Israel attacks "terrorist training camp" in Syria

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3166154.stm

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa is quoted by Reuters as saying the raid "threatens security and peace in the region and internationally, and could aggravate the deteriorating situation in the region".

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak condemned it as "aggression against a brother country".

A spokesman for the UK Government said that "while Israel is entitled to take steps to protect itself against terrorist attack, these steps should be within international law".

France and Germany both described the raid as unacceptable.

This is JUST what the region needs atm. Israel stirring up even more shít than normal while the USA faces growing resentment to it's occupation of Iraq...


edit: BTW it doesn't mention it in the article, but the USA came out with a vague statement basically saying that Syria was on the opposing side in the "war on terrorism" however they said they were still trying to find out the "specific details" of the attack.

main report : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3165394.stm

mr_angry

This is f*cking rediculous - the Israeli's have really overstepped the mark this time. Of course, they'll get away with it because her big buddy, the USA, will spew out all the usual bullsh*t, such as the UK government came out with in that article. If we were to take that to its fullest extent and implement this within International law, would Ireland be able to send in jets and blow up the Shankill Road because of a perceived terrorist threat? I think not.

I'm an advocate of peace, but I REALLY hope that someone kicks the Israelis ass sometime soon, and teaches them the lesson they're crying out for.

Victor

A spokesman for the UK Government said that "while Israel is entitled to take steps to protect itself against terrorist attack, these steps should be within international law".

And the invasion of Iraq was what?

magick

Lets just say Syria retaliates, what are numbers (armed forces/wepaons/air forces etc) that both Israel and Syria have?

Sparks

Originally posted by magick
Lets just say Syria retaliates, what are numbers (armed forces/wepaons/air forces etc) that both Israel and Syria have?

If I remember the unoffical estimates right, Israel has just over a hundred warheads and Syria has none.

Victor

Israel's armed forces are as good if not better than the American's (in all but strategic ability) and a nation that is capable of being on a war footing in hours and a vast civil defence system (right down to school kids filling sand bags). It is believed to have a substantial (100+ missiles / bombs) nuclear capability fitted to ballistic missiles able to hit anywhere in the Middle East. Realistically it has 200-300 modern combat aircraft. It has about 4,000 tanks of mixed vintage and 11,000 other armoured vehicles .

Syria is broke. It has a nominal nuclear and biological development plan, but about 200 ballistic missiles (mostly Scuds), some with chemical warheads. Realistically it has 200-300 middle aged combat aircraft. It has about 4,000 of mostly older tanks. It's air force and tanks are on average 10-20 years older than Israel’s. Syria is in the middle of a spat with Russia about $6bn in debt owed for weapons supplied in the 1970s and 1980s that proved ineffective against Israel in Lebanon (Soviet policy was to never give / sell the really good stuff). Syria isn't paying and Russia isn't supplying.

The only potential advantages Syria has are (a) appealing to the Arab League for assistance (going to the UN will only be vetoed by the USA) (b) it has brand new anti-tank missiles (Kornet AT-14) that out range all other tank weapons, it may be in possession of other modern weapons that were bound for Iraq (c) dissimilar combat, i.e. creating a war by proxy though Lebanon or Palestine.

The crux of the matter is if Israel acts too provocatively and forces either Egypt or Saudi Arabia, both with modern equipment to cooperate with Syria. This would result in another 1967 / 1973 style war. The border is short 76km and the Israeli's hold the high ground. With this height advantage, Damascus is precariously close to the border. Either side could bypass the Golan and go through Lebanon or Jordan.

In practice, Syria can bloody Israel's nose. Israel can annihilate Syria.

www.fas.org is a good site to look at for individual pieces of information.

Manach

The attack does seem to escalate the situation some what.
Whilst there is no love lost between the various Arab states in the region, would not a serious attack on Syria bring on board both Jordon & Egypt?

Theres very little chance of any large scale war happening at this time, especially between just syria and israel.

I remember reading statistics sumwhere about such a war which said 3.5 of the 5 million Israelis would be involved in any war (could be more i'm not sure). For every 1 israeli jet shot down they would shoot down 17 enemy fighters. However they can only maintain a full scale war for 2/3 weeks at the most due to the strain it puts on the country.

