Unilateral attacks
 

The administration clearly has not learned from history AND has got to be insane. The United States loses every war that it starts unilaterally. Furthermore, it is fundamentally corrupt - against the very fabric of the US - to unilaterally attack another nation only because our President does not like their leader.

We have no beef with this nation other than the personal biases of George Jr. All makes this NY Times article of 27 April 2002 is scary for every decent American. It does suggest how unrealistic this adminstration is and why military attacks against China, about a year ago, were too probable:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/28/in...st/28MILI.html

Note: the NY Times requiresd registration before accessing their articles. Registration is free.

Damn registration. Could someone please post the text? Im lazy

One would think after having world realities stomped for 11 days into his face by almost every regional leader, VP Cheney would have seen the light. No, this right wing extremists lives in a world where everyone agrees with America:
This is closer to reality:
Are they so outrightly psychotic as to think a unilateral attack on Saddam would calm violence between Israel and Palestine? They must also think that Sharon is an honest man who just does not understand the word "immediately".

Honest? He promised to let the UN investigate. Another front page article in the NY Times:
Of course Israel changes its mind, again, at the last minute. Stall. Sharon cannot permit any of his massacres to be documented. Sharon all but proved that a US president has no backbone - or at least does not understand the defintion of "immediately". Why not make the UN look just as mentally deficient? Or at least stall long enough for all evidence to be destroyed. Even the victim's families are not permitted to see their bodies. Proof of a massacre?

Only a polictally extremist, mentally impaired person would think the US has any right to unilaterally attack Iraq. Did we not "meet the enemy and he is us" in VietNam? But then Bush did not even know Israel's dimensions until last May. Too mcuh alcohol and cocaine do keep one from learning about reality. And so we plan to attack Iraq using the same reasons that Hilter used to plan an attack on Czechoslovakia.

Some leaders are so introverted as to think they can create "Peace in our Time". Bush is talking like a dangerous, right wing extremist - and without sufficient knowledge even of the word "immediately". Will he say, "Read my lips. No new taxes". No. Even George Jr could remember that mistake.

Once registered for the NY Times, then all articles appear automatically on that computer without login. Its much simpler to register - or just buy the hardcopy edition.

There was no massacre. Sorry. I know you wish there was, but if you believe there was then you simply haven't been paying attention. There's just too much evidence that says otherwise.

Even the initial estimates from the Israeli side are now considered high. The mass graves are missing, there are no bodies that add up to 500 dead like the Palestinians claimed.

It gets worse. A few days ago, I posted the story of those three Palestinian kids, acting on their own, who built some pipe bombs and took off for the nearest Israelis they could find. And who were shot and killed by Israeli police.

That happened on Tuesday. By Friday, Palestinian security forces had detained 20 other copy-cat children.

The incredibly intelligent USS Clueless points out that, if they could stop 20 other suiciding kids, then they also could have stopped at least some of the previous adult suicide missions. Arafat had claimed it was impossible. Now we know that is bullshit; they could stop the attacks if they wanted to. They just didn't want to.

Some people now say that since Arafat is contained and the PA in tatters, they can't be held responsible for preventing further suicide attacks. That, too, we now know is bullshit.

It's like I said; you don't believe Sharon, so you automatically believe the other side. You're going to look more and more silly if you continue this approach.

Re: Unilateral attacks
 

Actually, the US has an excellent, winning record in wars that it starts unilaterally... 4 - 0, I believe:

1846-1848 Mexican-American War- W
1861-1865 War of Northern Aggression- W
1898 Spanish-American War- W
1789-present Eradication of Aboriginal North Americans- W

Oh? I can think of several, but, just to start the ball rolling, how about Iraq's failure to comply with U.N. Resolution 687? (The one that authorized those pesky inspectors, etc.)

I've noticed in the past your zeal in pointing out Israel's failure to comply with U.N. Resolution 242 (which sentiment I share, by the way.) Does this zeal extend to all of those wonderful, multilateral U.N. Resolutions?

