TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Yet Another Suicide Bombing
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »

Re: A Lesson In English

quote:

Originally posted by tathi People:

Beautiful post Tathi, Ive tried explaining on numerous occasions that State sponsored terrorism is just as and even worse than terrorism. But many here are in extreme denial about their motherland.

Re: A Lesson In English

quote:

Originally posted by tathi 1. Terrorism: The (1.)systematic use of (2.)violence as a means to (3.)intimidate or (4.)coerce societies or governments 2. Terrorism: The (1)unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an (2)organized group against (3)people or property with the intention of (4)intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. 3. \Ter"ror*ism\ n. The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation

Tathi, You've defined terrorism three times in your english lesson.

The third definitions is proper for a type of government, like the form that existed in Iraq or during the French revolution, where the origin of the word terror comes from. I don't believe we are going to use this deinfition. As it may only apply to the Israeli government terrorizing its own citizens, or the Palestinian Authority its own... this is not what we are trying to argue.

In your english lesson you have failed to connect the definitions of terror to the point you were supposed to try and make; namely that the State of Israel is using or supporting terrorism.

1. Israel is not systematically coercing Palestinian government or society. You have yet to prove it is systematically conducting violence against the Paelstinians to coerce them.
2. You have not proved that Israel is "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments" when it uses violence.

You have defined terrorism. This is step one, very good... we did that two days ago. Now you must prove either one of these two points; that Israel is either A. systematically using violence to coerce Palestinians. or Has the [b]intention to intimidate or coercing the Palestinians.

Heh, how predictable, another speculative conjecture based on opinion rather than anything factual. I'm getting bored of this barrage of weak hypothecate, you ignore the majority of my points and antagonise a few of my weaker points that are only there to strengthen the rest, why should i even bother? Your argument is so weak im begining to think that you yourself doubt your own ideals, and you are just "going through the motions"

quote:

The third definitions is proper for a type of government, like the form that existed in Iraq or during the French revolution, where the origin of the word terror comes from.

Etymology of the word terror:

quote:

terror - c.1375 "great fear," from O.Fr. terreur, from L. terror "great fear, dread," from terrere "fill with fear, frighten," from PIE base *tre- "shake." Terrorism is first attested 1795, "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror" (1793-July 1794) after the Fr. Revolution, from Fr. terrorisme. General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. Terroriste.

The epitome of poetic justice

As i stated earlier in this thread, the bombing of the King David Hotel revolutionized contemporary terrorism, and generated numerous copycat terrorist acts around the world. One is left to wonder what terrorism would be like today without this epoch.

Yoepus what is your connotation of Irony?

quote:

I don't believe we are going to use this deinfition. As it may only apply to the Israeli government terrorizing its own citizens, or the Palestinian Authority its own... this is not what we are trying to argue.

Although we could argue this point, ever heard of someone named Dr. Mordechai Vanunu? Nominated for the nobel peace prize for blowing the whistle on Israel's undeclared weapons of mass detruction, this Israeli patriot spent the first 11 1/2 years of his 18-year sentence in solitary confinement, his treatment was condemned by Amnesty International as "cruel, inhuman, and degrading."
Everyone reading this should sign the "International Pertition to Free Mordechai Vanunu"
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns...anunu/sigs.html
SAY NO to the abuse of human rights

quote:

You have yet to prove it is systematically conducting violence against the Paelstinians to coerce them.

Sytematic: Characterized by order and planning
Violence: An act of aggression
Coerce: To cause to do through pressure
There is a "special" kid in every class

quote:

2. You have not proved that Israel is "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments" when it uses violence.

Yes i have, and you refuse to acknowledge it

quote:

You have defined terrorism. This is step one, very good... we did that two days ago.

Yes i did define both conventional and state sponsored terrorism two days ago, but you didn't completely comprehend the explanation, so you asked me to put it in words you could understand, so i explained it quite clearly, so even a child could understand it, and you refused to acknowledge even then..

quote:

Now you must prove either one of these two points; that Israel is either A. systematically using violence to coerce Palestinians. or Has the [b]intention to intimidate or coercing the Palestinians.

I have already proved it, and you have ignored it, nothing is going to change your mind, you are just another pathetic indoctrinated fool, your misanthropic attitude towards human rights is deplorable.