Ofc it made no mention of israel using nukes, which could halt a war in a matter of days (or else prolong it indefinitely)

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Sparks
If I remember the unoffical estimates right, Israel has just over a hundred warheads and Syria has none.

warheads will never come into the equation, suicide bombers will, i won't be eating any big macs in jerusalem for at least a few weeks

Biffa Bacon

I hope to God Syria retaliates. Israeli tanks will be in Damascus within a week and another scumbag Arab dictator will be overthrown.

Vader

Israel diddnt just say, well we know there is a base there lets attack it. They must have asked for and receives US approval for this little op.

Israel is a big problem.
1)The have a wide range of WMD
2)They have diobeyed more UN resolutions than Iraq, they are the 2nd most frequent country to vote against UN resolutions(if you take everytime the US uses its veto as one vote).
3)They treat a significant proportion of their pop. as animals
4)They piss off al their neighbours
5)They piss me off!:mad:

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I hope to God Syria retaliates. Israeli tanks will be in Damascus within a week and another scumbag Arab dictator will be overthrown.

uh i don't think so, if push really comes to shove, regardless of their military prowess 5 mill israelis would lose to 300 mill arabs even if they were just swinging frying pans

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I hope to God Syria retaliates. Israeli tanks will be in Damascus within a week and another scumbag Arab dictator will be overthrown.

And Israeli military government is better how?

Don't bother asking this "biffa bacon" guy anything tbh...He seems to base his arguements on the theory that "he's right-wing and thats what he believes in" rather than on fact

MagicBusDriver

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. You cannot serious think Syria a known supporter of terrorism is better than Israel.

Also while Israel may overreact, the last two serious opportunities to peace where destroyed by Arafat. If Israel cannot create peace with diplomacy, it has no option but to use force.

Sparks

I must admit it was somewhat odd that the weapons in the video from the "training camp" were all Israeli...

Victor

Originally posted by MagicBusDriver
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

Not quite. Lebanon, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait (not sure if women can vote quite yet, but it's on the way) and Cyprus are all democratic, some having problems around the edges. Israel also doesn't behave like a democratic nation in many ways.

mr_angry

And Israeli military government is better how?

I agree.

You cannot serious think Syria a known supporter of terrorism is better than Israel.

The only reason that Israel is not described as a supporter of terrorism is that they are bigger than Palestine. They killed just as many, if not more, innocent civilians as the terrorists they are fighting against. Personally, I don't think they're any better than Syria. Hope that clears the matter up for ya.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by mr_angry4
s is f*cking rediculous - the Israeli's have really overstepped the mark this time.

Yes, why won’t they just march obediently to their deaths like they did last time?

I'm an advocate of peace, but I REALLY hope that someone kicks the Israelis ass sometime soon, and teaches them the lesson they're crying out for.

You mean like this, Mr Peace Advocate?

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
uh i don't think so, if push really comes to shove, regardless of their military prowess 5 mill israelis would lose to 300 mill arabs even if they were just swinging frying pans

Try reading up on some history. Israel has repeatedly defeated attacks by Arab nations – in ’48, ’67 and ’73. If you want to find out why, read Why the West has Won by Victor Davis Hanson.

Originally posted by Victor
And Israeli military government is better how?

Well for starters they wouldn’t be supporting terrorism.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Yes, why won’t they just march obediently to their deaths like they did last time?

This excuse for all their actions is starting to wear extremely thin at this stage.

Well for starters they wouldn’t be supporting terrorism.

No, they'll just keep killing civilians in 'retaliation'.

LegacyUser

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Try reading up on some history. Israel has repeatedly defeated attacks by Arab nations – in ’48, ’67 and ’73. If you want to find out why, read Why the West has Won by Victor Davis Hanson.

50 years isn't pissing time as far as nationhood goes, there won't be an israel in 200 years, definately not if they think all their problems can be solved by killing people.

Fionnan

Those TV pictures shown by the Israelis were broadcast first by IRanian television, basically boasting about the organisations they have attacking Israel. I believe every nation has the right to hunt down terrorists who attack them where-ever the scum hide.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Well for starters they wouldn’t be supporting terrorism.

Guess that depends on your definition of terrorism.