(PA can sto pattacks...
um.....what have you been smoking? must be good stuff ot be able to remove you're entire capabiltiy to peform logical thought.

hmmletsee..
Adult attacks: Large, powerful, suppported groups operating with sophisitcated technolgoy though very secret and organised structures to deliver attackers to precise locations in complete secrecy.

Kid iwth bomb: Kid buys bomb on street and runs for nearest checkpoint.

What you are saying is that stopping an organsied crime family is as easy as catching a one-off shoplifter, there simply is no comparison.

And considering what the Isrelais are now asking for, they are only getting what they deserve. They should have learnt from vietnam, bloodying an enemy then trying to negoiate doens't work with deserate extremely pissed off people.

and if jenine was so damn innocent what are they making every move for it to be researched by the UN? Christ you've seen the place, they admitted using civies as human shields and to test for boobie traps, that itself is a breach of the rules of war as dirty as the US doing the same thing in Vietnam.

I should think it would be much harder to stop the kid in that circumstance. Wouldn't you? Working on their own, no announcement of what they're going to do, no evidence of what they're going to do, no Iraqi, Syrian, or Saudi payments for their family, no tracking of shipments of explosives for the organization.

And since all evidence says there was no massacre, of course -- of COURSE they want military experts and not politicians to examine the evidence. (That's what this delay is all about.) Because they feel the UN has recently been used as a wedge against them. Because the first UN guy in stupidly painted the bleakest picture he could paint, participating in the propaganda war instead of ending it pointedly. "It smells bad," he said. "It's disgusting and sad." Not "80% of the damage is tactical, there is evidence of booby-trapping, and the body count is consistent with house-to-house fighting."

And as far as breaches of war go, I still say they really screwed up as far as rules of engagement and keeping journalists out; it would have made a far better story for one of them to get a few nails in the leg from a booby trap, because then the nature of this thing would have been far more understandable to the world.

Why have house to house fighting at all? If all you want to do is wage brutal war on a people, the Israelis have excellent means to do that. They have fighter jets and Apache helicopters and serious munitions. If the only goal is a smackdown, send in the jets. The goal here was clearly something different. I think the big picture is yet to emerge, even. I think the real goal was the intelligence information they got from those locations, which they say proves a lot of the secret Arab/Iraqi/Iranian backing of all the warfare. That changes the politics of the thing.

And as far as war crimes go, there are surely many of them, but the very first one is you don't use unmarked civilians to kill civilians, isn't it?

There's the cause of an occupied people, and then there's the cause of the entire region which prevents there from being any progress on the cause of those people. The real problem is that this is a proxy war and the Palestinians are pawns. The real war is the Arabic/Persian world against the entire west.

Now that journalists are given more range, here is a Boston Globe article that sheds a lot of light.

In interviews yesterday with teenage fighters, a leader of Islamic Jihad, an elderly man whose home was at the center of the fighting, and other Palestinian residents, all of whom were in the camp during the battle, none reported seeing large numbers of civilians killed. All said they were allowed to surrender or evacuate when they were ready to do so, though some reported being mistreated while in Israeli detention.

Apparently these folks didn't get the fax telling them to shout massacre at the top of their lungs. Maybe that's because they were busy organizing 50 children in groups of ten, assigned to ambush Israeli troops. (According to the story.)

The more you know...

Tnoy, waht crakc are yuo smokign? Facts are nto welcmoe, nor aer bisaed western journalits. Ples grow a brian and lern to preform criticla thoguht.

Re: Re: Unilateral attacks
 

Thank you for providing obvious logic. If the US should unilaterally attack Iraq due to uncooperation with UN 687, then the US should also unilaterally attack Israel for uncoopertion with UN 242, 338 and UN Jenin investigation.

Even worse, only an idiot would plan to attack Saddam after giving a green light to Sharon. It does not matter whether you agree with that sentence since 'green light' is the dominant opinion of the Arab world. Only a fool would attack Saddam when Arab opinion of the US is so universally negative. Even Europe is more in agreement with the Arab world on Israeli Palestinian issues. Why then would anyone unilaterally attack any nation - even worse Saddam?

