source. But honestly, do you want one news article showing a warning for each bomb dropped?

How many do you want? It's official Israeli policy and has been for some time.

At what point will we post enough links, and you'll say, "ok"?

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/65825.html?wlc=1235589523

It's all over the Internet - not just one source. But honestly, do you want one news article showing a warning for each bomb dropped?

According to that source, Hamas is also warning Israelis about impending rocket attacks:

Hagar Mizrachi, a 25-year-old Israeli, recently received a text message that said rocket attacks on all of Israel's cities were imminent. The message was signed "Hamas" and the sender name was listed as "Qassam.hamm," he said. Qassams are rockets that Hamas militants have been firing from Gaza into southern Israel.

So, are you now going to cliam that Hamas makes a conscious effort to reduce civilian casualties?

So, are you now going to cliam that Hamas makes a conscious effort to reduce civilian casualties?

No, because the Hamas rockets are unguided pieces of shit that are lucky to leave Gaza, let alone get within a kilometer of the aim point. Hamas got quite a few Palestinians with rockets that blew up on takeoff, or landed less than 100 meters from the launch point.

Compare that to a GPS guided bomb, which lands within a few meters of the aimpoint.

No, because the Hamas rockets are unguided pieces of shit that are lucky to leave Gaza, let alone get within a kilometer of the aim point. Hamas got quite a few Palestinians with rockets that blew up on takeoff, or landed less than 100 meters from the launch point.

Compare that to a GPS guided bomb, which lands within a few meters of the aimpoint.

The proficiency in aiming has little to do with warning civilians. It only tells you how many people you have to warn. So, far we have no idea whether or not either side warned all the people in the target area.

Now, if the IDF has weapons that are far better at reducing civilian casualties, why are civilian casualties numbers so high? Are they incompetent or negligent (I stole this from Post-L, yes)?

The proficiency in aiming has little to do with warning civilians. It only tells you how many people you have to warn. So, far we have no idea whether or not either side warned all the people in the target area.

Now, if the IDF has weapons that are far better at reducing civilian casualties, why are civilian casualties numbers so high? Are they incompetent or negligent (I stole this from Post-L, yes)?

And conversely, the unguided Qassams can't even statistically begin to approach a fraction of the civilian casualties that these high-tech precision guided munitions can supposedly reduce but have yet to.

The proficiency in aiming has little to do with warning civilians. It only tells you how many people you have to warn. So, far we have no idea whether or not either side warned all the people in the target area.

Now, if the IDF has weapons that are far better at reducing civilian casualties, why are civilian casualties numbers so high? Are they incompetent or negligent (I stole this from Post-L, yes)?

They're actually lower than the Predator strikes. The casualties are probably high because Hamas militants deliberately place themselves among as many civilians as possible.

Additionally, Israel gets a lot of bad press during fights, and then the numbers quietly change afterwards. Jenin is the classic example - it went from thousands of civilian casualties down to 50 to 60 casualties - mostly militants.

The UN, for example, recently admitted that Israel didn't bomb their school compound. During the fighting, however, the UN insisted that the Israelis were bombing and shelling the compound, killing children inside. It tells you whose side they are on. Now, of course, they admit that whoever was killed, it wasn't children and they were outside the compound.

Compare that to a GPS guided bomb, which lands within a few meters of the aimpoint.
Not that this always happens (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/15/israel_pounds_gaza_shells_crowded_hospital).

Not that this always happens (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/15/israel_pounds_gaza_shells_crowded_hospital).

Shells are different from bombs. Usually unguided, but still more accurate than a qassam rocket.

Now, if the IDF has weapons that are far better at reducing civilian casualties, why are civilian casualties numbers so high? Are they incompetent or negligent (I stole this from Post-L, yes)?

Quite possibly both, but it is also due to the high population density. At 4118 people per square kilometer (says Wikipedia), the sixth highest in the world, it must be quite difficult to avoid civilian casualties.

Many of us know the old saying, spoken from Golda Meir that, "There will only be peace once Palestinian mothers love their children more than they hate ours." Well Palestinian supporters or opponents of Israel (the two don't have to always over-lap) often claim that she was grossly exaggerating how the average Palestinian felt, and that she was blowing a view 'only extremists' held out of proportion.

Wouldn't it be nice?

Reality, however, had other plans for this debate. With the publishing of this new poll, taken Jan 29th - 31st 1009 by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre, we can clearly see that more than 50% of Palestinains support suicide-bombing operations against Israeli civilians. The support for suicide bombing against civilians stands around 55% for all Palestinians, around 52% for West Bank Palestinians and around 60% for Gaza Palestinians.

Though this will not garner me up much support on NSG (like I need it), my opinion is that if the majority of a country actually polls as supporting terrrosism, they won't recieve much support from the civilized world, nor should they. Those who support suicide bombings on civilians are nothing more than barbarians.


http://media.economist.com/images/20090214/CFB840.gif

http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13110485

Dirty Arabs valuing freedom more than life. How dare they??!!

Um, no. They, the Palestinians, have evidence for their assertions that snipers shot civilians. Like dead bodies with bullets in them.
There is no evidence that they were killed by "snipers"; that is invented exactly as much as the alternate theories you called "ad hoc". There is evidence that somebody is dead, yes, but it is not evidence in favor of one hypothesis about how they died over another.
Did you miss the study that was quoted several times in the thread? There is a direct link between the Israeli attacks and Palestinian support for attacks against Israeli civilians. It does create more support.
Did you miss that there have been other polls over the years, and that the level of support registered in this poll is lower than what it has been in earlier years?
If you would like to claim that it has also reduced capability, then please provide evidence for this claim.
The number of rocket launches is now nearly zero.

...
The UN, for example, recently admitted that Israel didn't bomb their school compound. During the fighting, however, the UN insisted that the Israelis were bombing and shelling the compound, killing children inside. It tells you whose side they are on. Now, of course, they admit that whoever was killed, it wasn't children and they were outside the compound.

I don't believe you.

There is no evidence that they were killed by "snipers"; that is invented exactly as much as the alternate theories you called "ad hoc". There is evidence that somebody is dead, yes, but it is not evidence in favor of one hypothesis about how they died over another.

You mean, other than the eyewitness accounts and the ballistics that could be done on the bullets?

Did you miss that there have been other polls over the years, and that the level of support registered in this poll is lower than what it has been in earlier years?

You know, that directly contradicts the actual study that was actually quoted and linked to in this very thread. Look at post 15 for proof that you are wrong.

The number of rocket launches is now nearly zero.

So you say.

Additionally, Israel gets a lot of bad press during fights, and then the numbers quietly change afterwards. Jenin is the classic example - it went from thousands of civilian casualties down to 50 to 60 casualties - mostly militants.
This is a bit of spin. Israel gets some bad press for tactics, but actually, aside from the recent Gazan excursion, Israeli deaths tend to get over-represented and Palestinian deaths vastly under-represented in the press.
Quite possibly both, but it is also due to the high population density. At 4118 people per square kilometer (says Wikipedia), the sixth highest in the world, it must be quite difficult to avoid civilian casualties.