Apparently, if you strap a bomb to yoruself and kill a load of civilians, you're a terrorist. If, on the other hand, you're firing rockets from a helicopter with any shade of an excuse of being after a suspect, then its not terrorism - its "collateral damage".

jc

Moriarty

Originally posted by Sparks
I must admit it was somewhat odd that the weapons in the video from the "training camp" were all Israeli...

Soviet era automatic weapons are now produced in Israel? Since when? I saw an awful lot of PKs, AKs and soviet blok grenades. I didnt see a single m16, m249 or any other western weapon.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
This excuse for all their actions is starting to wear extremely thin at this stage.

No it’s not an excuse for their actions. The justification for their actions is that they are being attacked by genocidal fanatics whose openly-declared goal is the destruction of the state of Israel, and they must therefore either defend themselves or die.

Of course, given all the “never again” talk after WW2, you might be forgiven if you expected Europeans to recognise and support the Jewish people’s right to self-defence. Apparently not though.

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
50 years isn't pissing time as far as nationhood goes, there won't be an israel in 200 years, definately not if they think all their problems can be solved by killing people.

More bigoted anti-Israeli hate speech. Israel has on multiple occasions offered peace to the Arabs and had it thrown back in their faces. Any time they offer concessions or relax security arrangements, they are rewarded with an increase in terrorism. It is the criminal Arafat and his terrorists friends who are the aggressors, it is they who refuse to compromise – not the Israelis.

Originally posted by bonkey
Apparently, if you strap a bomb to yoruself and kill a load of civilians, you're a terrorist.

Correct.

If, on the other hand, you're firing rockets from a helicopter with any shade of an excuse of being after a suspect, then its not terrorism - its "collateral damage".

If you’re suggesting that that’s what the Israelis are doing I reject that utterly. You think they just fire rockets into a crowd of civilians at random? This is what makes me want to puke in all these discussions about the Middle East – the vile moral equivalence. There is no moral equivalence between injury caused by the aggressor to the victim and injury caused by the victim to the aggressor. There is no moral equivalence between those who deliberately target civilians and those who seek to minimise civilian casualties in as far as is humanly possible. Why is it so hard for people to see that?

Welcome to boards.ie Fionnan by the way!

Hobbes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
You think they just fire rockets into a crowd of civilians at random?

No not random. I am sure they look for someone to shoot at first.

But they are no better then the terrorists they claim to be fighting. Putting a suicide bomber onto a bus is no different then firing a missile into a refugee camp. Syria makes the news but the two places in Palistine that were bombed by the Israelis as retaliation hardly got a mention.

Take a look at the suicide bombers history up to the point where the Israelis bombed her family for no reason (well for a reason, but none of them were terrorists). If anything made her into a terrorist, it was the actions of Israel.

mr_angry

they must therefore either defend themselves or die.

How exactly has "defending themselves" stopped them from dying? As far as I can see, the Israeli people are still dying, and it is as much caused by the fact that the Israelis retaliate so vehemently when attacked themselves. Its a vicious circle, and the Israelis have to accept some responsibility for it. If you don't accept that, then I'm sorry, but I can no longer respect your opinion.

By the way, I apologise for my earlier comment about someone kicking the Israeli's asses. It was out of order. I just find the Israeli's aggressive stance rather frustrating.

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
No it’s not an excuse for their actions. The justification for their actions is that they are being attacked by genocidal fanatics whose openly-declared goal is the destruction of the state of Israel, and they must therefore either defend themselves or die.

When the state of Israel's creation involved killing innocent people and genocide (look up the legal term), then not one Israeli can call anyone a terrorist and not be a complete hypocrite.

Of course, given all the “never again” talk after WW2, you might be forgiven if you expected Europeans to recognise and support the Jewish people’s right to self-defence. Apparently not though.

Evidentally that "never again" statement seems to pertain only to the Jewish people if the actions of the powers that be are considered.
An American that gets Israeli citizenship based upon his/her religion and then moves into a settlement that was built upon land taken from a Palestinian and has UN Resolutions stating that it must give it back, has about as much right to self defense as a burglar breaking into your house.

More bigoted anti-Israeli hate speech. Israel has on multiple occasions offered peace to the Arabs and had it thrown back in their faces. Any time they offer concessions or relax security arrangements, they are rewarded with an increase in terrorism.

When they "offer" peace at the same time continually building new settlements, one can't honestly say that the Israeli government isn't "throwing it" in the Palestinian people's face.