Yoepus, you have just been owned....

tathi, re-explaining yourself is what you will do here becuase many will fail to see the objectivity in your points.

quote:

Originally posted by tathi Heh, how predictable, another speculative conjecture based on opinion rather than anything factual.

From what I know all you have done is speculative conjecture. You have to make a point here not me! You made a claim that Israel is state sponsoring terrorism, and although you have defined the words you have not brought the facts that prove this.

quote:

Etymology of the word terror:

As you see in your own Etymology of the word terror, its main historical link of use is back to the French revolution.

quote:

As i stated earlier in this thread, the bombing of the King David Hotel revolutionized contemporary terrorism, and generated numerous copycat terrorist acts around the world. One is left to wonder what terrorism would be like today without this epoch.

I believe it would be much the same. However this has ntohing to do with your point, proving how modern day Israel is conducting state sponsored terrorism? You are drifting off course.

quote:

Although we could argue this point, ever heard of someone named Dr. Mordechai Vanunu? Nominated for the nobel peace prize for blowing the whistle on Israel's undeclared weapons of mass detruction, this Israeli patriot spent the first 11 1/2 years of his 18-year sentence in solitary confinement, his treatment was condemned by Amnesty International as "cruel, inhuman, and degrading."

And this proves that the Israeli government are terrorists how?

quote:

Sytematic: Characterized by order and planning Violence: An act of aggression Coerce: To cause to do through pressure

Great now lets put all those words in a sentance so we can get to the meaning of terrorism ok?
The (1.)systematic use of (2.)violence as a means to (3.)intimidate or (4.)coerce societies or governments

terror: The characterized use of order and planning of an act of aggression to intimidate a weaker person to try and make them do something or cause them to do through pressure on socities or government.

The above is your definition, in your other words.

You see we can't say they are doing A) Using order and planning and therefore they meet 1 of 3, and now they use agression so they do two of three.. and therefore come to conclusion. And they use pressure to get things done, and so magic they are terrorist.

No you must but the words in the context of their definition:
Israel has to be using violence systematically to intimidate or coerce the Palestinians to meet your definition.

So now like I said in my former post which you obviously did think a minute about, you have to prove that Israel when using its violence in systematic fashion is primarly coercing or intimidating the Palestinians.

Please take into the meaning of the words coerce and intimidations as you defined them.


The act of intimidating a weaker person to make them do something

quote:

me: 2. You have not proved that Israel is "with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments" when it uses violence. you: Yes i have, and you refuse to acknowledge it

Ok then if you have proved it link to it, or bring it up again. This is the missing point of your argument. I still have found none. If you mean that Israel is acting illegal then you must be joking, illegal action does not make it terrorism. Furthermore I can bring into question all those assertions as well if you really want... I haven't done so now, because they prove nothing.

What you are looking for is a link to Israeli violence that says they are using violence only for revenge or to make Palestinian life miserable, but not for other means which one might use violence for, such as say, secuirty.

quote:

it quite clearly, so even a child could understand it, and you refused to acknowledge even then..

I'm sure you are correct, any child would understand it as a child has no logic or developed rational to comprehend your words and put them into the context they belong, leaving your argument open and pointless.

quote:

I have already proved it, and you have ignored it, nothing is going to change your mind, you are just another pathetic indoctrinated fool, your misanthropic attitude towards human rights is deplorable.

Where'd human rights come into question? Always vering off topic are we? In your definition it does not say that if one does not believe in human rights he is a terrorist, or if one does not respect human rights he is a terrorist.

Look what you are going for here again is to link Israeli violence to the word terrorism. I agree with you, you have explained the definition of terrorism 3 days ago, and again yesterday. Ok I agree... lets accept this definition then shall we? Now link this definition to Israeli action to prove they are terrorist.

Simply saying they violate human rights will not get you there.
Have you ever read the UN decleration of human rights? I am sure almost every single country in this world is violating peoples human rights according to that decleration. That decleraiton requires each human to have healthcare, many vacationing days, resonable work hours, safe and stress free environments, garunteed overtime pay, a lot of things that simply do not, and perhaps never will exist in the majority of the counties in this earth.

The Geneva Convention is a war convention, and furthermore if you read it clearly it is written as a contract between two parties. These two parties are understood to be the two warring parties, and if one party does not abide by the contract, the responsibility of abiding by the contract for the other party therefore disappears as well.

