|
We are going into war!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :( (pg. 18)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by tenor
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? |
I can not confirm what he did or did not do and the circumstances in which he acted, I was not there. The fact is I had already stated that Sharon was the Defense Minister durning the Leabonese war, and therefore 2nd in command and partly in charge (again same claims of indirect responsability can be made for the Prime-minster but where not). Sidenote: Yes Israel was defending itself in Lebanone, altough I am quiet sure you can find all the conspriacy theories you like on why Israel wanted to enter the hole other then the fact that they were attacking Israel (does the school masacre in the north ring a bell?).
If you look closely in the debate there are many contratictory reports from many parties, many eyewitness and such. I chose to give him the benifit of the doubt, on the basis of innocent till proven guilty, and as far as my recollection he has not been found to be directly guilty for anyone of these acts.
| quote: | | 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. |
Yes I did. Again your book is debatable about the reality of the transfers, did you read the review I posted?
I am not trying to justify any transfer of Palestinians. My intention with that quote was to bring clear the legitimacy of closing off a war scene and enforcing curfew.
| quote: | | Now. Why didnt Israel take the refugees back after the 1948 war? Oh - now I know, they had no homes anymore! That nullifies it! |
If you say so, I was under the impression they never even asked to come back. And despite your claims you can find evidence to the contrary of Israel allowing many refugees to return.
| quote: | | 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! |
Jew's don't have a hell. Secondly we did not kill them, most fleed before we got 'there'. Thridly it is estimated that less then 600,000 Palestinians lived in the current area of Israel and the territories before 1948. Post 1948 more then 150,000 Palestinians (or Arabs) stayed put. Almost all of these became Israeli Arab citizens. This would indicate that about less then 450,000 Palestinians fled. Therefore you can not make binding statements like that. I am not sure as to the ammount of these Palestinians that were killed, but as I recall it was fewer then the thousands. Perhaps a couple hundred. So this is blantly ignorant statement.
The Geneva convention also applys to all parties of the war, as well as to netrual countries. All of them should have gave the refugees proper saftey, hygine, and education treatment. In this regard the Arab countries that they fled to treated them in much worse terms then anyone would consider humane.
| quote: | Another thing:
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? |
Do you understand what "both parties" mean? I have not seen the Palestinians move forward to approach the Tenet plan either. The fact is it does not state that they have to, or that each side must implement a ceasefire regardless of the other. It has to come from both parties, and can not be one sided. There is no indications that the Palestinians have stopped their attacks on the Israelis, and likewise no indication that the Israelis have stopped their offensive.
Also immediate and meaningful are a contraction, oxymoron if you will, the fact that they put meaningful in there sort of nullifies immediate.
| quote: | | Also, how does that legitimize Israeli tanks rolling into even more cities? |
Again, Article 51 inconjunction with this security council resolution and number 4.
| quote: | | I'd love to get answers from you, but I'm starting to lose faith.. |
Not a religious man eh? All the better.
Yoepus
As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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. :( |
I'll try and get first crack at it:
It all stems from pre-1948 and the british mandate British offer Arabs all of Mandate for their help in support of the war of WWI.
British offer all of Mandate to the Jews for their help in support of the war of WWI, plus the Jewish Homeland concept. The Jews unlike the Arabs however got this in writing.
The Jews and Arabs could not live with one another, Arabs felt all the area belonged to them and there was a dramatic rise in their population durning this time.
Internal fighting between them. Arabs terrroize Jews, Jews terroize Arabs, and Jews rebel against the British.
British gives away 80% of the mandate to the Arabs (jordan). Fighting continues, and they decide to make a plan (Peel Commision) to split the 20% that is left between the Arabs and the Jews. No one agrees, they both fight. 1948 UN does the same thing. Jews agree, Arabs fight. Jews get more land by winning the war. 1967, Arabs fight again, lose more land to the jews by losing the war. 1973 same concept as above but no substantial territorial gains.
Current crisis: Palestinians (same arabs as in Jordan) want the rest of the land (like in the previous wars). Israel wants peace.