It is the criminal Arafat and his terrorists friends

As opposed to the criminal Sharon. Meanwhile Arafat is expected to "reign in on terrorist" while he's confined by Israel's to his headquarters while they plot to kill him.

If you’re suggesting that that’s what the Israelis are doing I reject that utterly. You think they just fire rockets into a crowd of civilians at random?

No they try and blame the victim for living around dozens of children, otherwise an F-16 is a perfectly reasonable weapon to bring criminals to justice. Nevermind that assassinating criminals without trail isn't usually the act of a "democracy". Then consider all the teenage "militants" that the IDF kill for throwing rocks at them.

This is what makes me want to puke in all these discussions about the Middle East – the vile moral equivalence.

My thoughts exactly when Israel and American condemn the actions of "terrorists" while conducting themselves in the same manner.

There is no moral equivalence between injury caused by the aggressor to the victim and injury caused by the victim to the aggressor.

Hence Israel's lack of moral standing in condemning "terrorists".

There is no moral equivalence between those who deliberately target civilians and those who seek to minimise civilian casualties in as far as is humanly possible.

No you are correct, which is why the IDF don't have the moral high ground here.

Typedef

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Well for starters they wouldn’t be supporting terrorism.

Ah yes, Jewish-supremecist pseudo-religous neo-apartheid "democracy", enforced on Palestinians under the heel of an Israeli army boot.

Highly democratic and most certainly not 'terrorist'... we're talking about a 'Western democracy' after all... in fact, the Palestinians must have voted to be disenfranchised by military occupation, and the leftist media is polluting the airwaves with lies.

doh.... how did I miss that all these years?

mr_angry

There is no moral equivalence between injury caused by the aggressor to the victim and injury caused by the victim to the aggressor.

By the way, I disagree entirely.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

There's no "But not if it was already done unto you, it's alright" in that statement. I freely admit that innocent Israeli civilians have suffered at the hands of terrorists, but that is not a justification for going out and slaughtering Palastinian civilians in response.

Typedef

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
No it’s not an excuse for their actions. The justification for their actions is that they are being attacked by genocidal fanatics whose openly-declared goal is the destruction of the state of Israel, and they must therefore either defend themselves or die.

Of course, given all the “never again” talk after WW2, you might be forgiven if you expected Europeans to recognise and support the Jewish people’s right to self-defence. Apparently not though.

Interesting you should bring up WW2, since (now I'm assuming you're American), the Americans didn't do a tap, until Japan attacked America.

Yet the US, was quite prepaired to make money, selling arms to the British, who were 'actually' fighting the Nazis.

If the US feels guilty about doing nothing for the Jews, please, don't try and put some sort of transference onto Europe.

Of course you forget the some 20 million Russians killed by the Nazis... yet somehow, I don't see you lamenting their loss, or validating the brutal put-down of Chechnya by Russia.

Not that I'm trying to say, there's you know... a glaring disparity between your 'logic' and real-life, that would be ascenine.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
If you’re suggesting that that’s what the Israelis are doing I reject that utterly. You think they just fire rockets into a crowd of civilians at random?

Where did I suggest that. I said that they fire rockets into crowds in the name of being after a suspect.

Thats what I meant as well.

There is no moral equivalence between injury caused by the aggressor to the victim and injury caused by the victim to the aggressor.

No, but there is no moral acceptability in either saying "civilians are fair game" and/or saying "civilians are not our concern as long as we try and hit what we are targetting".

The Palestinian terrorists use the first. The Israelis would appear to favour the latter. You can couch it in as pretty a language as you like, but neither sides actions makes the others excusable. Its like saying "but at least my side doesn't kill them as badly as yours". The innocents are still dead, and still killed by wanton disregard for human life at best.

There is no moral equivalence between those who deliberately target civilians and those who seek to minimise civilian casualties in as far as is humanly possible.

I agree fully.

Why is it so hard for people to see that?

I don't think its hard for anyone to see that. I think its nigh-on impossible for many people to see that the Israeli's seek to minimise civilian casualties as far as possible....and thats where the disagreement comes in.

Take a very simple example. Two days ago some Palestinians exploded a bomb in Haifa. In response, Israel was as humane as possible, and launched a missile attack at a foreign sovereign nation, on the grounds of "self-defense". This nation,which harbours terrorists, shows no respect, wants Israel dead, etc. etc. etc. went and showed how inhumane it is in response, by taking the unthinkably barbaric action of actually taking the issue to the UN first.