This makes sense, say my enemy is using their protected ambulances to ferry troops and ammunition to the frontlines so my army does not attack them. Since they have violated the contract and the protection of such units, I have no moral or legal responsibility to abide by this contract, and may now target ambulances as any other enemy military vehicle.

Well, if we accept the definition of terrorism as being the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, then Israel truly is conducting terrorism upon palestinians. But that definition is pretty vague. For example, if you look at two countries that are in a war, they're both trying to systematically use violence in order to subdue the other side, yet that could hardly be classified as terrorism. Maybe a better definition would be one that would include a note concerning intentional targeting of innocent civilians. In that case, Israel is no longer a terrorist state, while palestinian terrorist organizations still remain terrorist organizations. It is true, though, that israelis have often murdered innocent civilians as well, but those incidents were not intended by the governing bodies. They were either result of wrong judgement or inobedient military personell. Besides, as far as intimidating or coercing other side goes, in this specific situation the goals are quite different on each side. On one hand, Israel is trying to coerce palestinians to stop suicide bombings. On the other hand, palestinian organizations are dreaming of destroying Israel. One goal is realistic and could be considered as a positive one, while the other one is totally crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, if we accept the definition of terrorism as being the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, then Israel truly is conducting terrorism upon palestinians. But that definition is pretty vague. For example, if you look at two countries that are in a war, they're both trying to systematically use violence in order to subdue the other side, yet that could hardly be classified as terrorism. Maybe a better definition would be one ...

Exactly it is a vague definition, I think the bulk of it lies in the "systematic" (meaning purposeful, planned use) of either A. coercion (making people do something they don't want to) or B. intimidate (make people fear).

So even though it is a bad definition, and I agree it is fairly vague. If you stick to systematic (of the system or purpose) of violence to coerce or intimidate you still can do a pretty good job of defending someone as a not being a terrorist.

All you have to do is either prove that they are not coerecing or intimidating, or at least not doing so in a systematic fashion.

I think all tathi has done so far is only prove that Israel is using violence, which is not that hard a case to make, or to be accepted.

ive just wanted to say that this is one of the biggest screw-ups of the Pal" propeganda,becuse after some investigation of the pal" and the israelies they have fond out that the 2 were killed by a friendly fire or in other words - by a palastinian who tried to shot at a soldier

just for your common knowlage

quote:

Originally posted by Viber ive just wanted to say that this is one of the biggest screw-ups of the Pal" propeganda,becuse after some investigation of the pal" and the israelies they have fond out that the 2 were killed by a friendly fire or in other words - by a palastinian who tried to shot at a soldier just for your common knowlage

Well I had heard rumors about that as well, however, from what I read about the tragedy, apparentely the IDF admitted fault:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/952600.stm

quote:

Israeli Cabinet Secretary, Yitzhak Herzog, said that Palestinian security forces could have saved the boy. In an interview with the BBC World Service, he said that "if Palestinian policemen had wanted to save the boy, they could have walked into the square, said 'Stop the fire'... and rescued the kid". He added that Palestinian police should have called their Israeli counterparts who he said had been trying to speak to Palestinian commanders for hours. Mr Herzog said people had seen "only the angle of the French television". The Israeli army later admitted that the shots which killed Muhammad had "apparently" been fired by its troops, and apologised for his death. But before they did so, other Israeli officials questioned whether the boy was killed by Israeli bullets and said he could have been hit by stray Palestinian gunfire. But witnesses say the Palestinian youths were armed only with stones, not guns, and the shooting was all from the Israeli side.

I haven't read any followup articles on the issue so if you have any by all means I'd like to read it.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well I had heard rumors about that as well, however, from what I read about the tragedy, apparentely the IDF admitted fault: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/952600.stm I haven't read any followup articles on the issue so if you have any by all means I'd like to read it.

no men you should check the date its from october 2000 ive seen the investigation results on the news a year or two after it happened
and ive sew it in an israeli news channel ( most objective + everyone who knows the israeli media well knows that the media is controled by a left wing people more then it is being controled by a right wing people)

again the primary answer was that israel is the blame but after some long investigation the result was that the boy was killed by a palastinian

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I haven't read any followup articles on the issue so if you have any by all means I'd like to read it.

Follow ups:

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/1043634.stm

Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/St...,403831,00.html

And for those of you into conspiracies...:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_19...alaqsa_dura.php

(aside from the conspiracy however, the last site explains the investigation most clearly, and has more links on the bottom).

