Content of Posts...

[TheGuyFromTheOtherPost]

...

Look at Arhar's "Contribution" thread. You call those reasonable replies? And besides, if these things generate more chaos then they would generate understanding, why have them in the first place?

Nobody replied to Gizmo's "Independent Media Centre (Palestine)" thread. At least this one brought more updated information.

Once again, you guys are letting the CPA fall apart. No body is willing to take action. Everyone is acting on the defensive...

If that's what you guys want, go ahead an act upon it...but don't say it's the "right" thing to do. It's not.

 

[Spiderman]

That's the thread I was talking about. And yes, most are pretty reasonable (and already addressed in that thread).

No one replied to Gizmo's thread because of the point I was trying to make: perhaps people were tired of it or agree with it. I certainly didn't want to bother with it, although I found it interesting that for an "independent" outlet, it sure didn't appear to cover any shootings on the Palestinian's part. Of course, apparently only Palestinians were contributing to the stories, so why would they do that

Or maybe people just like replying to arhar...

 

[Gizmo]

It isnt in the remit of the Palestinian IMC to report on events that happen outside Palestine... thats why its te PALESTINIAN IMC. No doubt the events in Israel (such as suicide attacks) were reported by the Israel branch if the IMC web.

However, again, I fail to see the merit in regarding the attacks by palestinian terrorist/freedom fighters as being on a par with attacks by the Israeli military that specifically target civilians. There can be no scale of retaliation where the response to two suicide bombers is a week-long incursion into palestine, the murder of over 500 people, deliberate targetting of their head of state, imposition of a curfew, etc etc etc.

Its not about 'the palestinians attacked, then the israelis attacked, so they are even'. If that was the case the bodycounts on each side would not be outweighed 30:1 or more.

Whenever the IRA bombed targets in Ulster or mainland Britain, did the British army surge over the border into the Republic Of Ireland, seize Dublin, and kill thirty irishmen for every Briton killed? No. And do you think that if we HAD behaved like that there would now be peace on Northern Ireland? No again.
The response of the Israeli army does not have peace, or the security of it`s citizens as an aim - it just has the murder of palestinians as it`s aim.

 

[Istanbul]

Quite frankly, this is starting to piss me off.

Do you know how hard it is to truly piss me off? I strongly doubt it. You've seen annoyed before, mostly with Gizmo and before with Duke, but you've never seen pissed off.

You people...and by you people, I mean mostly arhar and Gizmo...are A) bringing your flameposts into EVERY active message board of the CPA and B) making reading threads an unpleasant thing to do.

I'm sick of the fighting over September 11th. It was a tragedy. It was an attack. People died. GET OVER IT. I don't care how many people die in Palestine every 14 1/2 minutes, whose job it is to report it, or who thinks the other is racist/stupid/ill-informed/whatever.

What I care about is the simple fact that I actively dislike coming to the CPA these days, simply because of all the in-fighting. It seems like there are no safe forums to go to that don't involve Gizmo and SOMEBODY getting into an argument.

arhar - If your idea of funny is posting inflammatory comments and dancing around the flames that form, I suggest you try to find another source of entertainment. It's not funny, it's not cool, and it's not okay.

Gizmo - Stop arguing with people. Seriously. That's all there is to it. Everything I see you say these days involves either how much this site sucks, or how much someone sucks, whether you're calling them ill-informed or idiotic or god only knows what else. If you can't relate to people without fighting, just stick it inside. (God knows, I stick it inside every time I read one of your snide little posts.)

I'm sorry, people. I tried to hold it back, I really did. It takes a lot for me to willingly step into a full-fledged brouhaha, verbal fists swinging...but I have HAD it with the incessant bickering. If it's this or nothing, I'd prefer nothing.

pant...pant...

And now, back to your regularly-scheduled forums, God willing.

 

[Spiderman]

Gizmo: True, it was called the Palestinian IMC. I thought Independent was part of it also, and how exactly independent can you get if you don't report both sides (same for Israeli, but that wasn't brought up).

And I WAS talking about shootings in Palestinian territories, or at least the refugee camps that were invaded. Again, I haven't recently read the thread, but it was my impression that it was attempting to report events inside a camp. And not all shootings inside the camps were done by Israelis.

It is also my impression that the military is not specifically targetting the civilians to the extent of shootings. Roundups maybe.