I'm sorry - no-one who shoots first and talks later can claim any grounds of actions being "as humane as possible". Regardless of whether or not any innocents were killed, look at the proximity of the alleged camp to the capital city of Syria. One slight malfunction, and you had missiles falling on a foreign capital.

Humane? Considerate? Balanced?

Sure it is....as long as you're on the right side.

Welcome to boards.ie Fionnan by the way!

Indeed. Welcome.

jc

sovtek

I might just be paranoid but I really found this action by Israel to be scary in the extreme.
Again, maybe paranioa but I can see nuclear threats in the not to distant future.
I'd also hazard a bet that the almost free reign to defy international law Israel has had since talk of war in Iraq will see Israel committing more actions of the same.
I recall at some point Bush and Sharon both, over the past two years, stating that nuclear options are not ruled out.

Again, maybe paranioa but I can see nuclear threats in the not to distant future.

Don't you think you're being a bit alarmist here? Israel while performing a number of extreme acts hasn't forgotten its past. I doubt very much the ISraeli people would support such a move, especially since they remember their parents being gassed.

Pity we can't say the same for the other nations that have nuclear, chemical or biological capabilities.

I'd also hazard a bet that the almost free reign to defy international law Israel has had since talk of war in Iraq will see Israel committing more actions of the same.

Very likely. But then they've seen just how effective international law has been in the past. All they have to do is look at the invasion of Iraq, and realise that if you have Nukes no other nation is going to bother you too much ( as long as you succeed of course )


At the end of the day the issue with the targeting of civilians is that Israeli Civilians are more obvious as being just civilians. Palestinian Groups wage a war of terrorism/guerilla warfare. Their tactics have placed the Israeli Government in the position of targeting everyone or no-one.

Personally i don't see too much different between launching rockets from a helicopter or having a suicide bomber blow up within a crowd. The one doesn't justify the other, but its easy to be judgemental when we're not involved in the troubles.

In the past i've been completely Pro-Israeli. I've changed my opinions somewhat. I'm alot more in the middle, now than ever. Neither side is innocent.


Getting back to the issue of Syria, Israel has made the same move as what the US has done in the past (Iraq, libya etc). It doesn't matter that we think Syria is no threat. Israeli Intelligence ( which is considered one of the best in the world ) deemed them a threat. They acted. Wrongly in my opinion.

Of course you forget the some 20 million Russians killed by the Nazis... yet somehow, I don't see you lamenting their loss, or validating the brutal put-down of Chechnya by Russia.

In regards to this, you might mention the troops and civilians that the Russian forces killed. Or the tens of thousands of German women that were raped in the invasion of Berlin. That war created monsters on all sides. ( German troops captured by the Allies, many of which died, in concentration type prisons at the close of the war )

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by bananayoghurt
warheads will never come into the equation, suicide bombers will, i won't be eating any big macs in jerusalem for at least a few weeks

I'd be surprised if you can get ANY big Macs in Jerusalem. Cheese on burgers is heretically non Kosher.

Having been chased out of the meat-eating part of a restaurant in Tel Aviv once because I had inadvertently committed the cardinal error of stepping into it carrying a cup of tea (which contained MILK!!!!! Get thee behind me Satan) I can imagine that some of the zealots wouldn't welcome any cheeseburger vendor with the sacred city's limits.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Israel while performing a number of extreme acts hasn't forgotten its past

That would seem questionable, given certain occurrences of the last year or so...

Witness Israeli soldiers walking through Palestinian settlements that the Israelis had put under their "protection", and marking the walls of inspected houses with a Star of David. IIRC, there have also been situations where detainees have had numbers etc. marked on their arms for identification.

No similarities to the Jewish communities which were controlled by Germans, nor of the methods of marking prisoners and/or concentration-camp victims.

Witness Israeli settlements - expansionism in all but name. I bet if you were to call it "lebensraum" you'd be condemned as an anti-semitic pro-nazi nutjob though.

especially since they remember their parents being gassed.

Yes, and that will be the typical excuse....because the Israeli's aren't comitting genocide, and are nowhere near as bad as the nazis, then all other comparisons are irrelevant, and everything they do is fine.