What really can be said, is that it is unlikely that the Israelis did kill this boy, and that the Palestinians did. However we wil never really know. Regardless unless the conspiracy is true, this is not an incident of terrorism (and then it might only be argued that the Palestinians are terrorizing themselves).

Yoepus, you fail to understand the point we are trying to make regarding the state sponsored terrorism of ISrael. Of course you "innocent" israel isnt going to say.. "yeah...we target palestinians becuase you know what... our soldiers hate them.. and sometimes we cant control their trigger happy tendancies...then we defend them by creating a facade about the episode being an accident, that the innocents ran into the line of fire."

Israel terrorizes the daily lives of palestinians... most of them living in fear that they wont live the next day becuase a soldier just felt like pulling a trigger,or that a gunship may blow up the car next to them. Israel implicitly utilizes terrorism in their own way, and then covers it up as an 'accident' so they can make the lives of these people as horrible as possible in order for them to leave.

here is but one example of the intentional behaviour the IDF has in terrorizing palestinians

quote:

This evening, IDF Spokesperson admitted that IDF soldiers used a Palestinian resident of Tubas to get Nasser Jarrar to come out of his house. When the Palestinian went to the house, Jarrar shot and killed him, apparently thinking he was an IDF soldier. Information given to B�Tselem reveals that the Palestinian who was sent to Jarrar�s house and was then killed, is Nidal Abu M�khisan, aged 19, the nephew of B'Tselem field researcher �Ali Daraghmeh. Daraghmeh, who was present at the scene, said that his nephew was taken by the soldiers and was forced to go to Jarrar�s house at gunpoint. The IDF has been using Palestinian civilians as �human shields� for some time. Since the beginning of the current Intifada, IDF soldiers have ordered Palestinian civilians to: - Enter buildings to check whether they are booby-trapped or to expel their occupants. - Remove suspicious objects from the road. - Stand inside houses that the IDF has turned into military positions, so that Palestinians will not fire at soldiers. - Walk in front of soldiers to shield them from gunfire. Seven human rights organizations, including B'Tselem, petitioned the High Court of Justice against this IDF policy. In its response, the State admitted the existence of such a policy and announced that the IDF has decided to discontinue it. However, the State claimed it will allow the use of a Palestinian civilian to help soldiers enter Palestinian homes, unless the commander in the field believes that the civilian is liable to be injured. The death of Abu M�khisan illustrates the illegality of the policy outlined in the State�s response. Using civilians to enter homes is just as life threatening as the practices the State discontinued. The IDF must prohibit this practice as it did all others. It is not the duty of the Palestinian population to protect IDF soldiers, but the military�s. Whatever the circumstances, IDF soldiers may not endanger the lives of civilians to protect their own. Using civilians as if they were bulletproof vests and turning them into objects whose sole purpose is to protect soldiers is neither legal nor moral.

http://www.btselem.org/

This is an israeli human rights organization by the way.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Yoepus, you fail to understand the point we are trying to make regarding the state sponsored terrorism of ISrael. Of course you "innocent" israel isnt going to say.. "yeah...we target palestinians becuase you know what... our soldiers hate them.. and sometimes we cant control their trigger happy tendancies...then we defend them by creating a facade about the episode being an accident, that the innocents ran into the line of fire."

I understand this point. Fear does NOT equal terrorism however.
What you must prove is that Israel is systematically (an organized process) of using violence to intimidate (achieve fear in) the Palestinian society for some purpose (typically political).

Yes, I will admit the Palestinians probably FEEL terrorized, but that does not mean they are being terrorized! The Iraqi civilians surely felt terrorized when the bombs fell upon their country. Every civilian in a theatre of war feels fear, feels scared, and therefore feels terrorized. Hwoever feeling terrorized does not mean that there is a terrorist! If you want to find terrorized people, look at any violent act, be it a murder, a war, a robbery or what not, however we do not call those who say perpetrate a murder a terrorist, why? Because he did not systemtically want to intimidate a society or government, he simply wanted one person dead.

You can also find feelings of terror from none-violent acts, such as accidents. Ask how a near-fatal accident survior felt when his car slipt off the road, and you'll find he felt terror. But there is no terrorist in this act.. who can we blame? The rain that made the road wet?

So do the Palestinians feel terrorized, yes. Does that make Israel a State support of terrorism? No!