And it was not "two suicide bombers", but rather the buildup of many.

I can't say for England except their response apparently worked for them. But then, neither does England have the same recent history as Israel; at least it has the luxury of a substantial body of water separating it from most surprise attacks.

Perhaps Israel's response IS wrong. Perhaps the Palestinian response is wrong. But until you live it, you can't really say.

 

[Gizmo]

Isty. if you dont like it, dont read it. It IS possible to avoid it you know, this IS a thread about the subject, so dopnt go talking about us corrupting non-topic threads.

I think your attitude simply shows the willingness of americans to ignore anything that doesnt happen in your own back yard. "What, hundreds of people died? Thats terrible. Wait, they werent American? Well why are you telling ME?"
You dont care. Well, guess that just shows how shallow and uncaring you really are.

This site sucks. Im not the only one who`s aying it.
I dont believe i make many comments attacking people as stupid. You get special priority on that my IQ-challenged comrade.

Spidey. It IS independent - if you read the article you will have seen that the contributors were from all walks of life, and many of the contributions are from international aid workers. There will be inherent bias in the reporting, but from the independent aid workers you can also expect frank and honest accounts of what is happening, even if their commentary on right/wrong is warped.

From my understanding there was very little resistance in the towns from Palestinians, simply because the towns were largely occupied by civilians, regardless of what the Israeli authorities say about it being mainly terrorists. The Israeli military deliberately ordered attacks on civilian targets. An Israeli helicopter pilot was dismissed for refusing to fire on a house where civilians were known to be, and which was not considered to have terrorists inside. The israeli solidiers themselves are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with what they are being asked to do. There are numerous CONFIRMED (by western as well as palestinian sources) of civilians being deliberately and knowingly herded into buildings, then those buildings being demolished.

And I believe essentially it was for two suicide bombers. Or possible all the previous bloody reprisals for earlier attacks have already been forgotten?

And although Britain has a span of water that is barely relevant - the Irish terrorists are allowed full freedom of movement to the British mainland and are typically living in the country for months or years prior to the attack. The span of water is no defence against surprise attack, and also Ulster - brunt of most attacks, is not defended by any span of water. The only difference between the UK/Ireland situation and the Israel/Palestine scenario is how viciously the israelis retaliate, thus ensuring the conflict only deepens.

Perhaps Israel's response IS wrong. Perhaps the Palestinian response is wrong. But until you live it, you can't really say.

That sounds like a tired attempt to get out of the conversation, not a true argument. Until we`ve lived through the holocaust, who are we to say it was wrong?

 

[Gizmo]

The thing is, the Israelis arent trying to deny the murder of civilians, they are trying to justify it. If you see Israeli government ministers in interviews with western journalists they dont try to deny targetting civilians, they try to justify it by pointing to the deaths of Israeli civilians.

Even if 'eye for an eye' was an acceptable system, which it isnt, this is thirty eyes for and eye.

Not only is it not a just response, it only makes things worse. The policy Sharon is following has a genocidal aim.

 

[Spiderman]

Again, I don't know if the IMC is localized to one camp or refers to all of them. You have the gunmen holed up at that Church of the Nativity(?) and you have that ambush incident. I find it hard to believe that those are the only major resistance items. If it's to one camp, I can better believe it. But then, what good is posting just one account of one camp?

I believe it was the two most recent suicide bombers that pushed it to a head. But there have been plenty more within the past 3-6 months alone that didn't have the Israelis invade. Let's put it this way: if it only took two suicide attacks to invade, why not do it on the very first two?

I'm not referring to "little" terrorist attacks, I'm refering to full-out invasions of war that the Middle East has experienced in the late 40's, the 60's, and 70's. Except for WWII, Britain has not been under the threat of attack from any consortium of nations (and actually experienced it).

BTW, did Britain experience suicide bombers or just the "regular" car bombs and the like? I don't remember.

You're right, perhaps it IS a weak argument. And I am tired of it because as others have said, there's nothing new. Only the Jewish victims of the Holocaust did NOT go on suicide missions where they were praised or rewarded by other nations.

Edit because of your second post: I have not seen any interviews so I can't comment. But you would think that with a genocidal aim, there'd be a lot more casualties than there have been. Heck, the Rwandans did a better job at that.