*shrug* As far as I'm concerned this doesn't excuse a nearly one for one ratio of combatant/non-combatant deaths.

I don't believe you.
It's true, nonetheless.
You mean, other than the eyewitness accounts and the ballistics that could be done on the bullets?
There is no eyewitness who saw a sniper and no ballistic tests were done on the bullets; you are talking about evidence which doesn't exist.
You know, that directly contradicts the actual study that was actually quoted and linked to in this very thread. Look at post 15 for proof that you are wrong.
All that says is that the percentage is higher than it was a couple months ago. So? It is lower than it was a couple years ago. There are some fluctuations, but a strong majority of Palestinians have always supported violence against civilians, going back nine decades now.
So you say.
Yes, so I do say.

...(flame bait by pic spam..for when you really have nothing to contribute)....

Quelle Suprise.


A lot of


Don't suppose you could let the rest of us know what number that bit of statictical short hand stands for?


There is no eyewitness who saw a sniper and no ballistic tests were done on the bullets; you are talking about evidence which doesn't exist.


Israeli snipers shooting people in Gaza? Perish the thought.....


but a strong majority of Palestinians have always supported violence against civilians,

Given the track record of Likud and the Israeli right, we might say similar.....

It's true, nonetheless.

Do you always believe things without evidence? You might like this thing called creationism...

There is no eyewitness who saw a sniper and no ballistic tests were done on the bullets; you are talking about evidence which doesn't exist.

Except, you know, the eyewitnesses mentioned in the article. And I didn't say the tests existed. I said the bullets existed and tests could be done.

All that says is that the percentage is higher than it was a couple months ago. So? It is lower than it was a couple years ago. There are some fluctuations, but a strong majority of Palestinians have always supported violence against civilians, going back nine decades now.

Yes, the support existed before. And now it's higher. Because of the Israeli attacks.

Yes, so I do say.

And I don't believe things without evidence.

Given the track record of Likud and the Israeli right, we might say similar.....

Meh to hyperbole. Actually this reminds me a bit of a study done a couple years ago in a number of Arab countries. Among other things, the study found that a sizable number of respondents said they were in support of Osama bin Laden (if I remember correctly, it was around 1/3rd or less....it was a significant percentage but not a majority, of course); of those, the overwhelming majority, however, did not support attacks on America. Mostly this has a lot to do with a disconnect people do between their chosen leaders or folk icons and their actual actions, however well-reported their actions may be.

I'm surprised that anyone is surprised by this

The recent Israeli elections also demonstrate that a large portion of Israelis support parties with an aggressive attitude to the Palestinian question.

The conflict would not have continued this long if a war mentality were not held by a substantial portion on both sides

It's true, nonetheless.

Then show us the source. Show us the quote. I wait with baited breath for you and Hotwife to show us where the UN admitted Israel didnt bomb their school.


Oh who am I kidding. I wont see a source from either of you.

Then show us the source. Show us the quote. I wait with baited breath for you and Hotwife to show us where the UN admitted Israel didnt bomb their school.


Oh who am I kidding. I wont see a source from either of you.

It's true:

Source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

The UN, for example, recently admitted that Israel didn't bomb their school compound. During the fighting, however, the UN insisted that the Israelis were bombing and shelling the compound, killing children inside. It tells you whose side they are on. Now, of course, they admit that whoever was killed, it wasn't children and they were outside the compound.
Rrrrrrreally? Then why don't you provide a link to an article where the UN insisted that the Israelis were shelling the compound, killing children inside?

Because the UN reported on Jan 6 (http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_06_english.pdf) that
Early reports suggest that at 15.45 on 6 January 09, three artillery shells landed outside the UNRWA Jabalia Prep C Girls School, resulting in at least 30 fatalities and 55 injuries, of which 15 are reported to be critical. The school is currently being used as a shelter for those fleeing
hostilities.
while the Jan 7 (http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_01_07_english.pdf) report stated
The latest toll from the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabalia is 43 killed and about 100 injured. UNRWA has rejected Israeli claims that the school was being used to fire mortars at the Israeli army.

So the first report is correct, and the second is a mistake. No "Insisting" that "children inside" were killed.

Of course, this doesn't really matter, because:
John Ging, director of operations in the Gaza Strip for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, said in an interview this week that the mortar shells had landed in the street immediately beyond the school's walls. Among the dead, he said, were those who had sought shelter in the school but happened to have been standing directly in front of it when the mortar shells landed. "It did kill and injure people who had sought shelter inside the school," he said.
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/06/ST2009020603409.html)

Inside or outside, it still killed the people seeking shelter.

And the blatant lies that the IDF have been caught in (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14391894&postcount=1162) (while also saying that people were killed inside the school) is of a different caliber altogether.

There is a difference in that suicide bombers do specifically target civilian casualties, it isn't just a matter of negligence. Israel's tendency to bomb the shit out of anything in the vicinity of a legitimate target doesn't really entail that the "collateral" is being specifically targeted.

Now, this doesn't make it any more acceptable, in my mind, but the two aren't exactly comparable in the way you seem to be implying.

No, wait, I'll be clearer. The fact that in Palestine suicide bombers have elected to aim for civilian casualties has nothing to do with the essence of the act of suicidal bombing itself, disjuncted from the contingency of the israelo-palestinian conflict. If palestinian suicidal bombers would target the israeli military, the attacks would be legitimate. (conditional sentence, irrealis case)

The disregard Israel shows when attacking densely populated areas, imho, implies that they know they're going to kill civilians and that they don't give a damn about that. Just slightly different, if ever; and if not downright a hypocrisy.

I don't think suicide bombings are an acceptable practice, no matter who it's against.

blah blah Isreal-Palestine blah blah.....I am tired of all these Israel-Pali threads..

More people have died in the ongoing Sri Lankan offensive against the LTTE and the civilians caught between.

More people were displaced from their ancestral homelands (millions...in another partition around the same time of Israeli partition)

More people are of same ethnicity but are deprived of nationhood and live as practically stateless and dis-enfranchised people (Kurds, Pushtuns etc)

Israel and Palestine can go to hell...

No, wait, I'll be clearer. The fact that in Palestine suicide bombers have elected to aim for civilian casualties has nothing to do with the essence of the act of suicidal bombing itself, disjuncted from the contingency of the israelo-palestinian conflict. If palestinian suicidal bombers would target the israeli military, the attacks would be legitimate. (conditional sentence, irrealis case)

The disregard Israel shows when attacking densely populated areas, imho, implies that they know they're going to kill civilians and that they don't give a damn about that. Just slightly different, if ever; and if not downright a hypocrisy.