Bush Doctrine is the 'Axis of Evil'. It is George Jr's agenda - realities in the world be damned. Therefore we can unilaterally attack Iraq and yet financially support Israel - while both refuse to coooperate with the UN or those resolutions. Thank you for noting another double standard from our Administration. Logic dicates that an attack on Iraq should coincide with an attack on Israel and a cancellation of that $3billion we give to Israel so that right wing Likud extremists can bite our hand.

I thought it was supposed to be condescending and un-PC to pick on jag like that. ;-)

The same tactics were successfully used to coverup the massacre of 5000 Palestinian women and children in Lebanon. The same tactics of keeping the press and UN away were also used in another rumored massacre of Egyptian prisioners in 1967.

The USS Liberty got too close to a 'rumored' massacre and was '''accidentally''' attacked by planes and then by torpedo boats for almost 1 and 1/2 hours.

The best way to coverup a massacre to is say that it is too dangerous for people who belong on the front line of the most dangerous battles - war correspondents. Anyone who says any battle is too dangerous for those correspondents is simply advocating a lie - and knows it. A battle is only too dangerous when the war correspondent says so. To claim otherwise is historically how crimes against humanity are covered up. Those who shoot at journalists - always Sharon's Israelis troops - are clearly suspect.

We want journalists from every nation in Jenin to report truth. Nothing claimed by a Likud Israel can be trusted without verification. Stalling a UN commmission is not about military men on the commission. Israel had already agreed the commission was properly staffed on Saturday. But an Israel that would be covering up crimes against humanity will stall every day - just like another war criminal - Saddam. So Likud conveniently said yes, then said no. Best way - just like Saddam did - to stall UN inspectors. Saddam - Sharon - what really is the difference? They both massacred innocent people. They both should be in The Hague for crimes against humanity. Both use same techniques to stall UN investigations. We just don't know which crimes against humanity Sharon may be guilty of this time.

Milosevik, Mlandic, et al did same stalling tactics successfully in their ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, etc. It was only when land was taken from them that we had any evidence of massacres. Massacres are so easy to coverup with enough time and if inspectors are denied access to possible grave sites.

Sharon uses same tactics. One difference. Honest countries will not invade Israel and locate mass graves. Without graves, then Undertoad can deny crimes against humanity - as if the Holocaust never existed. Without bodies, Undertoad would also have to deny the Holocaust existed - to be consistent in his logic. With enough time, Sharon can successfully coverup a massacre - as he has done previously.

We know something bad happened in Jenin. We know facts are being covered up. We just don't know how extreme and vile those crimes against humanity were.

True, we don't have any evidence of a massacre in Jenin just as we had no evidence early on of a massacre in Bosnia or Cambodia. That's right. It took years later to even learn of the Killing Fields.

Well, I chalk it up to typos. I wasn't personally attacking him, but just poking fun at his spelling/typing hilarities. Since I am not arguing with him, but rather, poking fun from an outside stance, I don't think it's quite the same.

In the interest of staying out of the argument, that's all I'm going to say :)

I thought you posted it from your cell phone.

Just keep going man. The latest to weigh in today were the folks from Human Rights Watch. I assume you have some respect for this organization. They're on scene specfically out to find rights abuses and to document everything as carefully as possible.

They count 52 bodies. That's 2 less than Israel's own count. And 1448 less than the highest estimate given by Palestinian spokesmen... and 448 less than the number repeated most often by Palestinian spokesmen.

They do have rights concerns, and some of them are fairly serious. But... no massacre. They say 20 civilian deaths. I suppose someone has worked out a working definition of that word.

The more you know...

That Egyptian weekly report from the engineer said 50 houses were booby-trapped. HRW says the booby traps are definitely Palestinian in origin. HRW says Israeli forces destroyed 150 houses. That satellite photo looks about right. Are things starting to make sense yet? No massacre.

I wasn't advocating a unilateral attack on Iraq... I was simply pointing out the absurdity of your assertion that we have no beef with Iraq "other than the personal biases of George Jr."

Of course... unilateral attacks on Iraq and Israel might be just the thing here. Historically, they're always successful for us.

