|
We are going into war!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :( (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Devbert |
Just a few things.
First off, civilian casualties will happen no matter what. It's just the way life is. Not fair. But it's a reality. The point is whether or not they were intentionally attacked.
The bombing in Afghanistan killed around 500 innocent civilians (they estimate). And honestly, it doesn't seem like anyone really gave a . America was fighting for the greater good, to root out the terroists in that area. And if people died in the process, it was a shame, but it was going to happen. We weren't going to not go into Afghanistan for risk of civilian casualties.
Israel is killing civilians on occasion. But I've thought about this, and you should to. Why would they intentionally kill innocent civilians? It does nothing for their cause. It hurts them by killing the innocent, because then they get blasted by the media and lose US support. When they kill someone, and say "he was armed", I believe them. Why you ask? Because they aren't wiping out hundreds of people a day. This is selective killing. You don't read "100 Palestenians Gunned Down Yesterday" as a news headline. It's always just a few who were armed.
It makes total sense to believe them when they shoot someone and claim he was armed.
And well it is tragic when a child dies in a crossfire, it just shows the sad politics of Palestine, encouraging children to go out and join the battles, running around the street in front of soldiers with a gun. |
|
|
| cweb |
First of all, I didnt support the bombing of Afghanistan one second, it was totally hilarious and complete bull, the problems are not solved.
But there is a HUGE difference between these two "fights against terror". Ok the USA has done bad things indirectly to these (afghans) people but they were not in their own country an surpressed them. Ariel Sharon has a very bad settler-policy. Sometime ago he state, that he wanted to bring back thousand of jewish people to Israel, you can try 3 times to solve the questions where they would have been installed. Its a matter of fact that ther Palestinians are 2nd-class people there! |
|
|
| cweb |
| btw: I just read my signature and i must say Martin Luther King was a very intelligent man! |
|
|
| Eugene |
evil_bastard: You're correct on many points, but I was talking about the post-WW2 era when the USA helped Western Europe (economically and socially) rise from the ashes of the war. I mean, for goodness's sake, don't you know that Europe was always under America's umbrella during the Cold War, etc., etc.? There are many issues where I, too, dislike US policies/culture, but to overlook the above-mentioned fact -- especially if you're in Europe -- is bad and hypocritical.
cweb: And why don't you want to write any more posts? I think your English improves a lot, when you write a lot. :) |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
| As I've just explained, we spent much of the next decade struggling to pay the Americans the money they demanded for their help. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Devbert
The bombing in Afghanistan killed around 500 innocent civilians (they estimate). |
Who's "they?"
I have an article from an American journalist here, written just a few weeks into the bombing, which estimated it at over 3,000. He obviously doesn't count as "they", nor do the many others (probably majority now) who accept it's well above that figure.
It's just like the Kosovo War, when the figures ranged from 1 shot Stealth Bomber down plane to 28 jets!
| quote: | | And honestly, it doesn't seem like anyone really gave a . America was fighting for the greater good, to root out the terroists in that area. And if people died in the process, it was a shame, but it was going to happen. We weren't going to not go into Afghanistan for risk of civilian casualties. |
But has it done any good? The capturing of Kabul was a good thing, apparently. But the Northern Alliance are up to their old antics again, there is fighting around Kabul from rival tribes, and to the most extent, American and British troops are not in control.
Did it do any good in fighting terrorism? Can't say so yet.
I bet there are still a fair few terrorists rubbing their hands with a nice big grin in London, New York City, Washington, Monaco, Berlin, Chicago, Paris ...
| quote: | | Israel is killing civilians on occasion. |
This is just an assumption.
| quote: | | But I've thought about this, and you should to. Why would they intentionally kill innocent civilians? It does nothing for their cause. It hurts them by killing the innocent, because then they get blasted by the media and lose US support. |
The answer to this is simple. You have lots of hyped up young squaddies, all macho, full of testosterone and adrenalin, as well as fear and hatred. I have spent time with military personnel and know a few. Racism is rife in the Army. You don't call someone "black" you call them a "paki bastard" (I heard this phrase many times).
Peacekeeping has shown examples of attrocities all over the world. Why? Because it's a low intensity task. Many hours are spent standing around, feeling like 50 snipers are aiming at you.
The British Parachute Regiment killed 13 innocent civilians in 1972 in Northern Ireland. In 1993 Canadian Airborne Peacekeepers in Somalia were found guilty of numerous crimes, including torturing and killing a Somali boy. American Special Forces in Vietnam massacred a load of civilians at My Lai.
Note that in all of these examples, the culprits were from elite units (either airborne or special forces), on lower intensity tasks.
This is too great a link to ignore.
| quote: | | And well it is tragic when a child dies in a crossfire, it just shows the sad politics of Palestine, encouraging children to go out and join the battles, running around the street in front of soldiers with a gun. |
The Israelis are now advancing on their towns in tanks. How fast can little children run away?
There are going to be a lot of people killed.
The two sides will end up agreeing one day, it's the only peace will ever happen. But how many people must die and how many must flee their homes and their lives before that happens? |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
No, but I imply that both are at ENOUGH fault that I could not side with either. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp.