Also, even if I were to agree with your statements above the strongest argument you can make is de facto Israeli terrorism. As it is NOT state support. In fact, the State of Israel fights relentlessly against organization and individuals with in (and out) of its boundraies that are suspected of commiting a terrorist crime, be them black, white, Arab, Israel, Jew or Muslim. I believe though you concede this point.


At a final note, Israel's use of human shields is a violation of the Geneva convention, and therefore one might brand it illegal. But as I have mentioned before (with the abuse of ambulance neutrality) the Geneva convention is actually a contract between two warring parties. So therefore if the Palestinians use human shields, they are breaking the contract and Israel is no longer liable to uphold at least that specific clause of the agreement. So although many of you won't agree since your are drug-senced-hippies, the truth of the matter is that Israel carries no legal, or in a theoratical sense moral responsibility for this tactic.

You can not have an organization call Israel's use of human shields inhuman, or immoral if you take it out of context, and do not blame the Palestinian militant organization for the same, and grosser abuses which caused Israel to try and use such strategies themselves.

oh and i forgot. the example you gave is not an example of "intentional behaviour the IDF has in terrorizing palestinians" as the IDF does not intend to cause terror, or to intimidate the Palestinians by this behaviour, their goal is to actually save Palestinian, and their own lives. They are trying to have the trigger-happy terrorist open the door for the IDF without shooting at them, so the IDF won't have to use their only other option of blowing down the militant's doors, which usually thanks to sturdy Palestinian permit-free construction, means most of the house too.

As of right now the Palestinians don't deserve a country. Maybe when they collectively stop acting like a racist death cult, they will. As for civilian casualties in a place like Gaza, they are inevitable. The terrorists intermingle with the civilian population(who, for the most part, show no regrets about supporting them) so it is extremely hard to not kill civilians. When I see the flaming wreckage of a pinto with bodies of Hamas militants hanging out of them, I become very happy.

The Palestinians are self-perpetuating problem. They thrive on their backwards, racist, continual refugee status, and gleefully send off their kids to become shahids and kill as many Jews as possible for their belief in a mutation of Islam. You can try to buy into the PC, westernized arguement that this has nothing to do with their enemies being Jews, and that all the Palestinians want is a peaceful nation...But thats total bullshit. They are parasitic, terror state that leeches off the Israeli economy, because they are so ****ed from years of being too ignorant to stop the bombing.

Anyways, I have no sympathy for the Palestinians whatsoever and they have shown absolutely no reason to justify giving them a state, other than that it would be a temporary appeasement. I say deal with these ****ers the same way the Arab governments did. Until then, Go IDF and send some of these teenage douchebags to heaven.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/1043634.stm

"Shortly after the death of the boy, Mohammed Al-Durrah, in his father's arms in September, Israel apologised and said that Israeli soldiers were responsible. "

when has palestine ever apoligized for killing children?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus At a final note, Israel's use of human shields is a violation of the Geneva convention, and therefore one might brand it illegal. But as I have mentioned before (with the abuse of ambulance neutrality) the Geneva convention is actually a contract between two warring parties. So therefore if the Palestinians use human shields, they are breaking the contract and Israel is no longer liable to uphold at least that specific clause of the agreement. So although many of you won't agree since your are drug-senced-hippies, the truth of the matter is that Israel carries no legal, or in a theoratical sense moral responsibility for this tactic. You can not have an organization call Israel's use of human shields inhuman, or immoral if you take it out of context, and do not blame the Palestinian militant organization for the same, and grosser abuses which caused Israel to try and use such strategies themselves.

