War Now

He was killed in an accident. When civilians allow terrorists to blend within them then it's not surprising that civilians are killed. Can you think of a way to stop terrorists that hide within the civilian population without civilians accidently getting hurt?
 
Exactly. From the information I read, the children were in the car with the target. Even if that is not the precise case, the target was still very close to them. Why? Because it is an old tactic of terrorists and tyrants to use innocents as human shields, and to hide behind the populace.
That way, they intend to disuade attacks on them by enemys with scruples, and, in the case of Israel, to arouse the misguided sympathy of liberals and bleeding hearts elsewhere in the world.
It is, however, a tactic that is outlawed under the Geneva Convention, and an armed force is within its legal rights to assault such a target (as relayed by Schwarzkopf during a press conference during Desert Storm)

Thus, the terrorists are getting the consequences they wished for, with the international outrage at the deaths of the innocent children because of the will and the action of the Palestinian terrorists.
 
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Exactly. From the information I read, the children were in the car with the target. Even if that is not the precise case, the target was still very close to them. Why? Because it is an old tactic of terrorists and tyrants to use innocents as human shields, and to hide behind the populace.
That way, they intend to disuade attacks on them by enemys with scruples, and, in the case of Israel, to arouse the misguided sympathy of liberals and bleeding hearts elsewhere in the world.
It is, however, a tactic that is outlawed under the Geneva Convention, and an armed force is within its legal rights to assault such a target (as relayed by Schwarzkopf during a press conference during Desert Storm)

Thus, the terrorists are getting the consequences they wished for, with the international outrage at the deaths of the innocent children because of the will and the action of the Palestinian terrorists.
Click to expand...

:confused: :confused: ... :idea: ... :mad: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yeah, it was palestinians fault that Israel killed innocent palestinians...
Why don't we call these innocent to Israelis and therefore make a reveange-strike
against palestinans :rolleyes:
Why don't we just call WTC to a target and then say that it was evil yankees
fault that 4000 people died?...

Geez... :rolleyes:
 
That is a foolish twisting of logic, as you probably know.
The point is that the Palestinian terrorists, and others of their ilk, use the civilian populace for their nefarious purposes, whilst purporting to support and protect them, when in fact they bring about the opposite effect. It was the fault of the terrorists. That is plain and simple.
They initiated the conflict, no matter how it is looked at, and without their bombings, the Israelis would not go shooting missiles at vehicles.
Furthermore, it follows that the terrorists would not be greatly displeased at the results of their actions- the deaths of their own people. It gives them a twisted sense of legitimacy in the ignorant eyes of some, and rallies further support.

The difference between the actions of Israel and the WTC?
Simple. The Israelis are not out to kill non-combatants, the terrorists have it as their avowed aim and purpose. The connection that you make is erroneous, inflammatory and downright illogical.

I am not saying it is a good thing that children died; no one would. But we have to examine the reasons why they were there, with the target.
As long as the Palestinian people continue to be conned and coerced into supporting the terrorists, this type of thing can happen again.
It would possibly take a public reaction against the way of the gun as the only solution to remove the support base of the terrorists.

It all comes down to the familiar theories of guerrilla warfare, encapsulated in the oft quoted non-original words of Mao Ts Tung, that 'the guerrilla must move among the people like a fish in the water".
If we look at the success of British and Commonwealth forces in the Malayan Emergency, it can be attributed to winning the hearts and minds of the populace away from the communist terrorists of the day.

Another version of this is the Troubles in Northern Ireland, where war weariness of the public, Protestant and Catholic, was a factor in the groundswell of support for a peace process.

Thus, this can be seen as relevant to the Palestinian situation as the authority of the terrorist groups and the puppet government of Arafat is derived from the non-reaction of the masses against them, due to indoctrination, coercion and terrorism. The ball was in the court of Arafat, who has proved to be weak and absolutely ineffective, so it therefore passes onto the Palestinian people as to whether the conflict goes on.

This is a complicated situation, and one that at the moment is in outright war.
 
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
The point is that the Palestinian terrorists, and others of their ilk, use the civilian populace for their nefarious purposes, whilst purporting to support and protect them, when in fact they bring about the opposite effect. It was the fault of the terrorists. That is plain and simple.
Furthermore, it follows that the terrorists would not be greatly displeased at the results of their actions- the deaths of their own people. It gives them a twisted sense of legitimacy in the ignorant eyes of some, and rallies further support.
Click to expand...

You mean that the terrorist actually know they might be attacked by a helicopter at any time, and that's the reason why they have children in their cars? To "legitimate" furthers human bombings in retaliation for the death of those children?
And you're talking about twisted logic?

