Gunman Kills 8 in Attack on School in Jerusalem

[Ziggy Stardust]

No not support just another apologist who tries and fails to justify the terrorists who target children.

No.

two, three, four.

 

[brennan]

Devoid? So please tell me where my objection is devoid exactly.

Because (for the THIRD time) the time period is irrelevant, i'll bet that the same holds true for pretty much any significant time period and for the whole damn mess since 1967.

You are attempting to claim that I am somehow restricting this to a specific period that is a particularly good example. I have told you repeatedly that this is not the case and repeatedly suggested you bring up a counter example. There are no hoops or goalposts and you know it.

I'll invite you yet again to provide some sort of counter that isn't the same irrelevant semantics.

So does that tell you how many were human shields? Yes more pallies have died thank you, that's all we need to know really isn't it? I never disputed that but who is really to blame. Its clear the pallies are when they use them as human shields but you aren't intellectually honest enough to admit that.

And you are pretty obviously the one trying to bring hoops into it.

The 'human shields' argument is just moral cowardice. The Israelis have every opportunity to seize the moral high ground by either not retaliating, or by taking extreme caution when retaliating. But they don't. In this last flare up the Terrorists have been firing rockets into Israel for weeks and have only killed 4 people. The IDF response has killed well over a hundred, mostly civilians. That is in no way proportionate, nor is it morally acceptable.

Not retaliating btw is by and large how the Brits approached 'the troubles' in NI.

 

[bigfatron]

Not retaliating btw is by and large how the Brits approached 'the troubles' in NI.

This is the most interesting thought to me in the whole debate.

There is only one real instance where the british forces went full on for retaliation, Bloody Sunday, when 13 civilians died. It - rightly - caused a world-wide storm of condemnation.

Can you imagine the outrage worldwide, especially in the USA (then the IRA's main fund-raising and arming center), if the British had gone on to perpetrate Bloody Sunday style operations week after week?

Many IRA terrorists were inhabitants of the Irish Republic, were well known to Irish Gardai and allowed by the authorities in the Republic to pursue the cause of a united Ireland in 'peace'. In fact we all know who the perpetrator of the Omagh bombing (29 dead including a number of children, a bombing of a quiet market with no warning) is, and he lives quietly in the republic a few miles from the border. Tolerating that iniquity is the price of no more Omagh's.

Would it have been OK for the british to raid across the border? Strafe the homes of known terrorists, treating their families as collateral damage? Pop the SAS over the border and make sure this guy and his family wake up dead?

You know the answer - no. Pure and simple. perhaps arab muslims are somehow less deserving than Irish catholics - St Patrick's day parades are so much fun, when we all pretend to be Irish, dress in green, and drink Guinness - and none of the recent presidents have been to Amman to see their old family home....

And can you honestly believe that we would have achieved the place we have now in N Ireland, not perfect but without bombs and bullets and murder and maiming every day, if the UK had resorted to such tactics?

There were quite a few people on the right of politics on this country who pushed - very, very hard- for tougher, more violent action, and on occasions such policies were tried (internment, aggresive patrolling, shoot-to-kill). Most crashed and burned. The only policy out of that lot which worked was shoot-to-kill, because the philosophy was simple - you can take out a terrorist if you can't arrest him, but only if you are sure you won't take any civilians with them.

We heard all of these:
- 'You have to retaliate or show weakness'
- 'Talking to terrorists is betraying their victims/surrendering to terror'
- 'No concessions - you can't reward terror'
It's all garbage - the simple fact is that these are the only steps that work.

Perhaps the Israeli Palestinian position is now irreconcilable. But if it is not then the Northern Ireland conflict provides one of the very few successful asymmetric warfare positive outcomes in history.

And based on that experience the Israelis are getting it all wrong...
BFR

 

[skadistic]

Because (for the THIRD time) the time period is irrelevant, i'll bet that the same holds true for pretty much any significant time period and for the whole damn mess since 1967.[/COLOR]

You are attempting to claim that I am somehow restricting this to a specific period that is a particularly good example. So you didn't limit it in time and type of attack to begin with? then changed it up? Well then who was typing under your screen name.I have told you repeatedly that this is not the case But it was.and repeatedly suggested you bring up a counter example. There are no hoops or goalposts and you know it.Well if there are no hoops and goal posts why did you start with them?

I'll invite you yet again to provide some sort of counter that isn't the same irrelevant semantics.Counter to what?
And you are pretty obviously the one trying to bring hoops into it.Yes because I was the one that started with a specific time and type of attack..... no wait that was you.

The 'human shields' argument is just moral cowardice.No it isn't. The Israelis have every opportunity to seize the moral high ground by either not retaliating, Yup they should just let terrorist target the children in school.or by taking extreme caution when retaliating.Which they do. But they don't.Yes they do. In this last flare up the Terrorists have been firing rockets into Israel for weeks and have only killed 4 people.You mean months. The IDF response has killed well over a hundred, mostly civilians.Well if the terrorists didn't use human shields I bet those numbers would be much less. That is in no way proportionate, nor is it morally acceptable.Since when is war proportional? Thats one of the dumbest arguments out there. Its pure intellectual cowardice.