I realize that, I was referring to specifically Palestinian suicide bombing tactics, though. However, realizing you are going to commit collateral damage and not caring and intending to specifically commit what, if you were engaging in legitimate tactics, is collateral damage are still very different things.

Also, though it isn't necessarily relevant to this specific discussion, I think suicide attacks are, in fact, deemed illegal by international law, aren't they? I'd prefer not to dig out my stupid red book, so I'm just going to say I remember it being so but not press it as a firm stance.

However, realizing you are going to commit collateral damage and not caring and intending to specifically commit what, if you were engaging in legitimate tactics, is collateral damage are still very different things.Maybe on the legal level. On the moral level, I think it's the same. You know you're going to kill non-combatants and you do that nevertheless.

Also, though it isn't necessarily relevant to this specific discussion, I think suicide attacks are, in fact, deemed illegal by international law, aren't they? I'd prefer not to dig out my stupid red book, so I'm just going to say I remember it being so but not press it as a firm stance.
Do dig it, I'm curious.
I would guess that a suicide attack performed against a purely military target is perfectly legitimate. Example: a japanese kamikaze pilot in WW2, taking a military plane, with proper insigna and all, against a proper military target like an aircraft carrier of the US Navy. Sounds legitimate to me (bordering on pure heroism if he volunteered for it freely).

Do you always believe things without evidence?
You are the one believing things without evidence here:
Except, you know, the eyewitnesses mentioned in the article. And I didn't say the tests existed. I said the bullets existed and tests could be done.
No eyewitness saw any sniper; to be sure, no eyewitness saw one of the other scenarios which you rejected as "ad hoc". If the tests were performed on the bullets, that might provide evidence for one of the scenarios you reject, as easily for the one you accept: as it stands, with no tests having been done and no witnesses to whoever fired the shot, there is evidence only for "people were killed", no evidence that distinguishes among any hypotheses about how they were killed.

The Palestinians believe, without evidence, in child-hunting snipers because "J00z are teh ebil" is part of their cultural assumptions; you believe it because "downtrodden victims are in the right" is part of your assumptions; but those more familiar with how people in the military (any military) actually behave don't find it the most likely of scenarios. And as with the school story, or the "Jenin massacre" story, if the matter was actually investigated, the most extreme versions put out in the heat of the moment would probably turn out not to be exactly what happened.
Yes, the support existed before. And now it's higher. Because of the Israeli attacks.
Higher than a couple months ago, I'm sure. Lower than a few years ago, however: I have posted the polls from a few years back several times on this board, every time somebody claims "only a small minority of Palestinians favor attacks against civilians"; I'll dredge them up again if you are really interested. There are fluctuations up and down over the years, but the basic situation, that a strong majority of Palestinians favor attacks on civilians, has not changed in 90 years.

And I don't believe things without evidence.
Sure you do, whatever fits with what you are predisposed to believe.

You are the one believing things without evidence here:

Still waitin on that source where the UN said Israel didnt shell the school.

Still waitin on that source where the UN said Israel didnt shell the school.

That was DK who made the claim I believe, not Tmut.

Still waitin on that source where the UN said Israel didnt shell the school.
Hydesland put up a link a page ago.
The exaggeration in the heat of the moment of course went both ways: some on the Israeli side originally were claiming that the militants were firing shells from the school, which wasn't true either; the militants were firing from right by the school, and the Israeli return fire landed very near the school, just not in it. Blame whichever side you are more prejudiced against for the consequent civilian deaths.

Hydesland put up a link a page ago.


Hydesland put up a rick roll link. Are you seriously telling me that's the source you want to use?

Hydesland put up a rick roll link. Are you seriously telling me that's the source you want to use?My bad, I assumed he was linking to the actual report: here (http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0204/gaza.html).

My bad, I assumed he was linking to the actual report: here (http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0204/gaza.html).

Ok, so once again the link didnt say waht DK thought it did.

Im sick of the whole damn thing...Let em Rot...

Ok, so once again the link didnt say waht DK thought it did.In what respect?

Hydesland put up a link a page ago.
Actually, I did that. Linked to the reports and all.

*Feels all alone and neglected*

blah blah Isreal-Palestine blah blah.....I am tired of all these Israel-Pali threads..

More people have died in the ongoing Sri Lankan offensive against the LTTE and the civilians caught between.

More people were displaced from their ancestral homelands (millions...in another partition around the same time of Israeli partition)

More people are of same ethnicity but are deprived of nationhood and live as practically stateless and dis-enfranchised people (Kurds, Pushtuns etc)
Haven't seen many threads on Sri Lanka around here...


Also, though it isn't necessarily relevant to this specific discussion, I think suicide attacks are, in fact, deemed illegal by international law, aren't they?
No, not really I don't think.

No, not really I don't think.
Sucide attacks on civilians, which is what this entire thing is about, are however illegal by international law.

In what respect?

Maybe if you read the thread.....

Sucide attacks on civilians, which is what this entire thing is about,

...which is ironic, considering theres far more interesting content and indeed context for your cherry picked item in the article.....

The president’s second big test, widely mooted, will be to warn the Israelis that further expansion of the Jewish settlements on the West Bank, either by extension of boundaries or “natural growth”, is totally unacceptable—and will have painful repercussions if it goes on. It is unlikely, in the short run, that an American president, even Mr Obama, would have the nerve to cut military or other aid to Israel in a hurry. The only president to have threatened to do so was George Bush senior, in 1991, when he said he would withhold guarantees on loans. Since then, every Israeli leader has continued to allow settlement expansion, in contravention of international law, without a serious American reaction.

In a recent article in Newsweek one of Mr Bush’s advisers on Israel-Palestine, Aaron Miller, made a rueful confession:

In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can’t recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity—including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions—does to the peacemaking process. There is a need to impose some accountability. And this can only come from the president. But Obama should make it clear that America will not lend its auspices to a peacemaking process in which the actions of either side wilfully undermine the chances of an agreement America is trying to broker. No process at all would be better than a dishonest one that hurts America’s credibility.

http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13110485

...which is ironic, considering theres far more interesting content and indeed context for your cherry picked item in the article.....



http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13110485
I didn't cherry pick anything. I read the article, as I do all the articles of every edition of the Economist and was suprised by that poll, so I posted it. I also linked to the original article so people could read further into it. I didn't want to the discussion to be about the whole crisis as much as about suicide bombing, that's why I centered it around the poll.

Nice try though, please keep it up. :p

And to those of you who have stated you support suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, you are henceforth removed of your right to use international law to justify anything:

Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977), states that: "In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."

The violation of this basic prohibition also amounts to a war crime. See for example, Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), which includes within its list of acts constituting war crimes the following: "Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities".

