6/24/2002: Another Palestinian child

[Nic Name]

Originally posted by dhamsaic

You guys believe what you want; I will believe what I know.

Main Entry: in.sane
Pronunciation: (")in-'sAn
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin insanus, from in- + sanus sane
Date: circa 1550
1 : mentally disordered : exhibiting insanity
2 : used by, typical of, or intended for insane persons
3 : ABSURD
- in.sane.ly adverb
- in.sane.ness /-'sAn-n&s/ noun

You know what I mean ... that the above statement is 3. ABSURD

[jaguar]

knob Pronunciation Key (nb)
n.

1. A rounded protuberance.
2.
1. A rounded handle, as on a drawer or door.
2. A rounded control switch or dial.
3. A prominent rounded hill or mountain.

knob

\Knob\, n. [A modification of knop. Cf. Nob.] 1. A hard protuberance; a hard swelling or rising; a bunch; a lump; as, a knob in the flesh, or on a bone.

2. A knoblike ornament or handle; as, the knob of a lock, door, or drawer. --Chaucer.

3. A rounded hill or mountain; as, the Pilot Knob. [U. S.] --Bartlett.

4. (Arch.) See Knop.

[Nic Name]

Photo of 'baby bomber' ignites Mideast anger

An Israeli soldier holds up a purported picture of a Palestinian infant dressed as a suicide bomber with a headband bearing the name of Islamic militant group Hamas.

[elSicomoro]

Your link is not working at the moment, but apparently the photo hasn't been authenticated yet...it could be photoshopped for all we know.

[Nic Name]

A picture released by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) June 27, 2002 shows what they allege to be a photo of a Palestinian baby dressed like a suicide bomber. The IDF said they found the photo during a search in a house of a wanted Palestinian man from Hebron, where Israeli army tanks and helicopter gunships have been poundeding a Palestinan police building. REUTERS/HO/Israel Defence Forces

[jaguar]

Wonder what else the IDF found that thier propaganda department thought would not be so good to release?

sycamore - the photo <b>has</b> been authenticated - by the family of the child. Check MSNBC for details.

[jaguar]

jennofay is right, this discussion is becoming more and more focussed on microsocms of a central issue almsot at the expense of the issue itself. As you can probably tell i've pretty much given up argueing on this.

[Count Zero]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
I don't at all think you should give up. I'd just strongly prefer if you'd attack my argument without throwing in insults.

OK, you're right. Sorry for that.

Here's a proper answer:

As for whether they deserve that curfew or not... 51% of Palestinians represent the destruction of Israel. No pity for the majority.

How can a bunch of starving poor people represent the destruction of Israel, one of the world's strongest military powers? Wishful thinking?

Please note that suicide bombers represent a personal threat to Israeli, not a national threat. They can't destroy the whole state with few isolated attacks like that.

And following your logic, about 70% of Israeli want the full extermination of Palestinians. Do they deserve a curfew too?

Remember, to hate is one thing, to kill is another. Palestinians have every reason to hate Israel, but they have no right to kill anyone. Same thing should apply to Israel, but they don't think so. Right now, as we talk, they're shooting civilians.

And as a response to another post (not by you), none of this is an isolated event. It has been happening for decades -- this is the third intifada -- and already millions of Palestinians have been killed. The killings of inocent Israeli is a reaction to that (totally condemnable), and has been of a much, much lesser scale.

And you said earlier that Israel doesn't want to simply wipe out the Palestinians because if they did there wouldn't be Palestinians anymore. I agree. I think that the reason for that is international pressure. So they prefer to do it little by little, but their intent is clear. And they're getting a lot more violent lately (with Ariel Sharon) because their strongest supporter, the US, simply doesn't care and vetoes any important decision by the UN.

How can a bunch of starving poor people represent the destruction of Israel, one of the world's strongest military powers? Wishful thinking?

Well, that's part of the point - Israel isn't going anywhere, period. They're going to have to learn to live with each other.

I think the 51% figure is kind of telling, but also very sad. It's indicative of a larger problem.