I bet if any other nation tried marking a Jew with a number on the inside of his arm, as a means of identification or as some form of "you've been checked" verification, and/or wanted to mark his house with a Star of David painted on the outside to also show it had been inspected....such nations would be decried as being guilty of a horrific and tasteless reminder of the holocaust.

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Hobbes
Putting a suicide bomber onto a bus is no different then firing a missile into a refugee camp.

So you’re saying that someone who sets out to kill as many innocent civilians as possible is no different from someone who would try to stop that person from doing so, and all the while trying to avoid injury to civilians as much as possible?

If anything made her into a terrorist, it was the actions of Israel.

No, what made her into a terrorist was her conscious, deliberate decision to strap on an explosives belt, enter a restaurant in Haifa and blow to pieces as many of her fellow human beings as possible. Who gave her the idea to do this and who assisted her in carrying it out? The psychotic, criminal leadership of the Palestinians.

Originally posted by mr_angry4
How exactly has "defending themselves" stopped them from dying?

It hasn’t. But it has stopped them dying in far fewer numbers than would otherwise be the case.

Its a vicious circle, and the Israelis have to accept some responsibility for it. If you don't accept that, then I'm sorry, but I can no longer respect your opinion.

Well I’m afraid I don’t accept that. There is no cycle of violence in the Middle East. What you have is acts of Palestinian aggression followed by an Israeli defensive response. Without Palestinian aggression, there is nothing for the Israelis respond to and thus no violence. Without an Israeli response, however, the Palestinians would simply continue to kill. Palestinian violence is directed at destroying Israel, not as a response to Israeli violence.

I freely admit that innocent Israeli civilians have suffered at the hands of terrorists, but that is not a justification for going out and slaughtering Palastinian civilians in response.

I agree, as do the Israelis. That’s why they’re not doing it.

Originally posted by sovtek
When the state of Israel's creation involved killing innocent people and genocide (look up the legal term), then not one Israeli can call anyone a terrorist and not be a complete hypocrite.

1. The creation of the state of Israel did not involve genocide, at least not on the Jewish side. It did involve the Arabs attempting genocide against the Jews, but fortunately they failed.
2. The creation of the state of Israel was endorsed by the UN. Does this mean that you:
a. Accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel,
b. Reject the authority of the UN and all resolutions it has passed criticising Israel, or
c. Only recognise the authority of the UN when it is critical of Israel?
3. Do you believe in the collective guilt of the entire Israeli people for the actions of individual Israelis?
4. If so, does your notion of collective guilt only apply to those Jews who were living in Palestine when Israel came into existence, or does it include those who were born there after 1948 also?

An American that gets Israeli citizenship based upon his/her religion and then moves into a settlement that was built upon land taken from a Palestinian and has UN Resolutions stating that it must give it back, has about as much right to self defense as a burglar breaking into your house.

No Israeli settlements in the West Bank or Gaza were built on land taken from Arabs. There is nothing in international law that says Jews cannot build settlements in these areas.

When they "offer" peace at the same time continually building new settlements, one can't honestly say that the Israeli government isn't "throwing it" in the Palestinian people's face.

I think you can. They have always indicated they are willing to compromise on the settlements issue. The settlements issue is not an obstacle to peace.

As opposed to the criminal Sharon.

I assume you are referring to Sabra and Chatilla. Even if you accept his complicity in these massacres, which I don’t, you cannot seriously argue he is in anywhere near the same league as Arafat.

Meanwhile Arafat is expected to "reign in on terrorist" while he's confined by Israel's to his headquarters while they plot to kill him.

Arafat was supposed to reign in terrorism as part of the Oslo Accords. He has made no effort to do so and never will. If the Israelis were to kill him they would actually be doing the Palestinians a big favour. It would give them the opportunity to elect new leadership committed to compromise and peace who would help lift them out of the squalor they currently reside in.

No they try and blame the victim for living around dozens of children, otherwise an F-16 is a perfectly reasonable weapon to bring criminals to justice.

What kind of civilian casualties do you think there would be if they sent in troops to arrest suspects and battle it out in the streets?

Nevermind that assassinating criminals without trail isn't usually the act of a "democracy".

They are the legitimate acts of a democracy at war. No society can afford to allow such people move about at liberty for lack of evidence that would hold up in a court of law.