Not retaliating btw is by and large how the Brits approached 'the troubles' in NI.

Thats nice. You must mean in the 60s-90s were you would incorrect. And they weren't "the troubles" they were a war for true independence
http://www.inac.org/irishhistory/deaths

But this isn't Northern Ireland is it. No it isn't the pally aren't nearly as civil as the Irish. If you want to talk about the 800 years of english oppresion start a new thread.

 

[bigfatron]

Thats nice. You must mean in the 60s-90s were you would incorrect. And they weren't "the troubles" they were a war for true independence
http://www.inac.org/irishhistory/deaths

But this isn't Northern Ireland is it. No it isn't the pally aren't nearly as civil as the Irish. If you want to talk about the 800 years of english oppresion start a new thread.

We're talking about N Ireland because it provides a template that could guide Israel in how the problems in Palestine could be solved. I'd say that's relevant...

Clearly you weren't living in London through the 80's, or visiting Belfast during the Troubles? From personal experience IMHO Tel Aviv now is safer than 80's Belfast. And the IRA wasn't 'nice' - lots of civilians were deliberately murdered to further its ends (many of them Catholics deemed to be British sympathisers), just as many Catholic civilians were murdered by Protestant death squads.

When it's someone you like it's a civil war, when it's someone you don't like its terrorism - you just proved the old adage...

 

[I'm Cleo!]

skadistic,

"The Troubles" is a term used to refer to the Great Britain / Ireland conflict.

Cleo

 

[skadistic]

We're talking about N Ireland because it provides a template that could guide Israel in how the problems in Palestine could be solved. I'd say that's relevant...Id say it isn't since NI isn't the mid-east. The pallies aren't Irish.

Clearly you weren't living in London through the 80's, or visiting Belfast during the Troubles? No I wasn't I was in Japan.From personal experience IMHO Tel Aviv now is safer than 80's Belfast. Now I have been to Tel-aviv durring the early 2000s. It wasn't exactlt safe. And I wouldn't call the daily rocket attacks safe either.And the IRA wasn't 'nice' - lots of civilians were deliberately murdered to further its ends (many of them Catholics deemed to be British sympathisers), just as many Catholic civilians were murdered by Protestant death squads.Yup murder dilberate murder on both sides.

When it's someone you like it's a civil war, when it's someone you don't like its terrorism - you just proved the old adage...

Did I? Where did I say the IRA weren't terrorists? Thats right I didn't. So what was your point?

 

[skadistic]

skadistic,

"The Troubles" is a term used to refer to the Great Britain / Ireland conflict.

Cleo

I know what it is. Its a nice way of saying bloody murder.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If you look up you just might catch a glimpse of it disapearing

 

[brennan]

So you didn't limit it in time and type of attack to begin with? then changed it up? Well then who was typing under your screen name.

Please quote me where I changed anything.

if there are no hoops and goal posts why did you start with them?

Where?

Counter to what?

Counter to the example I gave.

Yes because I was the one that started with a specific time and type of attack..... no wait that was you.

I gave figures for a recent timeframe, I pointed out, and am doing so again, that any such will do and that there are no restrictions.

 

[skadistic]

Please quote me where I changed anything.First there was time and attack specific goal post.
Where?Where you started out with recent rocket attacks.
Counter to the example I gave.Counter what example?
I gave figures for a recent timeframe, I pointed out, and am doing so again, that any such will do and that there are no restrictions.

So there were restrictions and now there aren't. But you didn't change that...... Thats great. Now sit down and and think for just a tiny second. Where have I disputed that more pallies weren't killed? Think about that for a second. Now don't hurt your self.

 

[brennan]

So there were restrictions and now there aren't. But you didn't change that...... Thats great. Now sit down and and think for just a tiny second. Where have I disputed that more pallies weren't killed? Think about that for a second. Now don't hurt your self.

Well, I already noted that you agreed. Hence my bafflement at your continuing to argue the toss...

(I'm talking about my red addition in the second quote of post 262 btw)

First there was time and attack specific goal post. It's called an example, it is not in any way an attempt to place restrictions of any kind. Frankly you'd have to be insanely obtuse to take it to mean that in the face of the clear statement that there were no hoops.
Where you started out with recent rocket attacks. Yes, it's called an example.
Counter what example? Are you for real?

 

[skadistic]

Yes, it's called an example.

Yes its an example of the restrictions you put on in the beginning.

 

[brennan]

So again I ask: what restrictions?

 

[skadistic]

So again I ask: what restrictions?

And again I will point out that your first restrictions consisted of a time ( recent) and specific tactic ( rocket attacks) from the terrorists against all IDF action. When questioned why the restrictions were so limited to shifted the goal posts. If you can't remember what you typed maybe you should go back and read it over before you ask what it is you typed. Since you can't remember:

Great, go get the figures then. Lately how many Israelis have been killed in rocket attacks vs how many Palestinians 'accidentally' killed in counter attacks?