 

[Ura]

You have the gunmen holed up at that Church of the Nativity(?) and you have that ambush incident. I find it hard to believe that those are the only major resistance items.

Ok, quick example. You can have an assault rifle, say the trusted american army choice, the M16. I have an A1 abraham tank and am going to run you over. Resist me.
Its very difficult to resist tanks, apache helicopters, even well armed troops with some small arms fire and some grenades, thats why other then the one ally ambush and the church standoff there has been little to no resistance. Most civilians don't own anything there now more lethal then a wooden spoon.

Let's put it this way: if it only took two suicide attacks to invade, why not do it on the very first two?

Because now Isreal can say its part of a war on terrorism and have alot more leniancy given to them from other world powers where as before others would have stepped in immediatly to break up the invasion.

BTW, did Britain experience suicide bombers or just the "regular" car bombs and the like? I don't remember.

Whats the difference. Car bombs and body bombs both have the same theory of "click", "BOOM!", "splat". Is a bomb suddenly more evil or menacing or somehow more wrong because someone is wearing it rather then attaching it to someones car ignition? I think not. The IRA was fond or political kidnappings and assasinations though from what I remember.

Only the Jewish victims of the Holocaust did NOT go on suicide missions where they were praised or rewarded by other nations.

Actually they did. During the second world war there was a jewish group of gurilla resistance against the Nazi's that moved in civilian garb and carried out assassinations on high ranking german officers. The difference is that they weren't so desperate as to grab a grenade and hug a Nazi, they had some resources and used things like sniper rifles. Any time they went out it was technically a "suicide" mission because they moved so deep into german territory that there was often no chance of them returning after they pulled the trigger.

I find it stunning that people think there is a huge moral difference between shooting someone in the head and blowing them up with a block of plastique.

 

[Spiderman]

Ok, quick example. You can have an assault rifle, say the trusted american army choice, the M16. I have an A1 abraham tank and am going to run you over. Resist me.
Its very difficult to resist tanks, apache helicopters, even well armed troops with some small arms fire and some grenades, thats why other then the one ally ambush and the church standoff there has been little to no resistance. Most civilians don't own anything there now more lethal then a wooden spoon.

Well, I haven't seen any reports of "little to no resistance", so where does that leave us? And I have seen reports that arm caches have been found that contain a lot more than small arms and grenades. And it's still a town, not a wide open field with room for tanks to maneuver. They were using bulldozers to clear a path for the tanks.

Because now Isreal can say its part of a war on terrorism and have alot more leniancy given to them from other world powers where as before others would have stepped in immediatly to break up the invasion.

This would be true if there had only been those two suicide missions since 9/11 or even a month later. But there hasn't, so I don't buy this (I mean, I buy that Israel is using the war on terrorism as some justification, but not the sole reason).

Whats the difference. Car bombs and body bombs both have the same theory of "click", "BOOM!", "splat". Is a bomb suddenly more evil or menacing or somehow more wrong because someone is wearing it rather then attaching it to someones car ignition? I think not. The IRA was fond or political kidnappings and assasinations though from what I remember.

Well, technically there's the difference in that a suicide bomber doesn't care if he/she's found and located, she can still blow up. Whereas with car bombs and whatnot , the bombers are usually looking to still escape with their lives and have a tad more incentive not to get caught.

Actually they did. During the second world war there was a jewish group of gurilla resistance against the Nazi's that moved in civilian garb and carried out assassinations on high ranking german officers. The difference is that they weren't so desperate as to grab a grenade and hug a Nazi, they had some resources and used things like sniper rifles. Any time they went out it was technically a "suicide" mission because they moved so deep into german territory that there was often no chance of them returning after they pulled the trigger.

Um, don't forget the second part of my statement "where they were rewarded or praised by other nations".

I find it stunning that people think there is a huge moral difference between shooting someone in the head and blowing them up with a block of plastique.

I don't think there's a HUGE difference, just a difference (although to be honest, my original intent in posting that might end up agreeing with you). It's like when planes were used as bombs; it's no longer considered okay to acquiese to hijackers, now you fight them.