*sighs* Try doing 60-70 hours a week schoolwork and 20 hours work, schoolwork all contributing towards and end of year mark that will decide whether you can get into your uni course or not and see how well you type. I'm enough goddamn caffine to keep half of NYC awake.
As for it being PC - Socrates
Which is what happened every time you used it as a targetm maggie.

Erm I’d call destruction of an entire neighbourhood pretty damn sad on top of everything else.



The aim of the campaign has been clear, to destroy the "terrorist infrastructure" you need to be on the ground to do that, that’s why they rounded up every man between 14 and 50.

Wha? Rightyo then....
Proxy war against the west? You seem to be making a whole lotta logical leaps there i'm not going to even bother trying to follow. If there is a proxy war, its against Isreal, not the west, and ill leave proxy wars at that.
But in all seriousness, why the fuck would they stop bombing now? Isreal has made it clear it'll take all it can, give nothing back and do whatever the fuck it wants? If I was Arafat I'd be saying bomb them, we've got nothing to lose.
So what is Syria et al is supporting Palastine? The US is giving arms to Isreal, why can't they do the same? Because its symmetrical warfare instead of asymmetrical that’s make is all nice and fair? The PLO isn't even allowed real weapons, how are they meant to take on one of the worlds most powerful armies, to argue the killing civilians line is to blow smoke, thin smoke.
The US is so goddman pissweak they can't even push Sharon in the right direction, and in the process have further cemented the Arab world's view that the US doesn't give a shit, if they attack Iraq now it will be with the entire Middle East supporting Iraq, and from where they stand, why not? Celarly the US has learnt nothign since S11, and if it happens again, i won't be in the tiniest bit shocked, you tell the worlds second largest religion in proxy that you don't give a flying fuck, what do you expect?

Right, the destruction of a neighborhood is pretty damn sad, but that wasn't the point of the guy's visit. Everybody knows it's sad. I mean, duh.

To avoid tw's "emotional reactions", though, it's very important to give facts, not loaded terms. The whole world wanted to know: what do you see? What really happened? The guy wouldn't say.

Now here's a fact that I wasn't aware of until 5 minutes ago. The UN runs the refugee camp at Jenin.

Does that change anything for you, because it sure does for me. One of the major centers of terrorism, right under their noses for months on end. Nice going.

The more you know. Why is Syria not allowed to give the Palestinians weapons? The main point of the much-ballyhooed UN 242 is that the Arab world has to stop waging war against Israel. Those are terms for peace in the mideast. You know, terms that ended a war, and that are meant to prevent the next one from starting soon.

And that, I think, is the real point of determining that all of the suicide bombing has been operated by the Arabic/Persian world. That world continues to wage war on Israel.

What they didn't have before was proof. Now they do. This sets the surrounding countries back on their heels quite a bit.

The Arabs don't give a shit about the Palestinians. In history, they have killed Palestinians with great vigor. Even bin Laden was a latecomer to the Palestinian cause... never really gave it concern until he thought it would give him some play with Iraq.

NOBODY wanted that land, either, except perhaps for the 3rd most important holy site for Islam, until the Jews were given it outright. Previous to Israel being there, it was land so undesirable that the Brits carved it up as a colony and nobody even took notice. The oil fields are nowhere near it. The only reason they enjoy supporting the Palestinian cause is because it tweaks the nose of the west.

As for the terrorism you seem to be supporting, it is always illegitimate. Always always always. Nobody disputes that, except for a tiny little group of people that has basically broken after being pawns in this cultural war for two generations. If the terrorism is legitimate war, as you say, then F-16s are legitimate war too -- as are refugee camps destroyed by tanks.

And the Arabic world doesn't want "real" war -- although their culture makes them think they do -- because they would lose, and lose bad.

The US unilaterally attacked N Viet Nam. We lost big time. The US was early on in the Korean War. Stalemate. The US unilaterally attacked Somolian war lords. We lost.