Then consider all the teenage "militants" that the IDF kill for throwing rocks at them.

The teenage militants that are sent out to act as human shields for terrorist gunmen?

My thoughts exactly when Israel and American condemn the actions of "terrorists" while conducting themselves in the same manner.

Since when have Israel and America deliberately targeted civilians?

Hence Israel's lack of moral standing in condemning "terrorists".

In what way is Israel the aggressor (unless you believe that Israel itself is illegitimate and must be destroyed)?

Originally posted by Typedef
…the leftist media is polluting the airwaves with lies.

Well that’s one thing you’ve got right.

Of course you forget the some 20 million Russians killed by the Nazis... yet somehow, I don't see you lamenting their loss, or validating the brutal put-down of Chechnya by Russia.

1. I’m not lamenting their loss because it’s not relevant to the topic at hand.
2. The situation is not the same in Chechnya as it is in Israel. The Chechen conflict concerns one region’s struggle to gain independence, while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict concerns an attempt by one group of people to destroy and take over another nation. Russia’s struggle in Chechnya is not a question of the survival of their nation, but in Israel’s case it is. This is why it is legitimate to bring up the Holocaust – because it shows why it is so necessary for Israel to defend itself.
3. I do not believe the IDF has conducted itself in remotely as bad a manner as the Russian military has in Chechnya.

Not that I'm trying to say, there's you know... a glaring disparity between your 'logic' and real-life, that would be ascenine.

Yes, that would be asinine.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Where did I suggest that. I said that they fire rockets into crowds in the name of being after a suspect.

Thats what I meant as well.

Well to be honest I misread your earlier comments. I thought you said “you're firing rockets from a helicopter without any shade of an excuse of being after a suspect”.

The innocents are still dead, and still killed by wanton disregard for human life at best

.
So you’re saying Israel could achieve the same results but without injuring or killing civilians, except that they just don’t bother their arses to do so? How? What are they supposed to do?

This nation,which harbours terrorists, shows no respect, wants Israel dead, etc. etc. etc. went and showed how inhumane it is in response, by taking the unthinkably barbaric action of actually taking the issue to the UN first.

You’ve got it the wrong way round. What Syria did first was to harbour terrorists. Israel’s reaction was to put diplomatic pressure on them to end this. When their patience ran out, only then did they destroy the camp. Syria going to the UN is just playacting on their part, an ongoing part of the propaganda war.

I'm sorry - no-one who shoots first and talks later can claim any grounds of actions being "as humane as possible". Regardless of whether or not any innocents were killed, look at the proximity of the alleged camp to the capital city of Syria. One slight malfunction, and you had missiles falling on a foreign capital.

Come off it, do you think any military action in that situation could be carried out with zero possibility of innocents being killed?

Witness Israeli soldiers walking through Palestinian settlements that the Israelis had put under their "protection", and marking the walls of inspected houses with a Star of David.

I’m not aware of such incidents. If you have links, I’d like to read them.

IIRC, there have also been situations where detainees have had numbers etc. marked on their arms for identification…No similarities to the Jewish communities which were controlled by Germans, nor of the methods of marking prisoners and/or concentration-camp victims.

Disgusting. Let’s ignore the fact that detainees were marked with ink which could be washed off, while concentration camp inmates had their ID numbers tattooed on. Let’s ignore the fact that the IDF marked detainees so they could tell who they had interviewed, while concentration camp inmates were given a number in order to destroy their identity. Let’s ignore the fact that there was uproar over this in Israel itself, a democratic, open society where people are free to voice their opinions. Let’s just make some cheap comparison with Nazi Germany instead. Puke.

Witness Israeli settlements - expansionism in all but name.

Expansionism? Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza occupy a tiny fraction of those territories. And why should Jews not be allowed in these areas anyway, areas where there have been continuously inhabited Jewish settlements for centuries? Should these areas be ethnically-cleansed of Jews?

I bet if you were to call it "lebensraum" you'd be condemned as an anti-semitic pro-nazi nutjob though.

That’s because only an anti-semitic pro-nazi nutjob would call it lebensraum. Are Arabs being ethnically cleansed from these areas? Are any Jews being forced to live there?