Anyway, if what you say is true, and if Israel wants to get rid of the terrorists (I understand that), so maybe they should stop using missiles to attack cars since there will be side casualties which you say are almost "good" for the terrorists, and use more accurate and maybe less obvious methods.
 
"You mean that the terrorist actually know they might be attacked by a helicopter at any time, and that's the reason why they have children in their cars? To "legitimate" furthers human bombings in retaliation for the death of those children?
And you're talking about twisted logic? "

Yes, the terrorists know that they can be hit at any time. It makes good sense from their perspective to muddy the waters with the issue of children. It cannot be argued that these terrorists do not know that Israel is coming for them. If you commit an act of war, of terrorism against a state, then that is the consequence. This is a twisted logic from the perspective of anyone who is not a terrorist, that is most certain. It is twisted to anyone who views the innocent as anything but pawns and human shields. It is twisted to anyone who abhors violence, terror and murder. In order to understand how to defeat them, you must learn how they think, learn what goes into the process of shaping them, what their influences and beliefs are. This is a common practice among those who study terror with an aim to helping end it, as one does oneself.

It may seem twisted to someone in the comparative peaceful comfort of Europe, the US or Australia, but yes, this is exactly how these murderous beasts think and operate: With no regard for the welfare of those the purport to defend and represent.

On the second point that was raised, I am less able to comment, not being involved in the operational planning or doctrine of the Israeli militaries counter terror campaign. There are significant tactical and other reasons why helicopters and fighters are used to launch missile attacks, including, but not limited to:
not risking the lives of your own men unnecessarily
increased speed and stealth from a standoff attack
less chance of being compromised than a ground ambush in heavily built up area.

Basically, if they went after them with snipers, it would cause a riot, and stand a good chance of getting the soldier killed. Similar circumstances could apply to a snatch and grab job. This is not to say that these operations could not be carried out, but each presents their own inherent difficulties and risks.
 
We use helicopters because we don't have any other choice. Arafat is obviously not doing a thing (The terrorists tha commit the ambush to a bus and the two suicide bombings, were among those Arafat said to Israel he has arreseted. He said that less then an hour before the attacks). We can't use a sniper because the terrorists are too far away and information about their movements is usually recieved when they're already moving, so we need something that can go to wherever they are within minutes. We're using the "hellfire 2" missiles, probably the most accurate guided weapons in the world. Did you see rooms tht were hit by them? One window was hit, but the effect radius of the explosion was so small that the other windows stayed intact. How can we do more in order to reduce civilian casualties?
 
I'm getting tired of all this nonsense and racism which is expressed all the time in this forum. It seems like arabs is not worthy any respect at all. One of the participants in this thread surely needs to think before posting. I will quote:

"But it isn't terrorism because the muslims have a majority in the UN..."

It is common among right wing extremists to blame a whole group of ethnic or religious background. In fact, the nazis used to and still claim that the jews are ruling the world.

"Not that we'd be bothered if B-52s will start flying over Gaza...."

This is outrageous. How can someone wish a genocide, and get away with it in this forum? Same poster actually even started a thread and HE was the man claiming that arabs was racists. This is, again, outrageous.

"The massacres in the refugee camps were made, without Israel knowing about it, by arab christians."

The evil arabs again. Or rather: the massacres in Sabra and Shatila is one of manya dark chapters in the history, and the statement above is not clearifying anything of the responsibility for this tragedy.

"If half the population of china would like to move into the US would the Americans allow them to do it and get a majority in the country0?"

Neonazis is in their propaganda warning against immigration with similar not very trustworthy or deasant arguments. And why the chinese?

"Israel can't give right to people that aren't it's citizens, and does who are Israeli citizens enjoy exactly the same right as I."

Well, I shall not more than mention that this view would have been supported by the apartheidregime in the previous decades.

Now, there is a lot more of this. But let me tell you all, before you attack a whole people in cover of so called struggle against terrorism (or racism), make sure you your self are on the right side. From the quotes above, one of you are surely not against terror and racism of any kind.

I will finally mention Israels so called struggle against terrorism. You cannot claim to be civilized or morally above your enemies if you are using deadly attacks against the civilians as terrorist cells are doing. The death toll among the children and the frecuency of the retaliations is too high to just be dismissed as accidents.
It is also sad to read that too many people are justifying these kind of actions, by referring to noble and civilized ideas. The very moment you attack civilians, you are in fact not a member of a civilized world, no matter what excuse you have of the evil nature of your opponents.

This post will probably not change anything, but at least some of you should know that a at least few of us here recognize racism when it appears and we are not getting fooled by foolish arguments.
 