But one thing is certain, both sides (Loyalists and Provisionals) have committed decades of terrorism. They are both responsible for
You were telling me that in every issue there is to the most extent a right side. I presented a real life issue and asked you which side you thought was "most right".
There may well be greater attrocities committed by either side, this is something many will disagree on.
bombing civilians solely due to their religion, and designing bombs with the sole purpose of exacting as many civilian casualties as possible.
In this instance, I would disagree with your view that in every issue there is a side that is "more right". Both sides are wrong and I could never support either. I feel the same about Israel.
Didn't you earlier on say that terrorism is "never justifiable"?
Then would you admit that neither of these terrorist organisations are a single bit right, let alone "more right" than the other? |
ok i finally understand the point you are trying to make, im gald i finally have it cleared up in my head. this time you finally put it in a way i understand (took me a while). now as for the case you presented of provisionalist v. imperialists, i will not take sides because i will admit i am not educated enough about the issue. that does not mean i would consider putting them at equal fault (in my example, there still exsists a possibility where x=y and terrorism = terrorism is a good example)
i still stand by my side of "terrorism is never justifiable" but the fact that you hold both the israeli and palestinians as equals in terrorist activities is where we start to differ in opinions. the fact is im not convinced israel has reached the level of being called terrorists.
so i now pose you a couple questions.... you agree that the palestinian authority conducts terrorist acts (not just that but a lot of other evils that are brought on by thier oppresive reigm) BUT you only pose the question of the IDF's actions (as governed by their democratic government) as terrorist acts. something for which we can still not prove. just becuase you cant find any investigations into those killings you mentioned does not nessaciraly prove guiltyness. god forbib maybe the soldiers did tell the truth? truth is in many cases we will not know. some were justified some were not, i do not see how you can call the whole nations military as terrorists or responsible for the acts of individuals. thus i pose the question of why is something that has not been proven to be terrorism equally evil as terrorism itself? terrorism is defined as the intentional killing of innocent civilians. i dont see that you proved that it is the INTENTION of israel or the IDF to kill innocent civilians, on the other hand we have proved and seen undisputidly that it is on the other side.
if we were to list off a list with all the atrocities each side has commited you will find one side short and disputable while the other long and undisputable. this diffently calls for a x>y
(i'm also trying to get at what devbert is saying)
| quote: |
But I am yet to find a SINGLE investigation regarding the IDF shootings in civilian locations.
|
now as far as thinking that the IDF does not conduct any investigations, let me tell you a personal story. i am telling you this in all truth and straight from my heart. you may have heard the story of the arab woman and her son being killed in their car in ramallah after it had been hit by an israeli tank (4 weeks ago?). granted the car belonged to a high ranking Hamas official, he was not in there at that specific time. my BEST friend in israel (ophir stern, love you buddy) was in the platoon of tanks (3 tanks per platoon) that shot at the car. he told me that an order was given by the platoon commander to do so. a tank from the platoon then shot the car (not my friends but the one next to him). all of them thought that the hamas official was in there. in a matter of hours they found out cleary he was not in there. my friend told me that his commander was relieved of position immediatley and was sent home to wait for his investigation. he also told me that the commander was then in an emotional distraught for commiting the act and felt sick to his stomach for killing those two innocents. an investigation is now under way! this is a direct account of the incedent. not through any media source but through me my best friend and all he witnessed. now maybe i have changed your mind that there was at least a SINGLE investigation regarding the IDF shootings in civilian locations. maybe now the fact that you know investigations such as these happens, which proves its not the intention of israel to commit terrorist acts, will tip you in favor x>y because NO investigations are taken by the palestinian side about the suicide bombers (the exact opposite, they encourage it)
| quote: |
Israel has consistently elected right wing nationalist ex generals.
|
this is a lie!
lets look at the prime ministers since the oslo accords.
Yitzhak Rabin - left wing (labour party)
Shimon Peres - even more left wing (labour party) (to my knowledge not a general, but dont hold me to this)
Bengiman Netanyaho - right wing (likud party)
Ehud Barak - left wing (labour party)
Ariel Sharon - right wing (likud party)
and what do you mean by nationalists? that they desire an israeli country recognized by the whole world? do you not agree they should have one? the fact is that all of these prime ministers have considered and talked about offering land for peace
| quote: |
When those Canadian Airborne peacekeepers in Somalia in 1993 were caught torturing and burning a Somali boy, the ENTIRE airborne division of the Canadian Army was DISBANDED.
|
i agree with you that the severity of this incident deserved that punishment, although i have not heard of a case where an israeli has lynched a palestinian boy, if this is true i would demand and personally belive that the same result would happen here.