But it was Bill Clinton who kept us out of the Balkan until is was time to settle things. Success. The US stayed out of the Persian Gulf until Kuwait was violated. Phenomenal success. The US stayed out of WWII until it was clearly time to settle it. We won big time. The US stayed out of WWI until finally required to settle it. If Wilson's resulting international program had been supported domestically, then settlement would have clearly been better.

My scenario for a Middle East solution is based upon this well proven history. The death rates must be higher and equal. Currently, not enough Israelis are dying to create a demand for peace. Best that we stay away and make sure death continues equally on both sides. Currently it is a one sided slaughter and we are supporting the aggressors. Peace therefore will not happen.

This post demonstrates so many illogical conclusions that I don't even know where to start.

If UN commentary from Jenin was so wrong, then an honest Israeli government would want lots of press and the most senior core of UN investigators into Jenin three weeks ago. However, Israel fears more facts will get out in support of those original comments and keeps all but 'approved' reporters out of Jenin.

Reality is that Israel has something to hide. ABC News danced around that fact in tonight's report. For every report that says there were no massacres, I read about three that says something very bad happened in Jenin. Of course, only the 'approved' reporters are currently permitted in Jenin - something that Undertoad forgets to mention.

Furthermore, Undertoad conveniently forgets that Israel promised to withdraw immediately about 1 month ago. Accroding to Undertoad, such a withdraw takes time. Yep. Time to invade and withdraw from Hebron - just the latest town to be attacked for no good reason.

Clearly much more than 50 non-Israelis died in Jenin. The numbers will not exceed 500. But most who died were probably not combatents, but must be defined as combatants by Israel to not be guilty of crimes against humanity. Clearly Israel so fears such accusations (as Sharon did in his previous massacre) that Israel will keep the UN even out of their own refugee camp - at least until all evidence is removed. 95% of all killed were not combatants - contrary to another lied from the dichead's governement that Undertoad posted naively. Such Israeli claims continuously reek of a lie. We don't know the numbers, but we do know that anyone who give credence to Israeli claims without independent verification is guilty of emotional bias. Once emotion for Israel is removed, then all claims by the Israeli government have so little credence as to first require independent verification. Without such verification, those claims must be cited as suspect.

In logical terms - why do the Israelis fear any UN commission - especially when said commission is composed of some of the world's most honest and least biased investigators? Why does the invasion of West Bank reek of symptoms found in all previous Sharon 'crimes against humanity'?

All current Middle East violence was part of Sharon's plans to destroy Oslo. He is a shrewd bastard. Explain those last 39 new settlements in the West Bank? Tell the world in unbias, unemotional terms why those settlements are ethical, honest, and legal. They are there to incite more violence and as part of the annexation of the West Bank.

There is no doubt the ultimate purpose of this invasion - ethnic cleansing. That is fact. That has always been fundamental to Sharon's policies. There is absolutely no doubt that Sharon advocates and does everything possible to annex the occupied territories. A few massacres of innocent civilians in Jenin is but a trivial matter to a man with so much blood already on his hands. What are 100 dead innocent civilians when you have already massacred 5,000 without any investigation?

An honest man would not trust anything from an Likud Israel. However, underoad posts Israeli propaganda without any necessary confirmation. A latest lie was nonsense about military men on the UN commission. There was no honesty in that response AND there was no need for any military men on any senior commission sent to investigate crimes against humanity. However, now that the Israeli demands were met that minute (a surprise to the dichead), then he suddenly changes his mind and bans the UN. Sharon is hiding something meaning that anyone who posts Israeli lies does not do so from an unbiased position.

The Arab world does not care about the Palestinians is nonsense promoted by right wing extremists. Arab concern is why Cheney had reality slapped into his face on his 11 day tour. It is why special plans were made in Crawford TX is the Saudi Prince left after only one hour.

Arabs are furious. As the Economist now notes, cafes turn silent (board games and gambling in Egypt now stops) every hour when Al Jezzera broadcasts the hourly news report. The man in the Arab street is furious. Tempers are seething. Extremists such as Osama bin Laden are finding recruits everywhere. Arab governments are desperately trying to maintain order and stability. It becomes harder every week while a US president without a backbone will try to forget he said "immediately". IOW your comments about the Arab world are biased in Likud terms only. ?We have yet to see the anger erupt.