 

[Ura]

I haven't seen any reports of "little to no resistance", so where does that leave us?

little to no resistence doesn't make headlines because theres nothing to write.
"Umm yeah, the soldiers walked in, there was little resistence, nothing really happened."
Doesn't exactly make for a viewer grabbing news day.
But really, think about how those troops got to where they are now. They weren't fighting tooth and nail to get to the church of the nativity. There have been a few running gun battles, but thats it. And other then that one ambush the same thing has been happening in other Palastinian cities. There haven't been any major battles because there is virtually no one to fight back. So they found arms caches, big deal, the caches didn't magically spring to life and fight back, they were just found. Hence why there has been little to no resistence and media is only going to report what happens, not what doesn't happen.

And it's still a town, not a wide open field with room for tanks to maneuver. They were using bulldozers to clear a path for the tanks.

You have to understand the theory of the tank. It goes where it want regardless of it being a field or urban center. They were using bulldozers to demolish full buildings and homes, the tanks clear their own path simply by driving where they wish to go and widening the road if need be. Bulldozers just tidy up the rubble afterwards. There have been several photos and videos of where tanks have forced their way down back allys by leaving large gashes in the sides of the surrounding buildings.

This would be true if there had only been those two suicide missions since 9/11 or even a month later. But there hasn't, so I don't buy this (I mean, I buy that Israel is using the war on terrorism as some justification, but not the sole reason).

They had to test the waters of world mood and opinion and at least try some of other offered solutions. For whatever people may think of Israeli PM Sharon, he isn't a stupid man and knows strategy. When it didn't work out and the world wasn't saying "NO" he went in guns blazing so to speak to reach the point we're at today.

Well, technically there's the difference in that a suicide bomber doesn't care if he/she's found and located, she can still blow up. Whereas with car bombs and whatnot , the bombers are usually looking to still escape with their lives and have a tad more incentive not to get caught.

So in other words there is no difference as being caught or not isn't part of the bombers objective most of the time, some just don't feel like dying today, while others see it as a noble sacrifice. The bombers personal and religious beliefs aside I reiterate that there is no difference in the two styles of attack.

Um, don't forget the second part of my statement "where they were rewarded or praised by other nations".

I didn't forget it, I chose not to address it because it leads into the whole, "our terrorists are freedom fighters and their freedom fighters are terrorists" disscussion, which I really don't like getting into because its so very much based on opinion rather then fact. I will never even think to justify anything done by the axis during WWII and I do believe that they had to be beaten by any means nessesary, but now we've got Palastinians who are in a similar boat on smaller scale against Isreal and we're dubbing them terrorists and unjust because they're going agaist an allied country of the US.
I find it hypocritically humorous that we give one gold and spices while making the other wear the deadmans blindfold.

It's like when planes were used as bombs; it's no longer considered okay to acquiese to hijackers, now you fight them.

I all honesty I don't think it was ok before, its just our politically correct, art of the gun society that has us bred to be timid to power and submissive to the dominant. We should have always fought them.

 

[Svenmonkey]

Look at yourselves! Everyone here stop ranting! It's so frustrating!

STOP THE RANT WAR!

 

[TomB]

They're discussing, not ranting, and they're being quite civil about it. If the discussion isn't enjoyable to you then move on to something you find more enjoyable.

And be happy...

 

[Spiderman]

Originally posted by Ura

little to no resistence doesn't make headlines because theres nothing to write.
"Umm yeah, the soldiers walked in, there was little resistence, nothing really happened."
Doesn't exactly make for a viewer grabbing news day.
But really, think about how those troops got to where they are now. They weren't fighting tooth and nail to get to the church of the nativity. There have been a few running gun battles, but thats it. And other then that one ambush the same thing has been happening in other Palastinian cities. There haven't been any major battles because there is virtually no one to fight back. So they found arms caches, big deal, the caches didn't magically spring to life and fight back, they were just found. Hence why there has been little to no resistence and media is only going to report what happens, not what doesn't happen.

It is my impression that they weren't fighting "tooth and nail" but that they were fighting. Why would 200 gunmen flee to the Church in the first place? Because they were outnumbered and cornered, to be sure... but if they had an escape route open like presumably most of the other places, they would have taken it.

I guess the only way to settle this is to come up with collaborating accounts of Israeli casualties.

And the lack of usage of the arms cache could mean that the army was effective in confusing the Palestinians or being quicker to get to them first. In other words, they minimized their possible losses (the effectiveness of the ambush shows how they could have been used with enough planning). I guess it's just how you look at it.