So yes, Hamas, by it's very own charter is in breach of international law and of sponsoring what can be called War Crimes. Whether Israel has commited war crimes or not is a legit debate, but one that should be discussed elsewhere because pro-Palestinian people and anti-Isareli people neatly use it to cover the war crimes and breaches of international law on the part of the Palestinians which don't even have to be discussed, where as with Israel a discussion is needed.

Sucide attacks on civilians, which is what this entire thing is about, are however illegal by international law.

No shit, Sherlock.

So to sum up:

Suicide attacks are not illegal, contrary to what Post Liminality said.

Attacks on civilians, no matter the method of attack, is illegal, contrary to what... well, nobody have claimed otherwise in this thread, have they...

No shit, Sherlock.

So to sum up:

Suicide attacks are not illegal, contrary to what Post Liminality said.

Attacks on civilians, no matter the method of attack, is illegal, contrary to what... well, nobody have claimed otherwise in this thread, have they...
Well I'm sure that's what he meant given the topic of this thread. . .

though if I'm wrong, I do apologize.

And to those of you who have stated you support support bombings against Israeli civilians, you are henceforth removed of your right to use international law to justify anything:

Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977), states that:

The violation of this basic prohibition also amounts to a war crime. See for example, Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), which includes within its list of acts constituting war crimes the following:

So yes, Hamas, by it's very own charter is in breach of international law and of sponsoring what can be called War Crimes. Whether Israel has commited war crimes or not is a legit debate, but one that should be discussed elsewhere because pro-Palestinian people and anti-Isareli people neatly use it to cover the war crimes and breaches of international law on the part of the Palestinians which don't even have to be discussed, where as with Israel a discussion is needed.

Another thing I'd have to check, but I do not believe either Israel or Hamas, or even Fatah...though, I'm not sure who would have to sign in regards to Palestine....are signatories to the ICC, which, of course, only has jurisdiction over those signatory to it. This is actually easy to check so it should only take a moment.

No, I was referring strictly to suicide attacks by themselves, but I wasn't sure which is why I included the whole caveat part about being absolutely unsure.

Though, in the Palestinian case, even they attacked military targets, it most definitely is in breech of international law as far as clearly marking one's self as a member of their respective army, among other things.

No, neither are party to it.

And to those of you who have stated you support support bombings against Israeli civilians, you are henceforth removed of your right to use international law to justify anything:

You're so modest about your superpowers.


Whether Israel has commited war crimes or not is a legit debate, but one that should be discussed elsewhere

Yeah, God forbid we discuss the Israelis in topics concerning the Israeli-Palestine conflict. That would be unfair now, wouldn't it?

because pro-Palestinian people and anti-Isareli people neatly use it to cover the war crimes and breaches of international law on the part of the Palestinians which don't even have to be discussed

So we shouldn't discuss the Palestinians either? Gee TAI, what do we get to talk about?

, where as with Israel a discussion is needed.

But not here, right?

I didn't want to the discussion to be about the whole crisis as much as about suicide bombing, that's why I centered it around the poll.

Speaking of which:

Does anybody know how many suicide attacks that have happened in Israel during the last, say, 10 years? How many casualties there have been due to suicide attacks? Military vs. civilian casualty rates?

Another thing I'd have to check, but I do not believe either Israel or Hamas, or even Fatah...though, I'm not sure who would have to sign in regards to Palestine....are signatories to the ICC, which, of course, only has jurisdiction over those signatory to it. This is actually easy to check so it should only take a moment.

They're not.

But that doesn't really matter. The crimes as listed in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is a codification of already existing international law. So the definitions therein are valid to use on the Israel-Palestine situation.

Maybe if you read the thread.....I read every post on this thread. WTF are you talking about?

I didn't cherry pick anything. I read the article, as I do all the articles of every edition of the Economist and was suprised by that poll, so I posted it. I also linked to the original article so people could read further into it. I didn't want to the discussion to be about the whole crisis as much as about suicide bombing, that's why I centered it around the poll.

Nice try though, please keep it up. :p

Of course you cherry-picked and you did so for the rather obvious reason that focusing on "is sucide bombing of civilians good?" slants the question considerably against the Palestinians--which was your intent.

It is rather like asking whether it was good for Americans to use "cowardly guerilla tactics" in violation of existing protocols during the Revolutionary War. Some can still say yes, but the question itself includes a bias.

They're not.

But that doesn't really matter. The crimes as listed in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is a codification of already existing international law. So the definitions therein are valid to use on the Israel-Palestine situation.

Quiet you. Otherwise we'll end up talking about "if a law isn't written down or signed up to, it's not applicable".

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/Mattlevi/Motovational%20Posters/motivator783319.jpg

Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977), states that:

The use of cluster munitions by Israel in civilian areas with civilian populaces means that Israel has also committed war crimes by not distinguishing between civilians and combatants. Funny how you like to blare about war crimes on one side and then prattle that the other isn't.

And DK's picture is funny because the presence of M4s argues that these are Israeli kids more than Palestinian ones. Israeli kids tend to die just as easily as Palestinian ones I find.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/Mattlevi/Motovational%20Posters/motivator783319.jpg

Arn't those a bunch of white kids with airsoft guns. :rolleyes:

Arn't those a bunch of white kids with airsoft guns. :rolleyes:

If not, I'm gonna be pissed that those kids have cooler gear than I have.

Arn't those a bunch of white kids with airsoft guns. :rolleyes:

Nope.

Sucide attacks on civilians, which is what this entire thing is about, are however illegal by international law.

Just as any attack on civilians. No more no less.

Just as any attack on civilians. No more no less.

A most excellent point. :hail:

The use of cluster munitions by Israel in civilian areas with civilian populaces means that Israel has also committed war crimes by not distinguishing between civilians and combatants. Funny how you like to blare about war crimes on one side and then prattle that the other isn't.

And DK's picture is funny because the presence of M4s argues that these are Israeli kids more than Palestinian ones. Israeli kids tend to die just as easily as Palestinian ones I find.

The "cluster munitions" argument is actually quite questionable. Given that cluster munitions ARE much more effective against personnel than single munition ordinance, and do not fall under the classes of prohibited ordinance (primarily chemical), the counterargument is that, provided the primary target is legitimate, scattering effects are merely collateral damage and therefore unfortunate but not prohibitory.

The same argument is made regarding Improved Conventional Munitions for artillery, and to my knowledge that has not been challenged.

NAS is pretty ignorant of what the Palestinians like to carry these days.

M-16 variants in Gaza are considered status symbols, and their toy guns are more likely to be copies of M-16 variants.

NAS is pretty ignorant of what the Palestinians like to carry these days.

M-16 variants in Gaza are considered status symbols, and their toy guns are more likely to be copies of M-16 variants.

Odd. I'd've thought they'd be seen as a symbol of one of Israel's allies, and thus shunned.