Yeah, 150 of them. Three reporters for every Palestinian killed.
Oh, I'm sorry, were those the non-combatants who killed 33 Israeli soldiers?

Anyway, if there were any combatants in this UN-operated camp, they were already very much illegal. It is illegal to be a combatant in a refugee camp. And not for the combatants' sake... for the refugee's sake.

Yes, combatants in a refugee camp put their own civilians in danger. To booby trap a refugee camp is indefensible.
Rather than speculate about the hate that festers in Sharon's head, we are left to wonder what sort of hate festers in tw's.

In what context though? Withdraw ALL troops immediately? Or immediately start withdrawing? A clear difference. This was highlighted by Dore Gold a few weeks ago. Gold stated that Israel would "begin" the withdrawal. When Chris Matthews challenged him on the idea of "immediate," Gold held firm on the beginnings of withdrawal. So, what WAS the actual promise tw...and by who?

Damn you Tony...you are SO illogical. :)

illogicla nad withotu ratinoal thoguht.

:)

yea fuck you too dham

First things first, please people, UN resolutions aren't worth the paper they’re written on, we all know that, the UN is, and always will be a paper tiger, so forget that. Secondly, 13 Israeli solders were killed by an estimated 6 militants, in response they demolished thoroughly an entire neighbourhood. Twas reported today that the Israeli military admitted systematic vandalism and theft of personal property, so much for surgical strikes. If you do this kind of thing, you have to expect "terrorists" to strike back it’s absolutely pointless. Secondly, refugee camp is a bit of a misnomer here. THis apcle has been around over 50 years, its abuilt up city, the term is redundant. As for booby traps, Tony why do you still think that having an organised army and killing people, is so much "cleaner" than killing them in an underhand manner becuase you are not allowed or capable of having a real army? What is the difference if a man in a uniform with a high power weapon imported form the US shoots someone to a man so desperate he straps a bomb to his body in order to inflict harm?

This is an important point. We may hope that military professionals will be more descriminate in choosing targets but that is pretty much the only difference. Representatives of a people don't suddenly become immune to moral restrictions because of their exalted (in some peoples minds) position.

At some point, the folks on the ground there have to realize that both Palestinians and Israelis have screwed and been screwed by each other, their Arab neighbors, Great Britain, the US, and their leaders. As we look at the situation from the outside, we risk personalizing it too much or not enough. American Jews need to realize, as enough American Irish finally have, that if they don't live there maybe they shouldn't be supporting the most extreme positions with money. Its really easy to be a radical when you're safely holed up in the US. As wide ranging as the Cellar opinions are, nobody here has eliminated sensible compromise. Even without hardcore extremists among us this is a terribly volatile discussion, given to emotional outbursts, imagine the pressure and stress for the folks there. Anyway, heres hoping we don't rend the fabric of the Cellar arguing about something which, if I had my way, would be none of our business.

You can't just ignore the "if you are not allowed or capable of having a real army" part. Those were the terms that ended the last war and if those terms are meaningless, the next war will be worse.

Suicide bombing isn't an act of desperation. We explain it that way because that is the only explanation that fits for our culture, and some Palestinian spokesmen explain it that way because they feel it benefits their cause. But Arab & Persian culture is far different from ours. Suicide bombers believe they are killing evil people, benefitting their cause, and that they will gain salvation and eternal bliss through their act.

I'm very glad that the official complaint of "they murdered 500 of our people" has now come down to "they vandalized and stole stuff". I'm sure the soldiers are guilty as charged. Human Rights Watch is carefullly documenting rights violations and they certainly have found some. At the same time, is filling sewer lines with nails, diesel fuel, nitrogen fertilizer and sugar considered vandalism, or is that theft?