YoepusIt's important to remember that Jesus loves you. Because everyone else thinks your an arsehole. |
|
|
| Ckerr812 |
| All I got to say there Yoepus, is that if Isreal attacks anybody in or fires on Church of Nativity there is going to be ALOT of pissed of people against isreal. So lets hope that they have enough brains not to touch that church. It will just make things ALOT worst....and they can get ALOT worse. that's not a threat but rather an un bias observation. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ckerr812
All I got to say there Yoepus, is that if Isreal attacks anybody in or fires on Church of Nativity there is going to be ALOT of pissed of people against isreal. So lets hope that they have enough brains not to touch that church. It will just make things ALOT worst....and they can get ALOT worse. that's not a threat but rather an un bias observation. |
Yup, the Palestinian militants are desperate. This is btw a strict violation of the fourth Geneva convetion, them seeking shelter by using civilian hostages.
If the Israelis go in, it will be with a SWAT like team designated for hostage-rescue. Again, a pitty how low these Palestinians go sometime. I find it sort of funny you see this as Israel's fault but oh well. Hopefully they can resolve this one through a negotiator and mediation.
Yoepus
Girls want a lot of things from one guy. Conversely, guys want one thing from a lot of girls. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
Yoepus, what a load of .
Nowhere in any of those articles does it legitimise the deliberate shooting into the direction of civilian crowds, and wounding unarmed crowds that are fleeing you any way.
I can only assume you hoped I wouldn't read them, but I read every word, and twice through.
First quote is irrelevant. It's about armed people attacking UN personnel. This was unarmed Western civilians in a peaceful protest in front of IDF troops.
The second quote calls for an end to all acts of violence. You seem to think this allows Israeli troops to shoot at innocent unarmed protestors and wound nine of them?
Again, you obviously didn't I'd read them. This is what I was taking the piss out of earlier, when I said Sharon is a looney and then quoted the Locarno Peace treaty directed at Germany in 1925! This is what this equates too.
The third one is the best though! It states that they can "may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons do demand".
This was a hilarious example!
a) These people weren't even evacuated. They were ushered away from the Israelis hands. They were not evacuated from the combat zone.
b) They were not warned, they were fired upon. You may call this a warning shot, but I have a pair of eyes and I can see that it was a reckless one. 9 people were injured and dozens of rounds were fired in the short minute they were filming.
c) Thirdly, there was no imperative military reason demanding that these people be shot at. If there was, why weren't they evacuated? I doubt they were, given that shots are fired to disperse or "clear" a crowd, not evacuate one.
Who the hell fires warning shots to "evacuate" a crowd??? |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
Izzy, you still seem to have an element of confusion over where I stand here, I think, so I'll try and make it as clear as can be.
| quote: | | 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? |
Now I realise that just because I can't find any evidence of investigation or disciplinary action, I still cannot assert 100% that they didn't happen.
But two points I have to make:
Firstly, if there is no mention on the internet, anywhere, regarding these investigations, not even just as a passing comment, absolutely nothing, it would suggest they didn't happen. There are thousands of newssites out there, and with the help of the "cached" button on google I trawled through a lot. That I couldn't find a single one, even just mentioning an investigation as a passing comment, would suggest at the very least that it didn't happen.
Secondly, what is the point in an investigation if it is not available to the public, or an impartial body, for scrutiny?
An investigation which is not available for scrutiny is worthless and is about as good as no investigation at all.
"i do not see how you can call the whole nations military as terrorists or responsible for the acts of individuals"
I never said this. What I am saying is, the Israeli violations that do occur are those of the IDF. The international allegations are directed towards the IDF. If the IDF are now going to go and invade millions of people, then they as a body must take responsibility for individual actions of that body.
In short, the actions I refer to are actions committed by the IDF. I have never said everyone in the IDF is evil.
And here is my answer to your last question:
"why is something that has not been proven to be terrorism equally evil as terrorism itself"
I've never said this either. I don't judge the two as evil. I would be inclined to think that the Israelis have committed fewer attrocities, certainly. However, they have done enough wrong to lose my support.