Tecumseh, you're taking things out if their context and give them a new meanning.
- The muslims do have a majority in the UN, and if you'll look at voting records you'll see they are working against Israel. This majority made the UN declare that killing Israeli citizens is a legitimate resistance, while any attack on other countries that took over areas, and unlike Israel they did it as an aggression, would be considered an act of war. Can you give me another explanation to why Israel is an occupayer but China isn't? Also, look at Durban. ALL Muslim states supported the rediculeos Palestinian accusations that they had not proof to. Almost all other countries were against these accusations and tried to prevent the Palestinians from using them.
- When I sayd I wouldn't mind seeing B-52 over Gaza I ment, ofcource, that they'll bomb terrorists, not commit a genocide.
- The refugee camps massacres were commited by arabs. That's a historical fact, and you can't argue with facts.
- The Americans won't allow half the population of china to move to their country because the US, like Israel, is a democracy, and people wanna have a majority to their ideas and culture. Chineese culture is very different then the American culture, and so Americans would rather have a country of their own that supports the ideas and ideals of their own culture.
- Israel really can't support foreign citizens, it is the responsibility of their goverment. We're not an international charity orgenization, we're a country!
- Israel didn't target civilians, but civilians were killed in accidents. Remember that if a soldiers shoots a rubber bullet at a child that threw a molotov bomb on him it is still self defence. Children that attack are no longer innocent or civilian. If a country that kills a civilian by accident isn't civilized then I guess Israel has got a very good example from from europe and the US. You can't run a military operation as large as fighting terrorism without civilian casualties. It's simply immpossible.
 
I sayed it as a joke!!! This is just what I ment when I said "getting things out of context"!!! No one expects the Americans to send in bombers, I just ment we would be glad to get some more support from them, mainly moraly (a permission to attack without being condemned).

PS
There are enough terrorists there for the entire US air force to attack, so I think 40 tons of bomb can be used on purely military facilities without killing civilians.
 
Have you ever heard of Sarcasm? Exagurating as a way of criticizing something?!?!
 
Originally posted by G-Man
Have you ever heard of Sarcasm? Exagurating as a way of criticizing something?!?!
Click to expand...

Obviously you notice sarcasm only when you need to. Because a few posts ago, you didn't notice my joke about humanitarian aid carried by tanks. You accused me of wanting everybody to suffer.

And please try to be consistent in what you say. Sometimes you say that all palestinians are not terrorists, and sometimes you say that in order to kill terrorists, B52s may bomb military facilities, saying that way that all militaries in PA are terrorists. Well if that's a joke I don't think it's funny.

And finally, I think that you don't really want peace (it just looks like nobody wants peace in middle eastern, tis is really creepy), just to crush PA.
 
Originally posted by G-Man


So you can clearly see your equasion was all wrong.

And about the Palestinian economy - When they kept peace, Israel helped them. We made special arrengments in order to allow them to build the airport, we collected the taxes for them and helped our tourism companies to orgenize tours that'll include tourist attractions in PA territory, gave working permissions to over 200,000 Palestinian that wanted to work in Israel and gave their cops everything they need in order to help keep the law - training, weapons (that were later used against us), offices, etc.
There weren't any closures if we were able to lift them without getting killed. There weren't settlers if Arafat would sign the final peace agreement insted of starting the intifada. They could've import and export without Israeli supervision if they wouldn't use this trade in order to get weapons.
In peace times the Palestinian economy grew in an amazing
speed, thanks to the fact that they don't have any outcomes, only incomes. Everything a regular country pays for they got for free from someone else.
Click to expand...

Helping with their economy??:rolleyes: Seems like Israel's latest way of helping their economy is cutting roads in the Gaza strip, forcing the palestinians to have to use horsecarts to travel , as the roads have been destoyed by some *******s. I guess they think that destroying infrastructure, causing inability to transport goods and materials that enable the economy to function will in fact strengthen the palestinians economy! You'd probably want to justify it with some excuse such as catching terrorists, i guess the israelis want to stop them by making the palestinians so poor that they cannot by weapons.:rolleyes: What sort of lame excuse is that?

Originally posted by G-Man

Israel isn't oppressing and it isn't at all like the way Jews were treated in europe.
Today the Palestinians have a choice if they want to continue with this conflict. Israel did everything it could in order to restore peace, but the Palestinians just used these attempts in order to get more suicide bombers to Israel.
Click to expand...

So bombing civilians and destroying their homes and roads, and aggravating the palestinians is going to restore peace?

Originally posted by G-Man

The jews in europe were forced out of their homes (Just a note - Palestinians aren't forced out of their homes. Ones terrorists use a building as shelter when shooting at Israelis it cannot be defined as a civilian building anymore. If the people that live there wouldn't allow terrorists to use their living room they could've stayed in their homes) and murdered. Palestinians aren't killed by Israel because of who they are but because of things they specificaly did.
Jews in europe didn't kill christian civilians.
The europeans didn't give jews a country of their own.
The europeans never gave the jews anything.
Click to expand...