See, it's my belief that Arafat should lead his people, like Gandhi or MLK Jr., to a peaceful protest of Israeli occupation. Believe it or not, I am against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And I think that the Palestinians would be much closer to reaching this goal if they were non-violent. That would mean Arafat would really need to be a leader instead of just sitting at the top and letting things happen.

Why would this work? Because Israel would have <b>no possible justification</b> to attack Palestinians. They just wouldn't. Their US backing would erode very quickly if they were running tanks over peaceful protestors - especially if they protesters were <b>not</b> calling for "Death to Sharon". "End the Occupation" is a much better slogan, or "Free Palestine".

What has happened, however, is that a Palestinian public has accepted an over-reaction to what really <b>shouldn't</b> have been that big of a deal - Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. Did he do it to antagonize? Probably. I have no love for Sharon, and, to be quite honest, I think he's an assface. But a visit to the Temple Mount hardly justifies the intifada - it's a holy place for Jews <b>and</b> Muslims - not just the latter.

So now suicide bombers are taking out innocent Israelis every few days or weeks... and some 80% of Palestinians (I may be remembering this statistic incorrectly, if so, my bad) support the suicide bombing as a means to an end. The problem is, this just leads to more violence - and it will <b>only</b> lead to more violence. Israel can easily justify attacking Palestinian militant strongholds now because they can show you pictures of dead 3 year olds.

Then, when Israel responds, they are mad at Israel. Israel is part of the problem, but as I said earlier, <b>they would have no justification for attacking Palestinians without the attacks on Israelis</b>. Suicide bombers and suicide gunmen could <b>easily</b> put an end to the violence by simply calling it off. We know that the converse is not true - when Israel decided not to respond ot suicide bombings, they got bombed even more. Israel is rightly seen as the power in the region - so they cannot justify attacks before they have been attacked. The suicide bombers know this, but they are not looking for peace - not the heads of the groups, anyway. They are looking for the destruction of Israel.

So now we're back to square one. They need to be dealt with. Arafat won't do it. Yes, there is some legitimacy to the claim that it's difficult for him to do so because his police are being killed - but there's also some very real truth to the claim that he is simply unwilling to curb militancy. He just won't do it.

It's sad, but it's true. That's why I support a change in Palestinian leadership - someone that will eradicate the Palestinian extremists and lead them to a peaceful settlement with Israel.

--------------------

Now I'm not contesting it, but I'd just be curious to see the page where you got the 70% statistic. I think that seems a little high, but it wouldn't surprise me either. There's no love lost between the two sides.

You may want to check the "and already millions of Palestinians have been killed" number - that's off by at least an order of magnitude if you're talking about those killed in the intifadas.

Anyway, I have to leave. I could write and write on this for hours, and when we're not at each other's throats, I'm actually eager to. But I need to jet by 2 PM and I have to eat lunch first.

Eager to hear your thoughts.

[Count Zero]

Originally posted by dhamsaic


Well, that's part of the point - Israel isn't going anywhere, period. They're going to have to learn to live with each other.

I think the 51% figure is kind of telling, but also very sad. It's indicative of a larger problem.

See, it's my belief that Arafat should lead his people, like Gandhi or MLK Jr., to a peaceful protest of Israeli occupation. Believe it or not, I am against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And I think that the Palestinians would be much closer to reaching this goal if they were non-violent. That would mean Arafat would really need to be a leader instead of just sitting at the top and letting things happen.

Why would this work? Because Israel would have <b>no possible justification</b> to attack Palestinians. They just wouldn't. Their US backing would erode very quickly if they were running tanks over peaceful protestors - especially if they protesters were <b>not</b> calling for "Death to Sharon". "End the Occupation" is a much better slogan, or "Free Palestine".

I completely agree! Wether it would work or not, I don't know, but there's no justification for anything else. Nobody would blame them if they were only defending themselves, but suicide bombers are not self-defense.

But you see, I don't think it's fair to ask people who have been massacred and humiliated their whole lives, and are really desperate (suicide bombers for god's sake !), to think like that. It's a lot less fair to ask them to make the first move.