In short, I don't judge them (the murderous actions of the IDF and the suicide bombs of the Palestinians) as equal evils, but I judge them both as disgusting and I cannot support either side. I really can't think of a clearer way to put this, so I hope it makes sense this time.
It would seem you find my suspicion of the IDF excessive, yes?
Well call me paranoid, or gullible, or whatever, but I feel I have a damn good right to be suspicous. In a minute I'll post a couple of articles (out of thousands that are on the internet) which raise suspicion... |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
First quote is irrelevant. It's about armed people attacking UN personnel. This was unarmed Western civilians in a peaceful protest in front of IDF troops.
The second quote calls for an end to all acts of violence. You seem to think this allows Israeli troops to shoot at innocent unarmed protestors and wound nine of them? |
Your last post has demonstate a few things to me:
1) You are no lawyer of international law
2) You are not an intellect or scholar of any sort
3) You are incapable of understanding what you read
4) You are incapable of undrestanding a basic logical argument
5) You are set in your ways no matter how much proof or evidence is state to counter these arguments
6) You are blinded by your conspirasist theories and idealistic and completly unrealistic view of pacifism
7) You are blinded by your hate for the Israeli government and military
8) You seem to suffer from a psychological disorder that has impared your congitive thought processies
It was nice to debate with you till now, but your last post has proven me that you do not wish to debate with me further, and therefore I will cease further corespondences with you in regard to this topic, and other topics of important military, political, or historical relevance.
I suggest you might want to discontinue the use of your mind-altering substances.
Regards,
Yoepus
There is a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
I feel this article is of enough significance to warrant a post of it's own. This is taken from amnesty internationals American site. I trust that noone here will be moronic enough to accuse Amnesty International of being biased.
I sincerely hope this raises an eyebrow or two. I urge everyone to read the full contents of this extract.
Source: http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2002/israel04022002.html
Statement to the UN Commission on Human Rights, Israel and Occupied Territories
| quote: | Commission on Human Rights, 58th Session, 18 March - 26 April 2002 Agenda item 8: Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine ORAL STATEMENT BY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL Tuesday 2 April 2002
Armed Palestinians have breached fundamental principles of international humanitarian law on numerous occasions. It is not acceptable to deliberately target civilians, to let off a bomb where women and children are standing, to shoot a girl on a street, to arbitrarily target cars on roads or to kill people who are held as prisoners.
These actions are shocking. Yet they can never justify the human rights violations and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions which, over the past 18 months, have been committed daily, hourly, even every minute, by the Israeli authorities against Palestinians. Israeli forces have consistently carried out killings when no lives were in danger. The Israeli authorities' failure to carry out proper investigations into unlawful killings sends the message that Palestinian lives are cheap. More than 600 Palestinian homes have been systematically demolished, making thousands homeless, the vast majority children. More than 100 checkpoints throughout the West Bank and Gaza have not stopped suicide bombings. The closures of towns and villages deny freedom of movement and appear to be set up to harass, collectively punish, intimidate and humiliate the Palestinian people.
Two weeks ago Amnesty International delegates investigated the Israeli army's recent attacks on towns, including refugee camps. In each instance tanks had entered the area, rolling over cars, running over walls, breaking down house and shop fronts. Heavy fire was used against densely-populated residential areas. Homes of the families of "wanted" men or suicide bombers were blown up, causing severe structural damage to houses all around.
In the camps curfews were imposed and electricity, water and telephones cut off for up to nine days. In several camps male Palestinians between 15 and 45 were ordered to report to an assembly point and hundreds were arrested. For the first 24 hours they were handcuffed, blindfolded, given no food, no blanket, and not allowed to go to the toilet. Ten days afterwards about 100 of more than 2,500 arbitrarily arrested remained in detention. Again, in treatment apparently intended to hurt and degrade the population, Israeli soldiers who occupied apartments had systematically trashed them: clothes were torn, cupboards emptied on the floor, TV sets hurled down stairs, and a copy of the Qur'an was torn into pieces and scattered on the floor. An independent military advisor, one of Amnesty International's delegates, said: "Either the Israeli army is totally undisciplined or they have been ordered to disobey the laws of war".