So if someone used the WTC as a position to snipe at people, it would be ok for osama to bomb it? :rolleyes: So maybe the management let him in, and so its not a civilian building.

There is constant use that the palestinians started it first as an excuse. Didn't the british and the french start WW2? They declared war on Hitler because he ANNEXED LAND THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM. Hitler did not actually attack britain and france until they declared war. So according to the reasoning posted by some people in this thread, the allies were in the wrong. (Hint: this is an analogy)
 
Originally posted by geake

And please try to be consistent in what you say. Sometimes you say that all palestinians are not terrorists, and sometimes you say that in order to kill terrorists, B52s may bomb military facilities, saying that way that all militaries in PA are terrorists. Well if that's a joke I don't think it's funny.

And finally, I think that you don't really want peace (it just looks like nobody wants peace in middle eastern, tis is really creepy), just to crush PA.
Click to expand...

I can't think of any Palestinian military force that isn't attacking civilians, and therefore they're all terrorist orgenizations.
Also, I do want peace. But peace isn't getting killed. Sharon told them, and I support him on that, that they'll do whatever they can in order to arrest terrorists, Israel will help them by any means necessary. How can we make peace with someone that allowes terrorists to kill us?


"Helping with their economy?? Seems like Israel's latest way of helping their economy is cutting roads in the Gaza strip, forcing the palestinians to have to use horsecarts to travel , as the roads have been destoyed by some *******s. I guess they think that destroying infrastructure, causing inability to transport goods and materials that enable the economy to function will in fact strengthen the palestinians economy! You'd probably want to justify it with some excuse such as catching terrorists, i guess the israelis want to stop them by making the palestinians so poor that they cannot by weapons. What sort of lame excuse is that? "

In peace times Israel supported the Palestinian economy. But when they attack us it wouldn't make much sense to give them money, now will it? Also, the closures are extremely effective. Hundreds of terrorists and tons of weapons and explosives were found in closures.


"So bombing civilians and destroying their homes and roads, and aggravating the palestinians is going to restore peace? "

No. That's why we don't do this.


"So if someone used the WTC as a position to snipe at people, it would be ok for osama to bomb it? So maybe the management let him in, and so its not a civilian building. "

If someone would shoot at Afghans from the WTC repeatedly and the Americans won't stop him, then it would be OK for Bin Laden to evacuate the building and then destroy it without the people inside.
 
Originally posted by G-Man

I can't think of any Palestinian military force that isn't attacking civilians, and therefore they're all terrorist orgenizations.
Click to expand...

You mean the Palestinian army attacked Israel? Please...

No, what you're saying is that everybody in PA are terrorists, because their governments allows terrorists on the territory.

Then for example what about england? Is israel going to send choppers there in order to fire missiles in the streets of London where well known terrorists live?
 
Shooting with mortars and M-60s on Israelis is usualy considered an attack.
I'm not saying all Palestinians are terrorists. What mI did say is that all armed Palestinian groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Tanzim and Fatah) are terrorists.
I never heard of any well known terrorists living in London, but if some of them will attack us and the British won't stop them then I can assure you Israel will attack their hideouts in London, as well as British facilities that supported them.
 
I think most of you are making a mistake when you use sarcasm. It may seem funny to you but people from different cultures or even different parts of your own country might not get it. If you are trying to make a point, use clear and concise statements. Also I suggest that you brush up on what ever language you are posting in. I am not saying that as an insult, but because it might help get your point understood.
So if someone used the WTC as a position to snipe at people, it would be ok for osama to bomb it? So maybe the management let him in, and so its not a civilian building.
Click to expand...
I know you are being sarcastic here but it is completely illogical. We would not bomb one of our own buildings, if it still contained our civilians. Now if Osma was using one of his buildings to snipe from then of course we would bomb it. More than likely we wouldn't bomb it if we, the US, knew there would be a great loss of inocent life, even non-American civlians. We follow strict RoEs(Rule of Engagement) that limit what me may and may not do. I have seen them, RoEs, first hand and most times they are extremely limiting in what we may respond to. A lot of people down the US for their tactics but they had better be glad that we didn't lose the Cold War to USSR. Imagine what they would be doing to get Osma...and there would be no reporters allowed at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kaitzilla
The Boeing Thread
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
3K
r16
r16
Quintillus
Greece and Turkey Sign Declaration of Friendship!
Replies
10
Views
553
r16
r16
Gori the Grey
Jon Stewart and the Ruination of American Comedy
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
3K
Hygro
Hygro
Estebonrober
  • Locked
Maidan
5 6 7
Replies
136
Views
4K
lymond
lymond
Zardnaar
Would You Live Here?
2
Replies
24
Views
841
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Top Bottom