 

[brennan]

And again I will point out that your first restrictions consisted of a time ( recent) and specific tactic ( rocket attacks) from the terrorists against all IDF action. When questioned why the restrictions were so limited to shifted the goal posts. If you can't remember what you typed maybe you should go back and read it over before you ask what it is you typed.

You are merely pointing out irrelevant details of the example given. Fail.

The beeb article I linked said those 4 dead Israelis were killed in rocket attacks or in combat operations. So they are not rocket attack specific deaths. Double fail. If you can find any other deaths to add that weren't mentioned they'd be 100% relevant as there are, as i've said, no restrictions. But you haven't bothered, just tried to play semantics.

 

[skadistic]

You are merely pointing out irrelevant details of the example given. Fail.So your own restrictions are irrelivent? Then why did you make them to begin with?

The beeb article I linked said those 4 dead Israelis were killed in rocket attacks or in combat operations. So they are not rocket attack specific deaths. Double fail. Yes you failed twice since your beeb article doesn't fit in your restrictions. You know the ones you made that you now say are irrelevant.If you can find any other deaths to add that weren't mentioned they'd be 100% relevant as there are, as i've said, no restrictions. But you haven't bothered, just tried to play semantics.

Its not semantics. Its you making restrictions then saying you didn't then saying you did and they are irrelevant. I already said more pallies have died so there is no need for to up with numbers you since I don't dispute that. What I dispute is your dishonesty in no blaming the one who uses the human shield and that you can't make up your mind if there restrictions or not and how relevant they are or aren't.

 

[Elponitnatsnoc]

And you are suggesting for the Palestinian civilians to leave Gaza and go live in the Desert in order for Israel not to kill them as collateral damage : great idea Mr Genuis Where did I say that?

Fact is: Israel and Palestine (well at least part of two nations) have chosen the path of violence to achieve their political goal. One is a using terrorist method and is killing innocent civilians (and "non innocent" military, because Hamas and Hezbollah do kill Israeli soldiers), and the other is killing innocent civilians just because they have the malchance to live near "a terrorist" neighbor. When Israel drops a 1 ton bomb in the middle of Gaza to get one terrorist killing tens of civilains that is not accidental collateral damage: that is an unacceptable war crime. They do it because they know the civilians near by are "wortheless" Palestinians. If said terrorist was hiding in Tel Aviv, they wouldn't even consider the "bomb" option. Ok obviously Israel won't bomb their own civilians. When they were assassinating the military targets, did you like that better? It's difficult to fight against a people who deny you the right to exist and I agree that some Israelis aren't distraught if a few Palestinian citizens die in addition to the terrorists. The problem is that it's very difficult to just kill the terrorists. Once against, they're put in a lose-lose situations. Israel can sit there and let terrorist activities manifest themselves, or they can thwart them, but kill civilians on the side. I think it's unfair to label Israel's actions as "warcrimes" unless you label Hamas's activities as war crimes also. You can't hold one to one standard (Hamas to the standard of "freedom fighters") and one to another (Israel as the evil oppressor). I agree that Israel should focus more on pinpoint operations rather than air strikes, however, but I don't think air strikes are completely unjustified.

If you want to look at intents, Hamas intent is not terrorism per se. It's national liberation, as they percieve the situation.

Who cares about intents? I don't care if their intent is to save puppies, what matters is that they use terrorism to achieve their goal, a goal which I don't particularly agree with.



EDIT: What a lot of you don't understand is that the Israeli government comes under intense fire when a terrorist attack occurs. Obviously, you'd be a bit angry if your friends get blown up when they are taking the bus to school. It's difficult for the government to do nothing as some of you have suggested because this would seem to the civilians as encouraging terrorist actions.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Who cares about intents? I don't care if their intent is to save puppies, what matters is that they use terrorism to achieve their goal, a goal which I don't particularly agree with.

I am not following you here, you just said before that what matters was the intent !!!!
Your word:
It's trite to try to prove who has the moral ground by comparing the number of deaths. What really matters is the intent of the attacks. Surely, you will agree that Hamas tries to kill innocent people and that Israel does not, right? I think this is the most fundemental part of the issue.

EDIT: What a lot of you don't understand is that the Israeli government comes under intense fire when a terrorist attack occurs. Obviously, you'd be a bit angry if your friends get blown up when they are taking the bus to school. It's difficult for the government to do nothing as some of you have suggested because this would seem to the civilians as encouraging terrorist actions.

I do understand that but that "revenge" feeling is shared by both parties and does not excuse the actions of either. Hamas terrorist and criminal actions, because I consider their action criminals to ansewer your question above, also tend to increase after "an israeli raid on Gaza" that kills Paalsestinian civilians (said bombing that occured after a terrorist action from Hamas following an IDF raid that comes to revenge the death of Israeli by Palestinian angry because Tsahal killed theirs etc etc etc). As long as the "you killed my people, I'll kill yours" vicious circle is there no solution is to be expected. Undfortunatly both parties, well at least some among both people, are still under the illusion that the violent option is better for them

 

[Gecko1]

No not support just another apologist who tries and fails to justify the terrorists who target children.

The path of peace has been tried many times, each time the Israelies go back on their promioses. Argue? Tell that to the Isreali settlements in the West Bank.