Chairperson,
This language would have been even stronger if we were describing the present incursions.
During the incursions the IDF unlawfully killed six medical aid workers, including two doctors. Ambulances, including those of the ICRC, have been consistently shot at. Such attacks on the fundamental principle of medical neutrality are flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions. The director of the Red Crescent at Tulkarem told delegates that it was now safer to transport patients by taxi than by ambulance.
Chairperson,
The Commission on Human Rights must send a strong message to all governments involved in the peace process that human rights can not be neglected. It is more than a year since the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry called for urgent deployment of international human rights monitors. With more than 1,000 Palestinians and more than 300 Israelis killed, including hundreds of Palestinian and Israeli children, it is now clearer than ever that the paralysis of the international community in delaying the setting up of such protection is sacrificing the lives and human rights of Palestinians and the lives of Israelis. Amnesty International urges members of the Commission to make every effort to reach a consensus on all resolutions. Security can only be achieved through full respect for human rights, not at their expense. |
Now having read that, I hope that you ask yourselves not "Is this worse than Arafat" but ask yourselves this:
After these allegations from one of the most respected bodies in international politics, can I really side with these people in invading millions of lives without similar evidence to the contrary?
Evidence to the contrary is not evidence deploring Arafat, but evidence which reflects an opposite image of Israeli forces. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
Yoepus, if you consult a proffessional in the field I'm sure they'd have a good laugh.
As a point of interest, two of my uncles are lawyers and one is a judge, but I wouldn't waste their time with such a ludicrous attempt to justify shooting at civilians.
As for your comments about my intellect, grow up you arrogant bigot. |
|
|
| tenor |
| quote: | | I can not confirm what he did or did not do and the circumstances in which he acted, I was not there. |
So nothing is certain unless you see it with your own eyes? Have you seen all those palestinian suicide bombings?
I'll provide you with some links, since i'm like that. You, on the other hand, hardly ever back your arguments up.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast...sharon.profile/
http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...it+101%22&hl=fi[/url] <- Sharons election website, touting the fact that he was in command of unit 101....
| quote: | | The fact is I had already stated that Sharon was the Defense Minister durning the Leabonese war, and therefore 2nd in command and partly in charge (again same claims of indirect responsability can be made for the Prime-minster but where not). |
The prime minister of that time is not the current prime minister. Sharon is. I personally wouldnt feel comfortable with a murderer like that representing me and deciding for my things.
| quote: | | Sidenote: Yes Israel was defending itself in Lebanone, altough I am quiet sure you can find all the conspriacy theories you like on why Israel wanted to enter the hole other then the fact that they were attacking Israel (does the school masacre in the north ring a bell?). |
I'll give you that one. (see, some of us can say 'i was wrong')
| quote: | | If you look closely in the debate there are many contratictory reports from many parties, many eyewitness and such. I chose to give him the benifit of the doubt, on the basis of innocent till proven guilty, and as far as my recollection he has not been found to be directly guilty for anyone of these acts. |
As in, 'found guilty on a court of law'? Isn't it enough that he himself boasts being the leader of that unit and it being public knowledge that they destroyed Qibya?
| quote: | | Yes I did. Again your book is debatable about the reality of the transfers, did you read the review I posted? |
Uh? Are you denying the fact that Israeli troops destroyed villages for the purpose of driving the people out of their homes? I could start naming villages again, but I think you already know the names of them..
| quote: | | If you say so, I was under the impression they never even asked to come back. And despite your claims you can find evidence to the contrary of Israel allowing many refugees to return. |
What is there to come back to? Will Israel build houses to them like they build for jewish settlers?