The "cluster munitions" argument is actually quite questionable. Given that cluster munitions ARE much more effective against personnel than single munition ordinance, and do not fall under the classes of prohibited ordinance (primarily chemical), the counterargument is that, provided the primary target is legitimate, scattering effects are merely collateral damage and therefore unfortunate but not prohibitory.

The same argument is made regarding Improved Conventional Munitions for artillery, and to my knowledge that has not been challenged.

That's the important thing no? The way I hear it, when those munitions were used, Israel declared everyone in the area the primary target, declaring them enemy combatants regardless of the reality of it.

It also didn't help that they said anyone still in the area by a specified date would be considered an enemy combatant while they went ahead and bombed anyone heeding the warning before the deadline.

It's promising safe conduct to people if they surrender and then gunning them down when they do, and telling the ones who stayed back that they're at fault for not wanting to get shot.

NAS is pretty ignorant of what the Palestinians like to carry these days.

Claims the troll who doesn't even bother to read his own articles when trying to make arguments that the articles don't support, has never been to Palestine, and makes a lot of inflated claims about his accomplishments.

Nope.

Pretty sure they are.

That's the important thing no? The way I hear it, when those munitions were used, Israel declared everyone in the area the primary target, declaring them enemy combatants regardless of the reality of it.

Quite so. I was just heading off the (entirely too common) "use of clusters in an urban area is a crime" hue and cry that tends to erupt reagrding using these armaments at all.

It also didn't help that they said anyone still in the area by a specified date would be considered an enemy combatant while they went ahead and bombed anyone heeding the warning before the deadline.

It's promising safe conduct to people if they surrender and then gunning them down when they do, and telling the ones who stayed back that they're at fault for not wanting to get shot.

Entirely so.

Many of us know the old saying, spoken from Golda Meir that, "There will only be peace once Palestinian mothers love their children more than they hate ours." Well Palestinian supporters or opponents of Israel (the two don't have to always over-lap) often claim that she was grossly exaggerating how the average Palestinian felt, and that she was blowing a view 'only extremists' held out of proportion.

Wouldn't it be nice?

Reality, however, had other plans for this debate. With the publishing of this new poll, taken Jan 29th - 31st 1009 by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre, we can clearly see that more than 50% of Palestinains support suicide-bombing operations against Israeli civilians. The support for suicide bombing against civilians stands around 55% for all Palestinians, around 52% for West Bank Palestinians and around 60% for Gaza Palestinians.

Though this will not garner me up much support on NSG (like I need it), my opinion is that if the majority of a country actually polls as supporting terrrosism, they won't recieve much support from the civilized world, nor should they. Those who support suicide bombings on civilians are nothing more than barbarians.


http://media.economist.com/images/20090214/CFB840.gif

http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13110485

Just confirms what should have been obvious for years.

The Palestinians won't learn until they've been crushed so severely that it alters their DNA.

As for getting support from the "civilized world," there's civilized and there's formerly civilized but now decadent, effete and headed for cultural extinction. Guess where the support comes from?

NM and anyone about to reply heatedly:

Remember that you're adults discussing the lives of other adults.

Remember that this is a hot-button issue for many players.

Try not to insult your opponents or needlessly raise the temperature of the discussion.

Cool it, folks.

I read the article, as I do all the articles of every edition of the Economist and was suprised by that poll, so I posted it. I also linked to the original article so people could read further into it. I didn't want to the discussion to be about the whole crisis as much as about suicide bombing, that's why I centered it around the poll.
(my bold and underline)

Yes, thats exactly what I meant. The effect without the cause etc. The picture of the angry face without mentioning the kick that caused it.

(more flamebait pic spam)

Consistent, but nothing else.....

(my bold and underline)

Yes, thats exactly what I meant. The effect without the cause etc. The picture of the angry face without mentioning the kick that caused it.


Bollocks.

Nothing "caused" suicide bombings. Nothing "caused" attacks on civilian targets.

The Israelis have done some nasty stuff to the Palestinians. There's no doubt about that. And if the Palestinians want to blow up a roadblock or shoot at Israeli soldiers, I'm actually cool with that.

But they CHOSE to do otherwise. They CHOSE to attack civilians, to blow up supermarkets and buses. They CHOSE to launch rockets towards civilian areas, not military bases.

Their choice. No excuses.

Bollocks.

Nothing "caused" suicide bombings. Nothing "caused" attacks on civilian targets.
Action - reaction. At this stage it's so cyclical in the argument "who started it" has lost all meaning and relevance.

The Israelis have done some nasty stuff to the Palestinians.
Are you taking the piss with this statement?

I suspect this is a cultural argument as much as anything else- a suicide bomb is a SUICIDE Bomb.

After a point, you stop feeling the "terror" enhancement, and start developing a "Contempt" reaction instead... and here's why:

No matter if you hit the target or not, you're guaranteed dead. Now, how does this relate to the contempt some of us neanderthals have for the Palestinian/Hamas cause?

Simple. Average suicide bomb is about twenty-five kilos, and pointed at civilians more often than military targets. That's a twofer there-it requires serious explosives to be effective, and if you're getting serious explosives, you could be using a delivery method that hits the enemy without hitting the user, or requiring that a girl be raped and disgraced into carrying it.

Give a kid a satchel charge and a pistol, and he will most likely die-but he might live-and that's a lot scarier to an opponent of the Western Barbarian model than strapping a bomb to your kids and sending them out to blow themselves up.

Neanderthal Westerners respect an enemy that fights-and respect gets you better traction than trying to scare them with your fanatical stupidity and willingness to die. Patton underscored the American perspective with his comment "A good soldier doesn't die for his country-he makes the other guy die for HIS." Americans in the Pacific called the specially designed suicide-planes used by the Imperial Japanese forces (the Ohka bombs) "Baka Bombs", "Baka' being misinterpreted by Americans as japanese for "Stupid".

The Israelis' military operations more resemble how Americans fight when they aren't trying to impress someone at the United Nations. Hamas used rocket and mortar attacks aimed at civilian targets, suicide bombs pointed at civilian targets, and sent their fighters to take on the fearsome rabbinical students instead of attacking military convoys, checkpoints, bases, etc. etc.-and the Israelis, who don't direct their children to die for their cause, sent them in to kill for it.

The war in the Middle East isn't nice, it isn't clean, and the rules of engagement weren't set by the Israelis-they were set, the terms were set, by the actions of their opponents.

A kid who joined my crew at work recently after getting out with two tours in the Sandbox from Hell pointed out that these guys are so in love with 'Martyr' status that they miss the point-the objective is to kill the enemy, not to kill yourself while embarassing the enemy.


What happened in Gaza was a pretty nasty thing, but it was brought on by Hamas, the Israelis just responded as they would to any serious enemy. If the Palestinians aren't serious, maybe they should reconsider their tactics.

Bollocks.

Nothing "caused" suicide bombings. Nothing "caused" attacks on civilian targets.


emmmm....then why did they only start suicide bombing in 1980?