When you look into the abbys the abbys also looks at you, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I understand this point. Fear does NOT equal terrorism however. What you must prove is that Israel is systematically (an organized process) of using violence to intimidate (achieve fear in) the Palestinian society for some purpose (typically political). Yes, I will admit the Palestinians probably FEEL terrorized, but that does not mean they are being terrorized! The Iraqi civilians surely felt terrorized when the bombs fell upon their country. Every civilian in a theatre of war feels fear, feels scared, and therefore feels terrorized. Hwoever feeling terrorized does not mean that there is a terrorist! If you want to find terrorized people, look at any violent act, be it a murder, a war, a robbery or what not, however we do not call those who say perpetrate a murder a terrorist, why? Because he did not systemtically want to intimidate a society or government, he simply wanted one person dead. You can also find feelings of terror from none-violent acts, such as accidents. Ask how a near-fatal accident survior felt when his car slipt off the road, and you'll find he felt terror. But there is no terrorist in this act.. who can we blame? The rain that made the road wet? So do the Palestinians feel terrorized, yes. Does that make Israel a State support of terrorism? No! Also, even if I were to agree with your statements above the strongest argument you can make is de facto Israeli terrorism. As it is NOT state support. In fact, the State of Israel fights relentlessly against organization and individuals with in (and out) of its boundraies that are suspected of commiting a terrorist crime, be them black, white, Arab, Israel, Jew or Muslim. I believe though you concede this point. At a final note, Israel's use of human shields is a violation of the Geneva convention, and therefore one might brand it illegal. But as I have mentioned before (with the abuse of ambulance neutrality) the Geneva convention is actually a contract between two warring parties. So therefore if the Palestinians use human shields, they are breaking the contract and Israel is no longer liable to uphold at least that specific clause of the agreement. So although many of you won't agree since your are drug-senced-hippies, the truth of the matter is that Israel carries no legal, or in a theoratical sense moral responsibility for this tactic. You can not have an organization call Israel's use of human shields inhuman, or immoral if you take it out of context, and do not blame the Palestinian militant organization for the same, and grosser abuses which caused Israel to try and use such strategies themselves. oh and i forgot. the example you gave is not an example of "intentional behaviour the IDF has in terrorizing palestinians" as the IDF does not intend to cause terror, or to intimidate the Palestinians by this behaviour, their goal is to actually save Palestinian, and their own lives. They are trying to have the trigger-happy terrorist open the door for the IDF without shooting at them, so the IDF won't have to use their only other option of blowing down the militant's doors, which usually thanks to sturdy Palestinian permit-free construction, means most of the house too.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...a/israel_strike

How is this not terrorism...throwing missiles into crowded city streets... not giving a shit about innocent bystanders...whether it is intended or not, people are terrorised by these "explosions" just like a bomb on a bus.

Do you think it is OK to throw missiles into crowded israeli streets if that same car was driving there? Please answer this!

Here is a piece on how Israel uses systematic terrorism.

quote:

On the one hand, Israel wants us to believe that 400 of its own civilians were deliberately targeted, while more than three times as many dead Palestinians all somehow just got in the way of what Israel claims is its humane and disciplined army. It is, in essence, an argument that 1,500 people all died by accident. Every human rights group that has examined Israel's practices has documented systematic and deliberate use of violence targeted at unarmed Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces. Physicians for Human Rights USA which investigated the high number of Palestinian deaths and injuries in the first months of the Intifada, concluded that: "the pattern of injuries seen in many victims did not reflect IDF [Israel Defense Forces] use of firearms in life-threatening situations but rather indicated targeting solely for the purpose of wounding or killing." [Source: PHR USA, 22 November 2000] This finding was based on "the totality of the evidence" the investigators collected about : "the high number of gunshots to the head; the volume of serious, disabling thigh injuries; the inappropriate firing of rubber bullets and rubber-coated steel bullets at close range; and the high proportion of Palestinian injuries and deaths." The findings of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch confirm this pattern. Israeli human rights group B'Tselem has documented and condemned the targeted use of violence against Palestinian civilians and has found evidence of systematic torture of thousands of Palestinian detainees, including children. What has been confirmed by human rights groups has also been observed directly by journalists. In October 2001, Harper's magazine published the "Gaza Diary" of journalist Chris Hedges. Hedges' entry for June 17, 2001 provides even more shocking evidence of the wanton and deliberate killing of Palestinian children by Israeli soldiers at Gaza's Khan Yunis refugee camp. Hedges writes: "I sit in the shade of a palm-roofed hut on the edge of the dunes, momentarily defeated by the heat, the grit, the jostling crowds, the stench of the open sewers and rotting garbage. A friend of Azmi's brings me, on a tray, a cold glass of tart, red carcade juice." "Barefoot boys, clutching kites made out of scraps of paper and ragged soccer balls, squat a few feet away under scrub trees. Men in flowing white or gray galabias -- homespun robes -- smoke cigarettes in the shade of slim eaves. Two emaciated donkeys, their ribs protruding, are tethered to wooden carts with rubber wheels." "It is still. The camp waits, as if holding its breath. And then, out of the dry furnace air, a disembodied voice crackles over a loudspeaker." ""Come on, dogs," the voice booms in Arabic. "Where are all the dogs of Khan Younis? Come! Come!"" "I stand up. I walk outside the hut. The invective continues to spew: "Son of a bitch!" "Son of a whore!" "Your mother's ****!"" "The boys dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted with loudspeakers. Three ambulances line the road below the dunes in anticipation of what is to come." "A percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than ten or eleven years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children's slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos." "Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered -- death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo -- but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport." There can be no doubt that Israeli troops have been targeting innocent Palestinian civilians for death from the beginning of the uprising. This understanding was also reflected in UN Security Council Resolution 1322, passed on October 7, 2000, which "Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life." In making the moral superiority claim, Israel's apologists are either shamelessly denying the irrefutable evidence cited above and are simply lying, or they are asserting that some forms of murder are morally superior to other forms of murder.