*sighs*
huh? Palastinaian governments shouldn't be given guns becasue they might shoot Isrelis with them?
Terms that ended the last war were obviously not good enough. I mean come on, we all know that no settlement that Israel has put on the table has a hope in hell of achieving lasting piece in the middle east because they are too goddamn pigheaded to actually give the people who used to live there before they were all forced out by the British a sliver of real land. Oh and expect them to have a few hundred fortified Jewish settlements in there but refuse to let back the people who were made refugees. One of those two, refugees or settlers has to go before a settlement will ever be possible and at least part of Jerusalem will need to be in Palestinian control. Until those terms on the table any Israeli "peace settlement" is smoke and mirrors to placate the international community and has no real substance.

Its gone a little further than that, i've read three colums of late, all interviews with various palastinians, a female docotr, a milita member, an ordinary bloke. The hseer volumeof people willing to give thier lvies, and where they came form, some of these peopel were weeks short of finishing degrees and stuff reeks of desperation. The same desperation that has casued other freedom causes. I emna if you do daredevil ambushes you know are most likely going to end in death its no different, and yet people who have done that all though history are often exhalted for thier bravery, but when its a bomb strapped to you you're an evil terrorist.
right..

Griff - thats for a voice of moderation =) and if a debate risp arpat cellar i'd be pretty depressed it was so weak in the first place, not that i've been around much recently to know anyway.

Man, are you seriously that oblivious to what's happening?

You're smart, Alex. So I'm not sure how you fail to miss the point about suicide bombers <b>killing innocent civilians</b>. That is a <b>pretty goddamn big difference</b>, and you're just excluding it. Why? Because it benefits your argument? Do you seriously not see the difference between armies fighting over land and extremists murdering innocent civilians?

Yes, when a bomb is strapped to you and you murder innocent civilians, you're a piece of shit. No doubt about it. I don't care what excuse you're going to give about desperation or their land being taken or whatever - the intentional murder of innocent civilians is inexcusable. You jump all over Israel for some deaths in a refugee camp but it's just hunky dory when a Palestinian girl detonates herself and takes out a 17 year old Israeli girl and a security guard at a grocery shop?

You're pointing out the "hypocrisy" of the other side but gleefully bathing in your own. It's absurd.

ohh when did I become Alex? Makes you sound very,very authoritive, quaking in my boots.

Well....lets go though this.
Israel
Large, powerful, modern army, classified as 3rd best in the world

Palestine:
Ragtag bunch of militias without an RPG between them

What do you suggest they do?
Launch a full scale assault? Peace sit-in protest in downtown Jerusalem? They *have* no other option, that’s the sad thing about it. Palestine as it is simply an absolutely horrible place to live, and Israel doesn't care. There are only so many ways you can get message across. Of course suicides bombings are awful, of course killing civilians is terrible, but Israel does it too; just don’t kill themselves in the process. I mean fuck how many stone throwing guys/kids has isreal shot? Look at the raw bodybounts. I don't hear you preaching about how godawful that is, how spraying live gunfire just above the heads of unarmed civilians instead of just telling them to get off the street before lowering it to chet height is disgraceful, or firing live rounds at peaceful international protesters is absolutely unacceptable. Not to mention using human shields, including ambulance officers, then shooting an ambulances. But when its some desperate kid who has nothing to live for and chooses to go out with a bang, its an abomonition that cannot be justified.

Its like Vietnam, to paraphrase a Vietcong solder I chatted to "We hated the Americans, at the end of the day, they could go back to base, be safe, get food, relax, for us the war was ongoing, we lived on food we hunted in the jungle, we were often close to starvation and if one of us was injured there wasn’t much we could do". The, Joe Israeli soldier spends a couple of weeks demolishing Palestinian neighbourhoods, then goes home and have a nice break. The only way you can win in a situation like that is to create paranoia in the enemy, force their hand. It’s fucking horrible whatever way you look at it but it’s the only option. Both sides should hang thier heads in shame, but one is a bunchof uncontrollable militas, the core of which are driven by fanatical relgiion whereas the other is meant to be a mdoern, organsied army, which is why thier crimes are far more unacceptable. Not that being a fundie jsutifies killing people, that reads terribly, but that the other reasons i listed, in my eyes make suidcide bombings an understandale response. Not jsutified, understandable.


oh btw i'm doing persuasive essay work/analysis in both english and international studies stuff at the moment, so i've been playing around here, its become a state of mind.