Are you taking the piss with this statement?

No. I just tend to be naturally understative.

emmmm....then why did they only start suicide bombing in 1980?

Because that's when they chose to do it. They discovered it caused a lot of pain and suffering for the other side, so they continued.

Today, security tends to take the concept into account, so it's less effective.

Because that's when they chose to do it.

Why? Astrology? Spite? A party trick?

The "cluster munitions" argument is actually quite questionable. ...

Iirc the use of some weapons (like cluster ammo) is forbidden by international conventions (or at least considered disporportionate) in areas densely populated by civilians, independently on eventual warnings and on the legitimacy of the intended target. Iirc, mind you.


(legitimate, adj => legitimacy, noun. right? I dunno and I'm feeling lazy)

The war in the Middle East isn't nice, it isn't clean, and the rules of engagement weren't set by the Israelis-they were set, the terms were set, by the actions of their opponents.


I expect BETTER standards from a democracy (I still think that Israel is one), than from a terrorist group (like Hamas). That's why the israeli military acting like douchebags pisses me off a lot more than Hamas combatants acting like douchebags.

Any attack on civilians is a war crime, and a rule-of-law democracy should ALWAYS know better than resorting to (at the very least) disproportionate use of force, with disregard for civilian casualties (aka "collateral damage" in the usual euphemism).

Why? Astrology? Spite? A party trick?

Ask them. I can tell you when, and how, and sometimes who or what; why lies in the mind of another, and I cannot go there.

Iirc the use of some weapons (like cluster ammo) is forbidden by international conventions (or at least considered disporportionate) in areas densely populated by civilians, independently on eventual warnings and on the legitimacy of the intended target. Iirc, mind you.


(legitimate, adj => legitimacy, noun. right? I dunno and I'm feeling lazy)

Sure. Using blockbusters or daisycutters in an urban environment would clearly be disproportionate, causing far more collateral damage than necessary to acheive results - unless, of course your goal was simply "level the place". Which may be legitimate if you're talking about an army base or other military facility.

But cluster munitions inhabit the grey area between PGMs and commando strikes and outright devastation. They are very effective against troops and light vehicles, but by their very nature they will inflict collateral damage. On the other hand, they can be targetted quite accurately, and don't cost anything like what a precsion guided munition does.

They're not banned; some people think they should be; some people disagree. The argument continues.

They're not banned; some people think they should be; some people disagree. The argument continues.

Many weapons aren't banned and perfectly fine for use in theaters of combat. It's how you use them that defines whether it's a war crime or not. Death lovers (you know who they are) like to confuse the issue by claiming that the weapons are legitimate tools of war so as to obscure the real crimes, and most humanitarian concerns are all too willing to fall into that trap.

I expect BETTER standards from a democracy (I still think that Israel is one), than from a terrorist group (like Hamas). That's why the israeli military acting like douchebags pisses me off a lot more than Hamas combatants acting like douchebags.
It seems like some are saying (unwittingly) that we should hold Israel to the same standards as Hamas.

I too would expect more from a democratic western-style democracy, but the way Israel has been going lately, I'm almost wondering if they have a point.

So would I if I was a Palestinian.

You are truly disgusting.

Quiet you. Otherwise we'll end up talking about "if a law isn't written down or signed up to, it's not applicable".

Sorry, sorry. I forgot, some live by the code that if It Is Written, It Must Be True... :p

I wonder if you feel the same way about supporters of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I do. Especially the 2nd 1.

You are truly disgusting.

Why is he disgusting?

Why is he disgusting?

Is there gravity on Earth?

lol, another israel vs palestine thread. cool.

1. The majority of those surveyed supported suicide bombings. They were surveyed by an Israeli organization (it's based in Jerusalem, so it's presumably Israeli). It's quite possible that the organization purposefully skewed the results by surveying mainly people in poorer areas, or accidentally skewed the results by surveying people online, et cetera, et cetera. It doesn't "prove" all that much.

2. If you're fighting an advanced military force with F-16s and Merkavas and whatever, and all you have is some homemade explosives, that's what you're going to use to fight the enemy and attempt to hit them where it hurts. Of course they support suicide bombings, as they have no other choice if they want to fight. You can't punch a tank in the nose. Etc.

3. Operation Cast Lead was a pretty dumb idea in the first place. Israel controls the water, food, and electricity that goes into Gaza. All they had to do was cut off all of that and drop leaflets telling them they'll get their water, food, and electricity back when they stop bombing Israel. But noooo, the nationalist right-wingers just had to go in with a show of force and needlessly endanger a million of Palestinians, plus half a dozen other organizations that might be more sympathetic to peace than Hamas (they used the war as a cover to execute plenty of other Palestinians working for Fatah or other organizations, after all). It's like they're actively trying to sabotage their own chances of achieving a reasonable solution.

4. The international community may as well accept that there will never be peace in Judea/Israel/Samaria and leave it alone. Maybe if everyone stops shipping weapons and money and the like in, it'll resolve itself properly.

What'd I miss?

Is there gravity on Earth?

If gravity is the observable effect of the space-time perturbation caused by mass and results in a pervasive field, I think its everywhere.

lol, another israel vs palestine thread. cool.

1. The majority of those surveyed supported suicide bombings. They were surveyed by an Israeli organization (it's based in Jerusalem, so it's presumably Israeli). It's quite possible that the organization purposefully skewed the results by surveying mainly people in poorer areas, or accidentally skewed the results by surveying people online, et cetera, et cetera. It doesn't "prove" all that much.

2. If you're fighting an advanced military force with F-16s and Merkavas and whatever, and all you have is some homemade explosives, that's what you're going to use to fight the enemy and attempt to hit them where it hurts. Of course they support suicide bombings, as they have no other choice if they want to fight. You can't punch a tank in the nose. Etc.

3. Operation Cast Lead was a pretty dumb idea in the first place. Israel controls the water, food, and electricity that goes into Gaza. All they had to do was cut off all of that and drop leaflets telling them they'll get their water, food, and electricity back when they stop bombing Israel. But noooo, the nationalist right-wingers just had to go in with a show of force and needlessly endanger a million of Palestinians, plus half a dozen other organizations that might be more sympathetic to peace than Hamas (they used the war as a cover to execute plenty of other Palestinians working for Fatah or other organizations, after all). It's like they're actively trying to sabotage their own chances of achieving a reasonable solution.

4. The international community may as well accept that there will never be peace in Judea/Israel/Samaria and leave it alone. Maybe if everyone stops shipping weapons and money and the like in, it'll resolve itself properly.

What'd I miss?

What did you miss? Your perspective. I cant believe people are defending killing of civilians. Wow.

If gravity is the observable effect of the space-time perturbation caused by mass and results in a pervasive field, I think its everywhere.

Meh, it's only a theory.