quote:

Originally posted by Haunted As of right now the Palestinians don't deserve a country. Maybe when they collectively stop acting like a racist death cult, they will. As for civilian casualties in a place like Gaza, they are inevitable. The terrorists intermingle with the civilian population(who, for the most part, show no regrets about supporting them) so it is extremely hard to not kill civilians. When I see the flaming wreckage of a pinto with bodies of Hamas militants hanging out of them, I become very happy. The Palestinians are self-perpetuating problem. They thrive on their backwards, racist, continual refugee status, and gleefully send off their kids to become shahids and kill as many Jews as possible for their belief in a mutation of Islam. You can try to buy into the PC, westernized arguement that this has nothing to do with their enemies being Jews, and that all the Palestinians want is a peaceful nation...But thats total bullshit. They are parasitic, terror state that leeches off the Israeli economy, because they are so ****ed from years of being too ignorant to stop the bombing. Anyways, I have no sympathy for the Palestinians whatsoever and they have shown absolutely no reason to justify giving them a state, other than that it would be a temporary appeasement. I say deal with these ****ers the same way the Arab governments did. Until then, Go IDF and send some of these teenage douchebags to heaven.

Its this disgusting and selfish attitude that has made Jews and Israel hated around the world.

You speak as if this people are not human. grow up...youre a parasite on this board.

quote:

Originally posted by Haunted As of right now the Palestinians don't deserve a country. Maybe when they collectively stop acting like a racist death cult, they will. As for civilian casualties in a place like Gaza, they are inevitable. The terrorists intermingle with the civilian population(who, for the most part, show no regrets about supporting them) so it is extremely hard to not kill civilians. When I see the flaming wreckage of a pinto with bodies of Hamas militants hanging out of them, I become very happy. The Palestinians are self-perpetuating problem. They thrive on their backwards, racist, continual refugee status, and gleefully send off their kids to become shahids and kill as many Jews as possible for their belief in a mutation of Islam. You can try to buy into the PC, westernized arguement that this has nothing to do with their enemies being Jews, and that all the Palestinians want is a peaceful nation...But thats total bullshit. They are parasitic, terror state that leeches off the Israeli economy, because they are so ****ed from years of being too ignorant to stop the bombing. Anyways, I have no sympathy for the Palestinians whatsoever and they have shown absolutely no reason to justify giving them a state, other than that it would be a temporary appeasement. I say deal with these ****ers the same way the Arab governments did. Until then, Go IDF and send some of these teenage douchebags to heaven.

Its this disgusting and selfish attitude that has made Jews and Israel hated around the world.

You speak as if these people are not human. grow up...youre a parasite on this board.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Its this disgusting and selfish attitude that has made Jews and Israel hated around the world. You speak as if this people are not human. grow up...youre a parasite on this board.

Why do you personally hate Jews? Who else hates them? People who hate entire races of people based on generalizations are called racists. Be careful what you speak.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Why do you personally hate Jews? Who else hates them? People who hate entire races of people based on generalizations are called racists. Be careful what you speak.

I don't think he hates jews ... he hates zionists

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Why do you personally hate Jews? Who else hates them? People who hate entire races of people based on generalizations are called racists. Be careful what you speak.

Why are you putting words in my fucking mouth....i have never once stated that I hate Jews? Are you on drugs?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I don't think he hates jews ... he hates zionists

Thank you Occrider!

Yup, i admit i hate Zionists, and zion is not a race.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Why are you putting words in my fucking mouth....i have never once stated that I hate Jews? Are you on drugs?

Was just saying that based on your comments about so much of the world hating jews. I've gleaned from time to time that you have a lot of hostility toward Israel, and therefore toward Jews.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.