Wishful thinking.

I doubt that any death rate short of 100% will stop these people. The strategy you suggest (and it's not a bad one) has already been tried. It failed when Vespasian tried to implement it back in 67 A.D., and it wasn't any more successful for his son, Titus, a few years later. (Read Flavius Josephus' The Jewish War for the full, depressing details.)

Some things just won't solve... I suspect that, like division by zero or the square root of -1, the troubles in the Holy Land are beyond man's ability to solve.

Hubris! The soltuion is obvious!
It all just became clear. Al we need is some other country to bomb them both, and they'll band together to destory the new enemy in an orgy of 17y.o girls withs bombs being fired from apache choppers while peace will reign in the middle east. I vote for using New Zealand.

And while i'm talking about the inane and the middle east
"IDF soldiers used koran as toilet paper"
http://ummahnews.com/viewarticle.php?sid=3337

You not hearing and me not saying are two entirely different things. I have been highly critical of Israel over the past few months in addition to being critical of the Palestinian extremists. I suggest you find some of the other threads and read through them.

I guess "not killing innocent civilians" just doesn't register to you as an option? Or maybe "limiting the scope of the suicide attacks to hit only military personnel"? Both of those are entirely possible but not considered by the Palestinian extremists groups. Whereas Israel makes every effort to nail the militants and kills some civilians in the process, it's the other way around for the Palestinian extremists. As I said before, that's a pretty goddamn big difference between the two sides. Imagine, if you will, that for every suicide bombing that kills 28 and wounds 150 (like the Passover attack in Netanya), Israel rounds up 178 civilians, kills 28 of them outright and then mutilates the rest of them in a Qur'an Approved (TM) "eye for an eye" methodology.

Wouldn't that be pretty unfair and awful?

So why is it any different when the Palestinians do it? Why do you look at that with understanding? Would you dare say that it was the "only option" for the Israeli government? Then why do you classify it as such for the Palestinians?

There is <b>no excuse</b> to target innocent civilians, <b>period</b>. I don't care what way you spice it up to make it look okay; it never will be.

Nah. Not their style. Besides... what would the Kiwis use to launch such an attack? Their "air force" is down to about a half-dozen P-3s with obsolete avionics and a handful of aging C-130s. I'd be more afraid of the All Blacks than the RNZAF. (Why not turn Jonah Lomu loose on them, instead?)

Anyway, I've got relatives in Wellington and I'd just as soon not see them dragged into this mess. Australia, on the other hand, has something very much like a real air force. And John Howard would probably be more receptive to your idea than Helen Clark. Why don't you give him a call?

Hmm good point. Although our army isn't exactly up with the best
our tanks are 40 years old and we don't have enough ammo to last more than 5 days of combat (recent leekd report) on the flipside we've got plenty of free space....

Argh, this is getting preatitive. Why not hit military targets only.....how about becease THEY CAN'T. Last i checked jerry built explosive don't do much to M-1 tanks, and if they come near a road block they're thoughly searched or shot. As it is something like 5% of bombers get though.

I think i can safely leave it at that.

No, you can't.

They do routinely attack military personnel (soldiers) and succeed.

So don't say it can't be done. Because it can.

If they're in a war, like both sides claim, than the only legitimate targets are the fighters. On the Palestinian side, that's the extremist militants. On the Israeli side, that's soldiers. When you deviate from those targets you lose any upper hand you may have had.

Even so, if the Palestinians were incapable of attacking military targets, that still does not excuse them from killing innocent civilians. You're trying to justify something that's completely unjustifiable.

Really? Haven’t seen any. Got anything to back that up? I'm genuinely curious.

The IDF rounded up every Palestinian male between 12 and 55, sure looks like they're making a distinction.

it’s not justifiable, but what else are they meant to do? Rock and hard place syndrome. The currant Palestinian situation in untenable, they cannot survive, state or not politics aside, somewhere something has to snap, and this is the result. I mean really, what else can they do? Depressing.