What has happened, however, is that a Palestinian public has accepted an over-reaction to what really <b>shouldn't</b> have been that big of a deal - Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. Did he do it to antagonize? Probably. I have no love for Sharon, and, to be quite honest, I think he's an assface. But a visit to the Temple Mount hardly justifies the intifada - it's a holy place for Jews <b>and</b> Muslims - not just the latter.

Well, if he didn't go with a huge army that didn't start shooting the first time a protestor threw a rock, I would agree with you.

Btw, Sharon is not simply an assface, he's a mass murderer assface.

So now suicide bombers are taking out innocent Israelis every few days or weeks... and some 80% of Palestinians (I may be remembering this statistic incorrectly, if so, my bad) support the suicide bombing as a means to an end. The problem is, this just leads to more violence - and it will <b>only</b> lead to more violence. Israel can easily justify attacking Palestinian militant strongholds now because they can show you pictures of dead 3 year olds.

Then, when Israel responds, they are mad at Israel. Israel is part of the problem, but as I said earlier, <b>they would have no justification for attacking Palestinians without the attacks on Israelis</b>. Suicide bombers and suicide gunmen could <b>easily</b> put an end to the violence by simply calling it off. We know that the converse is not true - when Israel decided not to respond ot suicide bombings, they got bombed even more. Israel is rightly seen as the power in the region - so they cannot justify attacks before they have been attacked. The suicide bombers know this, but they are not looking for peace - not the heads of the groups, anyway. They are looking for the destruction of Israel.

I agree with you that suicide bombings are not good tatics, and it's only going to serve as excuse to Israel to kill more Palestinians. But I think that shows how desperate they really are. Those that choose terrorism don't see other solutions, and it's very hard to convince them otherwise.

It is also very clear that while Israel uses terrorism as an excuse to its attack on Palestinians, its real intent is to spread even worse terrorism in occupied territories by destroying whole families, imposing homicidal curfews and invanding even further in Palestinian territory (now pratically non-existant).

So now we're back to square one. They need to be dealt with. Arafat won't do it. Yes, there is some legitimacy to the claim that it's difficult for him to do so because his police are being killed - but there's also some very real truth to the claim that he is simply unwilling to curb militancy. He just won't do it.

It's sad, but it's true. That's why I support a change in Palestinian leadership - someone that will eradicate the Palestinian extremists and lead them to a peaceful settlement with Israel.

How about changing Israeli leadership? They're the ones who can actually _do_ anything.

I think that this whole thing is futile and is just a waste of time. Bush wants to push for a "Palestinian reform" so that it buys Israel more time to do whatever it wants.

I think before any type of negotiations can start, Israel should back off from the occupied territories and a Palestinian state should be formed.

Now I'm not contesting it, but I'd just be curious to see the page where you got the 70% statistic. I think that seems a little high, but it wouldn't surprise me either. There's no love lost between the two sides.

That statistic was wrong, I'm sorry. I quoted it from memory and was wrong... The actual number is 46%.

You can find it at http://www.zmag.org/shalom-meqa.htm. It's a very good piece of text about the whole confront, up from the start.

You may want to check the "and already millions of Palestinians have been killed" number - that's off by at least an order of magnitude if you're talking about those killed in the intifadas.

I meant during the whole confrontation, but since I don't know the exact number I can't confirm it. Anyway, It's vastly superior to Israeli losses.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jennofay
this is why people in other countries see americans as lazy, americans often classify the french as rude, etc.

Americans ARE lazy. The French ARE rude. All Arabs ARE terrorists. All African-Americans ARE inferior to Caucasians.

You don't understand. You're a moron.

[jennofay]

Originally posted by sycamore


Americans ARE lazy. The French ARE rude. All Arabs ARE terrorists. All African-Americans ARE inferior to Caucasians.

You don't understand. You're a moron.

you forgot to add that women are here to be quiet, serve the men, and bake pie.

[jaguar]

I'd argue with dhamsaic but he left planet earth an dearshot long, long ago..

Clearly the concept of need for armed struggle is just someone how lacking from your vocab. The long and short of it isreal will give them sweet fuck all for as long as they can get away with it.

[Nic Name]

Comparatively speaking, Americans took up arms against their government in the Revolutionary War because of a repressive tax.