You have to understand the theory of the tank. It goes where it want regardless of it being a field or urban center. They were using bulldozers to demolish full buildings and homes, the tanks clear their own path simply by driving where they wish to go and widening the road if need be. Bulldozers just tidy up the rubble afterwards. There have been several photos and videos of where tanks have forced their way down back allys by leaving large gashes in the sides of the surrounding buildings.

I haven't seen such photos or videos so I'm willing to take your word for it.

They had to test the waters of world mood and opinion and at least try some of other offered solutions. For whatever people may think of Israeli PM Sharon, he isn't a stupid man and knows strategy. When it didn't work out and the world wasn't saying "NO" he went in guns blazing so to speak to reach the point we're at today.

Again, another way of looking at it. I see that they at least tried other solutions (in your own words) and they didn't get anywhere so they resorted to this.

So in other words there is no difference as being caught or not isn't part of the bombers objective most of the time, some just don't feel like dying today, while others see it as a noble sacrifice. The bombers personal and religious beliefs aside I reiterate that there is no difference in the two styles of attack.

No, there is a difference in being caught (and the mode of delivery). Suicides don't care (unless they're totally off-target, like in a deserted zone). "Regular" bombers would like to live again to set off a next bomb (plus, the expertise to construct remote bombs is generally higher than strapping on some explosives to yourself, so you'd like to keep your experienced bombers around). There is no difference to the effectiveness of both methods though.

I didn't forget it, I chose not to address it because it leads into the whole, "our terrorists are freedom fighters and their freedom fighters are terrorists" disscussion, which I really don't like getting into because its so very much based on opinion rather then fact. I will never even think to justify anything done by the axis during WWII and I do believe that they had to be beaten by any means nessesary, but now we've got Palastinians who are in a similar boat on smaller scale against Isreal and we're dubbing them terrorists and unjust because they're going agaist an allied country of the US.
I find it hypocritically humorous that we give one gold and spices while making the other wear the deadmans blindfold.

I think the difference is that say the Palestinians stop all "aggressions", i.e. suicide bombings, rock throwings, etc and try to resolve the land issue (which I see as the basis for the whole disagreement) peacefully. Would the Israelis still be on a rampage? I seriously doubt it, 'cause otherwise they would have done so a LONG time ago and wouldn't have put up with the refugee camps or let Palestinians into Israel to work and whatnot. Now say the Jewish resistance ceased all suicide activity. Would the Nazis have stopped? Obviously not, as the Jews extermination was their goal in the first place.

In other words, the Jewish resistance was reacting, not pro-acting. Here, I believe the Palestinians are on the opposite foot.

And of course, again, that sentence above was opinion and it's how you look at it the whole mess.

I all honesty I don't think it was ok before, its just our politically correct, art of the gun society that has us bred to be timid to power and submissive to the dominant. We should have always fought them.

I don't know about being "timid to power and submissive", it was just the procedure. Apparently Americans make a bigger fuss if the hostages were killed while trying to retake the plane if there was a "no negotiation" policy. As opposed to Israel and India?, who take the planes back and lose some people initially (and of course, since it's another part of the world, you never hear the reaction of the families who lost members in the raid). It's how you look at losing a couple now in hopes of deterring future acts, but suffering immediately at home for it, or trying to appease the terrorists, saving lives, and so risk incurring future attacks but being safe politically at home.

That is an attempt at an overall view of that particular area, not an endorsement of either tactic (although theoretically, I like the Israeli approach but realistically, if one of my family members was aboard, I'm not sure I'd like them to go through with it).

 

[DÛke]

Spiderman:

In other words, the Jewish resistance was reacting, not pro-acting. Here, I believe the Palestinians are on the opposite foot...

For the sake of argument, I'll agree -- they were reacting. However, it's a very uncivilized reaction...murdering people, including children, by destroying their homes without a warning. You realize that many of these people died by having their house collapse over them. That's inhumane. That's not a reaction, that's terrorism.

 

[Spiderman]

Agreed (although I still wouldn't call it terrorism, which I think of as unsanctioned government aggressions. Since this IS government sponsored, I'd term it something else like "government aggression" or something). And I still hold it IS a reaction: if the Palestinians ceased hostilities, this would not have happened.

Of course, murdering civilians on buses, in restaurants, in nightclubs, in the market also is "uncivilized" and inhumane.