If gravity is the observable effect of the space-time perturbation caused by mass and results in a pervasive field, I think its everywhere.

which would include Earth, surprisingly.

Is there gravity on Earth?

So you can't give me an answer?

which would include Earth, surprisingly.

Then your question doesn't make any sense, either as an authentic request for information or as the illustration of a point.

Then your question doesn't make any sense, either as an authentic request for information or as the illustration of a point.

The latter does actually. I just didnt want a geeky discussion of gravity so I didnt ask if there was gravity everywhere.

So you can't give me an answer?

If the answer wasnt obvious to you, theres no point in me arguing with you or further explaining myself to you at this point.

What did you miss? Your perspective. I cant believe people are defending killing of civilians. Wow.

Truth be told, I support the killing of civilians in a specifically abstract sense, if it is necessary to gain a strategic or tactical advantage, if it is kept to a reasonable limit, and the civilians are nobody I know.

As a rule I'm somewhat biased in favour of Israel. I have family members living there, within rocket range of Gaza, and I was staying at their house during the first few days of Cast Lead. Still, while I support the continued existence of Israel, I think all of its recent military operations have been either horribly botched or unnecessary, or both, and its government officials seem completely uninterested in negotiating with the Palestinians, or in returning the Golan Heights, or in anything else, and I'm just about willing to write them off as nutcase extremists whose only concern appears to be to accommodate the demands of the ultrareligious right. In short, peace is a looong way away, and it's getting longer with every step Israel's been taking lately. tl;dr they're idiots.

The latter does actually. I just didnt want a geeky discussion of gravity so I didnt ask if there was gravity everywhere.

So instead you invoked the principle of gravity in an obtusely generalized way that provided no meaningful insight into the question at hand?

Well...its definitely not geeky, since geeks are known for careful, rigorously precise language to circumscribe ideas in a clear and knowledgeable way.

You certainly steered clear of that.

Truth be told, I support the killing of civilians in a specifically abstract sense, if it is necessary to gain a strategic or tactical advantage, if it is kept to a reasonable limit, and the civilians are nobody I know.


So whats your reasonable limit?

So whats your reasonable limit?

Depends on the situation. If destroying a city of a hundred thousand people will spare five million, it's worth it. If it'll only spare another hundred thousand, it's not.

Depends on the situation. If destroying a city of a hundred thousand people will spare five million, it's worth it. If it'll only spare another hundred thousand, it's not.

Ah. How old are you?

Well...its definitely not geeky, since geeks are known for careful, rigorously precise language to circumscribe ideas in a clear and knowledgeable way.

I thought geeks were known for biting the heads off live goldfish, swallowing swords, being really short or tall, being capable of contorting themselves into pretzels, etc.

Ah. How old are you?

why's it relevant?

I thought geeks were known for biting the heads off live goldfish, swallowing swords, being really short or tall, being capable of contorting themselves into pretzels, etc.

You're thinking of Serbians.

The problem with making that analogy is that the Japanese were not so innocent. They were on an invasion campaign to take over most all of the pacific and had even invaded parts of China and Russia. The Israeli people went to live in current Israel using peaceful methods at first. They were not the first one's to strike, whereas the Japanese were.

You're thinking of Serbians.

Oh yeah. I always get those two mixed up.

Damn Serbians.

why's it relevant?

If you are young, you can still advance in stages of moral development.

If you are young, you can still advance in stages of moral development.

And the old can't? It may be harder if the elderly are set in their ways, but its hardly only the young that can "advance" in that way.

Incidently, way to utterly fail at any cogent argument for your position, but rather make it personal, as if because he/she is young you can just assume they're somehow morally undeveloped.

How old do you have to be to actually make a lucid, well-reasoned argument for your position instead of ham-handed gravity references and age inquiries as a poor substitute?

If the answer wasnt obvious to you, theres no point in me arguing with you or further explaining myself to you at this point.
Seriously. Are you really incapable of explaining why Yootopia is disgusting? I know it might seem like I'm defending him to a ridiculous extent, but I'm not. Rather, what I understand or don't understand doesn't change the fact that you're unable or unwilliing to elaborate upon your own statement, something that reflects rather poorly on you.

Then again, I guess that I wouldn't be far off if I were to speculate that you had little or no sympathy to offer the Palestinians, nor any desire to understand their motivations.

Oh well.

If you are young, you can still advance in stages of moral development.

There are numerous professions where it's almost required that people think of other people as little more than statistics. Census takers, for instance. Politicians, businessmen, military officers, and practically everyone who has any kind of power over the modern world. To get ahead you have to be willing to sacrifice something, and most people are fine with sacrificing people they've never met in someplace far away -- Orson Welles said something about that in The Third Man, f'rinstance.

And the old can't? It may be harder if the elderly are set in their ways, but its hardly only the young that can "advance" in that way.

Incidently, way to utterly fail at any cogent argument for your position, but rather make it personal, as if because he/she is young you can just assume they're somehow morally undeveloped.

How old do you have to be to actually make a lucid, well-reasoned argument for your position instead of ham-handed gravity references and age inquiries as a poor substitute?

As far as I know, most people dont advance after their early 20s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Seriously. Are you really incapable of explaining why Yootopia is disgusting? I know it might seem like I'm defending him to a ridiculous extent, but I'm not. Rather, what I understand or don't understand doesn't change the fact that you're unable or unwilliing to elaborate upon your own statement, something that reflects rather poorly on you.

Then again, I guess that I wouldn't be far off if I were to speculate that you had little or no sympathy to offer the Palestinians, nor any desire to understand their motivations.

Oh well.

Ah, so you see this as a Palestinian vs Israeli issue.

As far as I know, most people dont advance after their early 20s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Then perhaps you should extend what you "know" beyond a single working model of "moral development", especially one constrained to a relatively narrow definition of morals.

The cognitive sciences are rife with various countermanding models and theories; no single one, even the "16th most frequently cited psychologist in introductory psychology textbooks throughout the century", is supported enought to warrant the premise that people don't advance after their early 20s.

I also find it interesting you've backpedaled now to "most", whereas before, your premise was that his age would somehow restrict his "advancement" in a less qualified sense.

Perhaps you should actually address his argument instead of his age.

As far as I know, most people dont advance after their early 20s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Very interesting. I'm sure I'll be bothered to read it sometime when we're arguing about moral development. Right now, however, we're arguing about whether it's acceptable to intentionally kill civilians during wartime, and not about how immature I am because I subscribe to a different point of view than you do.

Then perhaps you should extend what you "know" beyond a single working model of "moral development", especially one constrained to a relatively narrow definition of morals.

The cognitive sciences are rife with various countermanding models and theories; no single one, even the "16th most frequently cited psychologist in introductory psychology textbooks throughout the century", is supported enought to warrant the premise that people don't advance after their early 20s.

I also find it interesting you've backpedaled now to "most", whereas before, your premise was that his age would somehow restrict his "advancement" in a less qualified sense.