| quote: | | Jew's don't have a hell. Secondly we did not kill them, most fleed before we got 'there'. |
Ahhhh so why the bodies in Sabra and Shatila? Made out of sugar or something..
| quote: | | Thridly it is estimated that less then 600,000 Palestinians lived in the current area of Israel and the territories before 1948. Post 1948 more then 150,000 Palestinians (or Arabs) stayed put. Almost all of these became Israeli Arab citizens. This would indicate that about less then 450,000 Palestinians fled. Therefore you can not make binding statements like that. |
I would like to see the source of these numbers, as I'm seeing quite different numbers where I'm looking.. http://www.un.org/unrwa/pr/pdf/figures.pdf (I'm looking at UN - 800000 refugees by 1953.. where did all those extra palestinians breed in just 5 years??)
| quote: | | I am not sure as to the ammount of these Palestinians that were killed, but as I recall it was fewer then the thousands. Perhaps a couple hundred. So this is blantly ignorant statement. |
sarcasm, rather. but - you are wrong here. In sabra and shatila alone, over 3000 palestinians were killed.
| quote: | | The Geneva convention also applys to all parties of the war, as well as to netrual countries. All of them should have gave the refugees proper saftey, hygine, and education treatment. In this regard the Arab countries that they fled to treated them in much worse terms then anyone would consider humane. |
Read again. Especially the part that starts with 'The Occupying Power' and ends with 'undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, ... that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.
Has Israel, btw. declared war? I'd also say that when the british mandate was still on, Israel wasnt even a nation, and there was no war, the 'evacuations' of the palestinians were totally illegal and immoral.
Also, if others do not treat them well, it is no excuse for Israel not treating them well. Other countries treated the jews badly before, but thats no excuse for the treatment they got from the nazis.
| quote: | | Do you understand what "both parties" mean? |
Yes, but that was a remark to you claiming that there is no time set.
| quote: | | I have not seen the Palestinians move forward to approach the Tenet plan either. |
How can they when the people are not even allowed on the street and their official leader is under siege? (and dont start about arafat again, i dont like him either)
| quote: | | Again, Article 51 inconjunction with this security council resolution and number 4. |
Article 51 states that the states can react until security council gives its decision. They gave the decision. It said 'stop fighting NOW'. |
|
|
| tenor |
| quote: | Firstly, if there is no mention on the internet, anywhere, regarding these investigations, not even just as a passing comment, absolutely nothing, it would suggest they didn't happen. There are thousands of newssites out there, and with the help of the "cached" button on google I trawled through a lot. That I couldn't find a single one, even just mentioning an investigation as a passing comment, would suggest at the very least that it didn't happen.
|
B'Tselem mentions them in one of their publications. 'As of 14 November 2001, the Military Police investigations unit investigated only fourteen cases of illegal shooting. '.. I guess most of those 700 palestinians dead (between 29.9.2000 and end of 2001) were militants then.. |
|
|
| Devbert |
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
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!
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 ...
This is just an assumption.
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.
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? |
"They" was the US Government. It could be much higher, that's just the number I remember being quoted. It was probably higher.
The northern alliance may be up to their old antics, but I do think it was for the better. Women can now actually show their faces, no more constant public executions, and other such things.
The Americans and British aren't in control, but shouldn't be. We should just oversee Afghanistan's development, not make them do things.
And it isn't an assumption. Israel is killing civilians, but not in record numbers or anything. Any civilian casualty is one too many, but they are going to happen.
I just can't understand your massive distrust for the IDF. There are definetly bad apples, but you seem to think of the entire unit as just a ragtag bunch of trigger happy genociders. And for the most part, I think they do a pretty good job at avoiding unnecessary civilian casualties (once again, there are exceptions).
Have their been any children killed since the tanks rolled in? I don't know.
And what about the past couple years before tanks were rolling in? Children didn't have to run from tanks. They just had to stay out of the crossfires, and not through rocks and molotov coctails at soldiers.
I don't think you should answer my statement with an open ended question like that. Especially when your talking about a development that happened days ago, when this has been going on for years. |
|
|
|
|