 

[Ura]

Why would 200 gunmen flee to the Church in the first place? Because they were outnumbered and cornered, to be sure... but if they had an escape route open like presumably most of the other places, they would have taken it.

To be sure they would have escaped given the opportunity, any good soldier/fighter/terrorist/whatever knows to live and run away to blow something up another day. But it comes back to my original statement of there being little resistance because they're gunmen running from tanks. The small arms fire won't even scratch the paint, and the better trained and equipped Israeli army is far more then a match for the majority of them. The church is just a place of sanctuary for them so they can buy time for themselves and negotiate an escape when just running wouldn't work.

I guess the only way to settle this is to come up with collaborating accounts of Israeli casualties.

The Israelis have had casualties, no doubt about that. But if the technology and training levels were closer they would have a heck of alot more. It comes down to being so technologically superior to their enemy that the enemy can offer little resistance.

I haven't seen such photos or videos so I'm willing to take your word for it.

Several Canadian news sources have had them, the Globe and Mail newpaper has been an excellent one however.

I see that they at least tried other solutions (in your own words) and they didn't get anywhere so they resorted to this.

Yes, they have tried other solutions. One past Isreali PM (Yitzak I think, or was it Rabin?) and Yasser Arafat won a nobel peace prize together for their efforts. Then when a deal was close an Isreali citizen took a gun and assassinated his own PM. Later quoted in the news he said he was afraid of his government giving away all "their" land to the damn arabs. The current Isreali leadership has been far more militant then others though, the exact reason he was voted into office to begin with.
The Palastinians see it however as a thief that has taken something of theirs (land), and is offering part of what has been stolen back as compensation. Thus the so called 'solutions' are unacceptable.

No, there is a difference in being caught (and the mode of delivery). Suicides don't care (unless they're totally off-target, like in a deserted zone). "Regular" bombers would like to live again to set off a next bomb

So the suicide bomber is 'caught', usually in several pieces. The 'regular' bomber is long left the area. So neither is really caught in the fashion that they are arrested and stand trial or anything like that. Thats the luxury of the vest bomb is that you can eliminate yourself as well as a few enemies at any time. This means no arrest or interrogation or security leak until some group claims responsibility.
However my original question about it is, is there any moral difference between the two types of bombing or something that makes one more evil or wrong, I don't think there is.

plus, the expertise to construct remote bombs is generally higher than strapping on some explosives to yourself, so you'd like to keep your experienced bombers around

Well, not really. Going with our running example of the car bomb. The car bomb is actually much easier to set up as its just a single block of plastique, 2 wires, and a detonator. Tie wires into car ignition or other electrical system of choice, when system is activated...BOOM!
A vest bomb such as those worn by a suicide bomber is much more complicated because of multiple wire attachments, shrapnel packs, and having to carry the portable power source for detonation, a 12volt battery is common. Then you have to make sure its all secure and hidden beneath clothing while active and not set it off prematurely. They tend to be much more unstable without ALOT of experience.

I think the difference is that say the Palestinians stop all "aggressions", i.e. suicide bombings, rock throwings, etc and try to resolve the land issue (which I see as the basis for the whole disagreement) peacefully. Would the Israelis still be on a rampage? I seriously doubt it, 'cause otherwise they would have done so a LONG time ago and wouldn't have put up with the refugee camps or let Palestinians into Israel to work and whatnot.

I think they would try to find more ways to screw the palastinians politically given the chance. As you say, it depends on how you view the whole mess. If Isreal were to withdraw totally, all its citizens and military back to the 1967 borders and reconized Palastine as an independant state, then yes, I think all hostilities would stop. However the Palastinians are fighting against what they see as a hostile incursion into their land pushing and herding them back like animals. And to an extent I can understand that view and why they fight. Isreal has never had a totally clean record when dealing with Palastinian peoples. I think that if Isreal were really serious about peace then it would withdraw and seal its borders with Palastinain territory until an agreement was reached. Instead they have more and more settlers going into the west bank and gaza strip making Isreali settlements taking away more from the Arab peoples who already live there. To me thats just asking for trouble.

In other words, the Jewish resistance was reacting, not pro-acting. Here, I believe the Palestinians are on the opposite foot.