Evil_bastard: you can not expect prefection on everything, you do a great job of showing that on many things. take a step back and look at everything in whole, who is less in-perfect?
also i know you'll get pissed at me for pointing back the blame on arafat but i think this makes a point.
becuase of the israeli incursion of arafats compound, which was so frowned upon by the world and condemned by many nations, intellegence was gathered as to arafats involvement in terror, did the world not want us to find this out? http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast...nces/index.html
you can actually click and see the actual documents for your self there.
you can belive either side, i give more credit to the israeli side and belive that Hassan Abdel Rahman is the lier, given that fact that this is not the only real undistputable evidence that exsists.
lastly, cweb & a_adl (actually some of the things a_adl said are quite frightening)
i am ashamed to see you do not come to accept that arafat has a hand in terror at this very moment. (as indicated to me by, "Arafat was a proven terrorist back in the 70s or something, his movement (al-fatah) hijacked a Swissair plane and destruct it! Now 20 years later he won the peace novel price???") most people on this board have come to admit that. actually as i keep reading cweb i see your blantant uninformed mind on this matter, maybe you should read this whole thread and learn more in general about this topic, statments such as:
"Sometime ago he state, that he wanted to bring back thousand of jewish people to Israel"
well duh, every single jewish person on this earth has a right to claim citizenship in israel if he/she desires so... its in our constitution. so what does this have to do about sharon?
"Ariel sharon does NOT want peace, at least he doesnt want to give up anything."
has been quoted as saying he desires peace and security for all the people in the mideast. he has also been quoted as saying he is willing to give up most (and ill admit he never said all) of the territories occupied by israel after '67.
grow up. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
You said "Despite the fact 9 people were injured for protesting against an illegal action?"
| quote: | UN CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. |
AND
| quote: | Resolution 1402 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4503rd meeting,
on 30 March 2002
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 338 (1973) of 22
October 1973, 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002, and the Madrid principles,
Expressing its grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation,
including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the
headquarters of the President of the Palestinian Authority,
1. Calls upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire;
calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah;
and calls upon the parties to cooperate fully with Special Envoy Zinni, and others, to
implement the Tenet security work plan as a first step towards implementation of the
Mitchell Committee recommendations, with the aim of resuming negotiations on a
political settlement;
2. Reiterates its demand in resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 for an
immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation,
incitement and destruction;
3. Expresses support for the efforts of the Secretary-General and the special
envoys to the Middle East to assist the parties to halt the violence and to resume the
peace process;
4. Decides to remain seized of the matter. |
This legitimize the current Israeli aggression in the field of international law. It calls for a withdrawl yes, but it does not state a time. Number 4 clears up their netruality on the action.
You said : "The only people acting illegally were the Israeli gunmen who fired a 'warning shot' which managed to wound 9 people."
| quote: |
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Article 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons do demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. |
This means Israel has the power to close the scene off from civilians for their own protection and move them out of their if they have to.
Yoepus
If most people said what's on their minds, they'd be speechless. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
As I've just explained, we spent much of the next decade struggling to pay the Americans the money they demanded for their help. |
At least you were alive to pay it. That is the point he is making. Saying the US did nothing before the war is shamefull as well, they did sell you weapons and not your enemies. Israel doesn't even have that with many nations (French bastards anyone?).
Yoepus
Are you the fourth Stooge? |
|
|
| Ckerr812 |
| quote: | Originally posted by cweb
btw: I just read my signature and i must say Martin Luther King was a very intelligent man! |
That he was..Martin Luther King was one of the best minds fo the 20th century......It's a shame that others are just to small minded (or blinded with hate) to see the wise words of other people. |
|
|
| tenor |
Yoepus, you replied to me only dissing indymedia. That's fine - you dont like it, i do. I also stated that I mentioned exactly because their news are NOT ALWAYS TO BE TRUSTED. This you seemed to miss.
Did you read my question? Why'd you leave them unanswered? I'll repeat them just for you:
Are you saying that Sharon did not do those things? That he did not lead Unit 101? That he was not in charge of the Lebanon operation? (sidenote: I guess Israel that operation was defending too?) That he did not order bulldozers into that camp near Gaza?
You also quoted the Geneva Convenction trying to justify the 'transfer' of the palestinians. You even bolded the part of the text that you think justifies it. I'll copy-paste a phrase from the bolded part: 'Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.'... .. This is also nice: 'The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated. '
Now. Why didnt Israel take the refugees back after the 1948 war? Oh - now I know, they had no homes anymore! That nullifies it! I guess the hygiene, health, safety and nutrition thing was taken care of too - kill them, the jewish equivalent of hell will take care of all their needs!
Another thing: | quote: | | This legitimize the current Israeli aggression in the field of international law. It calls for a withdrawl yes, but it does not state a time. |
It does not state a time? So, it can take years? If you read the text of the resolution VERY CAREFULLY , you might also see this: 'Calls upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire'
Do you know the word 'immediately'? What does it mean?
Also, how does that legitimize Israeli tanks rolling into even more cities?
I'd love to get answers from you, but I'm starting to lose faith.. |
|
|
| dj_mdma |
Ok, ,this is a great discussion, but I forget...
What is the cause of the problem? Where has all this fighting stemmed from? To counter a problem you go back and look at what went wrong, and fix it on the basis of your previous errors.
Someone tell me the cause (in simple terms please) (something like he stole my thing, I want it back etc :p)
and I'll igve my opinon on matters.
BTW, from what i;ve seen on the BBc news , it aint heading towards peace. :( |
|
|
|
|