Perhaps you should actually address his argument instead of his age.

Meh, why should I bother? This whole thread is about ethics. If hes 14, theres no point, he may figure out himself. If he's 30, mosty likely, theres no point.

Meh, why should I bother?

Why bother to support your own argument and make a reasonable respone to that of others? That has to be explained to you?


This whole thread is about ethics. If hes 14, theres no point, he may figure out himself.

Perhaps ethics, or anything else anyone "figures out", benefits from cogent, well reasoned discussion. If you don't see the point to that, well, it definitely explains the depth of your responses thus far.


If he's 30, mosty likely, theres no point.

Oh, of course, people in their 30's can't engage in productive discourse where they actually support their position with some discernible degree of reasoning and knowledge...there's no point, right?

Ah, so you see this as a Palestinian vs Israeli issue.

No, I see this as an "Unable to actually make an argument" issue.

I expect BETTER standards from a democracy (I still think that Israel is one), than from a terrorist group (like Hamas). That's why the israeli military acting like douchebags pisses me off a lot more than Hamas combatants acting like douchebags.


So...you admit to viewing things with a double-standard, in which anything's fine as long as the bloody wogs do it? How very Eurocentric. Israel is a middle-eastern country. It may be the only functioning democracy that doesn't have someone from outside standing on their necks, but they're a middle-eastern country with all that that implies, and unlike your safe european or american bungalow, they have enemies that swore to exterminate them before they even existed in the modern sense, in the area they're located, and those enemies only respect shows of strength-as demonstrated by the dominant politics of the region outside of Israel's borders, and the preferred method of internal governance in that region.

It could be said that the bombing campaigns of WWII against the Nazis were 'war crimes'-certainly the thousand-plus plane raids, and night time firebombings directed at Danzig, Berlin, and other cities inevitably killed civilians-and lots of them. However, in that conflict, as in this one, the aggressor set the rules. Unlike Hamas and other Palestinian groups, the Israelis at least make a token effort direct the bulk of their attacks at valid military targets-rocket sites, mortar emplacements, military positions and the like. Tactically, the overkill factor is just good employment of resources (Unlike Ameican forces in Iraq, when a Palestinian rocket-site is in a mosque, the Israelis don't blink before destroying it. This is WAR, rather than play-acting a police-action and the Israelis at least don't pretend a moral superiority from thousands of miles off-site in protected comfort-they're fighting for survival and fighting to win) to avoid friendly casualties, just like Strategic Bombing campaigns in 1942 through 45.

The fact that many ISRAELIS don't like this puts them up a few steps on their opponents and those opponents' supporters-both in the Middle East, and in the West.

Israel is a middle-eastern country.

Which means it will be treated as a middle-eastern country, as it is ruled by a council of religious elders with a sham of a democracy and is now included in the polygon of evil. Bombing begins in five minutes.

Careful with what you call a double standard.

(Unlike Ameican forces in Iraq, when a Palestinian rocket-site is in a mosque, the Israelis don't blink before destroying it. This is WAR, rather than play-acting a police-action and the Israelis at least don't pretend a moral superiority from thousands of miles off-site in protected comfort-they're fighting for survival and fighting to win)
Bullshit. The Israeli actions in Gaza has got nothing to do with "fighting for survival", nor does the continued occupation of the Palestinian areas.

And if you agree with the Israeli policy of not blinking before destroying a mosque, isn't that much the same as supporting attacks on civilians?

The fact that many ISRAELIS don't like this puts them up a few steps on their opponents and those opponents' supporters-both in the Middle East, and in the West.
How so?

So...(.....)and those opponents' supporters-both in the Middle East, and in the West.

Reading that, one would almost forget the building of colonies outside its borders.

The problem with making that analogy is that the Japanese were not so innocent. They were on an invasion campaign to take over most all of the pacific and had even invaded parts of China and Russia. The Israeli people went to live in current Israel using peaceful methods at first. They were not the first one's to strike, whereas the Japanese were.

I cannot get your point.

By the way, explain why the fact that the japanese military dictatorship decided to attack the US warranted the US the right to blast away hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians when Japan had already lost the war anyway.

First strike, second strike, who cares? The act is always the same: indiscriminated, intentional killing of civilians by combatant units. War crime.

Which means it will be treated as a middle-eastern country, as it is ruled by a council of religious elders with a sham of a democracy and is now included in the polygon of evil. Bombing begins in five minutes.


Afaik Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and Palestine are NEAR East, not MIDDLE East.

Afaik Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and Palestine are NEAR East, not MIDDLE East.

Not according to the news media. It's one of those "here be monsters" areas on the map.

Afaik Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and Palestine are NEAR East, not MIDDLE East.

Shhh, you're spoiling it.

I expect BETTER standards from a democracy (I still think that Israel is one), than from a terrorist group (like Hamas). That's why the israeli military acting like douchebags pisses me off a lot more than Hamas combatants acting like douchebags.

Fallacious argument. Are the standards the military forces of a nation are to be held to objectively tied to the form of government of the nation? No, not really. Higher standards should not be expected of, say, soldiers of the United States just because the US happens to be democratic, nor should lower standards be expected of the soldiers of North Korea just because the DPRK happens to be a dictatorship, or of the soldiers of Gaza just because it happens to be a military junta (de-facto), etcetera. They are all human beings, and should be held to the same standards: killing innocent people is bad.

Instead, higher standards should be expected of Israel because many of its leaders are old enough to remember foreign rule and oppression. The Israelis should have been aware that this would happen if they treated the Arabs the way they have, and they should be aware that marching their soldiers into Gaza circa 2009 will have the same effect as the Germans marching their soldiers into the ghettos of Warsaw circa 1944, or for that matter, the Syrians and Jordanians and Egyptians marching their soldiers into Israel circa 1948. The fact that they haven't realized this, or have realized it and don't seem to care, nets them the criticism and displeasure of Saevitian Archipelago. *nod*

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/Mattlevi/Motovational%20Posters/motivator783319.jpg

http://i16.tinypic.com/81pszrn.jpg

Don't worry. I killed enough Muslims since 1991 to make up for you not doing any.

Those two posts from this thread, plus the one from "What is the Muslim problem in the UK/Europe?", and a long history of trolling, flaming and other rule breaking has led me to determine that a temporary ban won't do any good. I've had enough of this. There are plenty of ways to be constructive, but your record shows you prefer the destructive path. You were given plenty of chances, but you're at the end of your rope.

Those two posts from this thread, plus the one from "What is the Muslim problem in the UK/Europe?", and a long history of trolling, flaming and other rule breaking has led me to determine that a temporary ban won't do any good. I've had enough of this. There are plenty of ways to be constructive, but your record shows you prefer the destructive path. You were given plenty of chances, but you're at the end of your rope.

So is this an IP block or just a simple nation deletion?