Well, before Britain (mostly) created Isreal for the displaced Jewish peoples in Europe who controlled the land? The Ottomans. The arab people were totally against the idea and was the United States. So from this its simply the Palastinians trying to reclaim their land, hence they are resisting the Jewish incursion much like the Jewish resisted the Nazi genocide campaign. By any means nessessary.

Apparently Americans make a bigger fuss if the hostages were killed while trying to retake the plane if there was a "no negotiation" policy.

Thats just politicians trying to play it clean. It looks great when it works, but I find it highly impractical.

It's how you look at losing a couple now in hopes of deterring future acts, but suffering immediately at home for it, or trying to appease the terrorists, saving lives, and so risk incurring future attacks but being safe politically at home.

Well, I'd say it works, simply because Isreal's national airline is considered to be the safest international airline in the world. Who thought 6 trained soldiers wearing body armor with uzi's built into their arm rests would keep people in line. Guess it works pretty good.

(although theoretically, I like the Israeli approach but realistically, if one of my family members was aboard, I'm not sure I'd like them to go through with it).

Don't worry, thats exactly how I feel about it too. Could you shoot your own mother or sister if it meant killing the terrorist hiding behind them for instance. Its a decision or line of thought that no civilian can really grasp until it happens or they're a tad off balance (mentally) to begin with.

And of course, again, that sentence above was opinion and it's how you look at it the whole mess.

Indeed it is.

You realize that many of these people died by having their house collapse over them. That's inhumane. That's not a reaction, that's terrorism.

Of course, murdering civilians on buses, in restaurants, in nightclubs, in the market also is "uncivilized" and inhumane.

You are both right that its uncivilized and inhumane, but they're both terrorizim or they both aren't. I'd say they both are since terrorism isn't limited to not being a government sponsored action. Blowing yourself up in a group of civilians or stuffing civilians in a house and playing 'ring-around-the-rosy' with a tank till the wall fall down are both horrid and disgusting acts that should never have been done by either side. Just like snipers in dark windows, car bombs, and apaches attacking civilian neighborhoods.

 

[DÛke]

Ura:

Blowing yourself up in a group of civilians or stuffing civilians in a house and playing 'ring-around-the-rosy' with a tank till the wall fall down are both horrid and disgusting acts that should never have been done by either side.

True.

However, in one case, we have tanks fighting for what you guys like to call "freedom." In another case, we have people ending their lives for what they call "freedom." When you look at tanks, that's all you see: a tank. When you see a tank, you know what it's there for.

On the other hand, there are people ending theirr lives. In this case, you really have to wonder, and wonder hard, about why these people end their lives like that.

I mean, you take a tank, you shove it across a wall, and there you go. It doesn't take guts. But a teenage girl...bombing herself...now that's just sad.

My point is, although you may call both of them "terrorism," one of them isn't really thought invoking, yet in the other, it's just an "enigma."

What would I have to do to someone to make them end their lives in such a filthy way?

 

[Spiderman]

Originally posted by Ura


To be sure they would have escaped given the opportunity, any good soldier/fighter/terrorist/whatever knows to live and run away to blow something up another day. But it comes back to my original statement of there being little resistance because they're gunmen running from tanks. The small arms fire won't even scratch the paint, and the better trained and equipped Israeli army is far more then a match for the majority of them. The church is just a place of sanctuary for them so they can buy time for themselves and negotiate an escape when just running wouldn't work.


The Israelis have had casualties, no doubt about that. But if the technology and training levels were closer they would have a heck of alot more. It comes down to being so technologically superior to their enemy that the enemy can offer little resistance.

It's not just tanks going in, it's the infantry too (which is why the ambush worked so well, you didn't see a tank immediately responding). I guess it all boils down to what a person considers "little". Frankly, for me there's resistance period, it doesn't matter if it's "little" or not. And probably considering the Palestinians' arms level, I think it's considerable.

Yes, they have tried other solutions. One past Isreali PM (Yitzak I think, or was it Rabin?) and Yasser Arafat won a nobel peace prize together for their efforts. Then when a deal was close an Isreali citizen took a gun and assassinated his own PM. Later quoted in the news he said he was afraid of his government giving away all "their" land to the damn arabs. The current Isreali leadership has been far more militant then others though, the exact reason he was voted into office to begin with.
The Palastinians see it however as a thief that has taken something of theirs (land), and is offering part of what has been stolen back as compensation. Thus the so called 'solutions' are unacceptable.

That was way back in '93. I'm talking about since 9/11.

So the suicide bomber is 'caught', usually in several pieces. The 'regular' bomber is long left the area. So neither is really caught in the fashion that they are arrested and stand trial or anything like that. Thats the luxury of the vest bomb is that you can eliminate yourself as well as a few enemies at any time. This means no arrest or interrogation or security leak until some group claims responsibility.
However my original question about it is, is there any moral difference between the two types of bombing or something that makes one more evil or wrong, I don't think there is.

I think we're approaching this differently and thus responding differently. I'm taking it from the bomber's viewpoint and it seems you're taking it from the result or effectiveness. No, there's no difference between the ultimate result: Someone's horribly hurt or dead. But I'm trying to say that there's a "desperation" level that's different in the two bomber's mind (kind of what Duke's saying).

Well, not really. Going with our running example of the car bomb. The car bomb is actually much easier to set up as its just a single block of plastique, 2 wires, and a detonator. Tie wires into car ignition or other electrical system of choice, when system is activated...BOOM!
A vest bomb such as those worn by a suicide bomber is much more complicated because of multiple wire attachments, shrapnel packs, and having to carry the portable power source for detonation, a 12volt battery is common. Then you have to make sure its all secure and hidden beneath clothing while active and not set it off prematurely. They tend to be much more unstable without ALOT of experience.

Yes, but you need to find a car where people aren't going to notice you messing with it (unless you fix it yourself and drive it somewhere, I don't know what the stats are for that in the UK). The suicide bomber just has to walk somewhere. I have no idea whether you're right concerning the actual makeup. There's probably no verifiable stats on failed suicide bombings where the bombers blew themselves up.

I think they would try to find more ways to screw the palastinians politically given the chance. As you say, it depends on how you view the whole mess. If Isreal were to withdraw totally, all its citizens and military back to the 1967 borders and reconized Palastine as an independant state, then yes, I think all hostilities would stop. However the Palastinians are fighting against what they see as a hostile incursion into their land pushing and herding them back like animals. And to an extent I can understand that view and why they fight. Isreal has never had a totally clean record when dealing with Palastinian peoples. I think that if Isreal were really serious about peace then it would withdraw and seal its borders with Palastinain territory until an agreement was reached. Instead they have more and more settlers going into the west bank and gaza strip making Isreali settlements taking away more from the Arab peoples who already live there. To me thats just asking for trouble.

Well, before Britain (mostly) created Isreal for the displaced Jewish peoples in Europe who controlled the land? The Ottomans. The arab people were totally against the idea and was the United States. So from this its simply the Palastinians trying to reclaim their land, hence they are resisting the Jewish incursion much like the Jewish resisted the Nazi genocide campaign. By any means nessessary.

I don't think the Palestinians have exactly a clean record against Jews and Israel either: look at the violence records when it was known that the Jews were looking for a homeland way back in the 1920's.

And before that, it's my impression that they DID co-exist rather peacefully before the announcement.

And I would buy that argument about resisting by any means necessary if this was continuous since 1940, but these "uprisings" just started in the '80's (of course, before that it was just full-out war but by other nations too).

Well, I'd say it works, simply because Isreal's national airline is considered to be the safest international airline in the world. Who thought 6 trained soldiers wearing body armor with uzi's built into their arm rests would keep people in line. Guess it works pretty good.

It works because terrorists tried to hijack an Israeli plane once and got taken out (with some civilian casualties). After that example the word was out not to mess with their airlines.

You are both right that its uncivilized and inhumane, but they're both terrorizim or they both aren't. I'd say they both are since terrorism isn't limited to not being a government sponsored action. Blowing yourself up in a group of civilians or stuffing civilians in a house and playing 'ring-around-the-rosy' with a tank till the wall fall down are both horrid and disgusting acts that should never have been done by either side. Just like snipers in dark windows, car bombs, and apaches attacking civilian neighborhoods.

I still disagree about trying to label both terrorism but I'm sure this has been beaten into the ground

Duke: While I'm sure that some of it has to do with knowledge of the overall situation, I think you can't say that for all cases. Both sides "brainwash" their children in the education system to hate the other and not open their minds also.

 

[DÛke]

...

Of course, I am tempted to ask how you know that these people "brainwash" their children...