Victor

Originally posted by MagicBusDriver
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

Originally posted by Victor
Not quite. Lebanon, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait (not sure if women can vote quite yet, but it's on the way) and Cyprus are all democratic, some having problems around the edges. Israel also doesn't behave like a democratic nation in many ways.

Oh, I forgot, Palestine.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
No Israeli settlements in the West Bank or Gaza were built on land taken from Arabs.

So who owned the land beforehand?

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Expansionism? Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza occupy a tiny fraction of those territories. And why should Jews not be allowed in these areas anyway, areas where there have been continuously inhabited Jewish settlements for centuries? Should these areas be ethnically-cleansed of Jews?

The areas that settlements occupy are:
1) illegal and defy Security Council resolutions.
2)Are taken from Palestinian occupied land and have been consistantly since the creation of the Israeli state.
3)Are often occupied by foreign nationals (Many of them American) of the Jewish persuasion who have been given citizenship and tax incentives to live in settlements.

This ignores the fact that:
1) Israel was created after forcing the Palestinians that had lived there for centuries without compensation (a genocide in legal terms).
2)Bombing of civilians was a tactic used by the Stern gang to get the British to allow the creation of Israel.
3)Ninety five percent of the population was Arab before the creation of Israel in '47.
4)Said population had been there for centuries.
5)Israel has provoked and attacked it's neighbors at least once in every decade since it's creation.
6)Israeli media is censored and one such person that revealed that they were developing nuclear weapons has been in prison since then.

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

So you’re saying Israel could achieve the same results but without injuring or killing civilians, except that they just don’t bother their arses to do so? How? What are they supposed to do?

Try completely pulling out of Palestinian terroritory and tell the settlers to not attack Palestinians and you would very quickly have a de-escalation in violence.

You’ve got it the wrong way round. What Syria did first was to harbour terrorists. Israel’s reaction was to put diplomatic pressure on them to end this. When their patience ran out, only then did they destroy the camp. Syria going to the UN is just playacting on their part, an ongoing part of the propaganda war.[/QUOTE

REALLY, when exactly did Israel come before the General Assembly and give evidence of terrorists being harbored by Syria. Failing that when did Israel submit a request for extradition of terrorists living in Syria?

[QUOTE}Come off it, do you think any military action in that situation could be carried out with zero possibility of innocents being killed?

Military action? I thought they were terrorists!?!?!

I’m not aware of such incidents. If you have links, I’d like to read them.

http://www.harpers.org/online/gaza_diary/?pg=1

Disgusting. Let’s ignore the fact that detainees were marked with ink which could be washed off, while concentration camp inmates had their ID numbers tattooed on. Let’s ignore the fact that the IDF marked detainees so they could tell who they had interviewed, while concentration camp inmates were given a number in order to destroy their identity. Let’s ignore the fact that there was uproar over this in Israel itself, a democratic, open society where people are free to voice their opinions. Let’s just make some cheap comparison with Nazi Germany instead. Puke.

Lets ignore the fact that Palestinians were deported en masse from their own land (legally genocide since you like the term so much) and now if they want to just visit their birthright or even just go to work (as their economy has been destroyed along with the majority of their infrastructure) they have to go through long waits at checkpoints and searches. That's assuming some soldier doesn't get spooked and shoot them.

And why should Jews not be allowed in these areas anyway

I didn't say they shouldn't, but only after they give the land back and take down checkpoints which prevent Palestinians their right of return to their previously occupied land.

areas where there have been continuously inhabited Jewish settlements for centuries?

Again, the area created that the Israeli state encompasses was 95 % Arab before the creation of the Israeli state.

Are Arabs being ethnically cleansed from these areas? Are any Jews being forced to live there?

Last time I heard 1500 Palestinians had been killed. Given that stat a Palestinian might very well see it that way.

mr_angry

*sigh* Where do I start?

So you’re saying that someone who sets out to kill as many innocent civilians as possible is no different from someone who would try to stop that person from doing so, and all the while trying to avoid injury to civilians as much as possible?

Bo do they try hard enough? I don't think so.

It hasn’t. But it has stopped them dying in far fewer numbers than would otherwise be the case.

You can't know that would be the case. Pure speculation.

There is no cycle of violence in the Middle East.

Just plain wrong.

Re: Slaughtering Palastinian civilians: I agree, as do the Israelis. That’s why they’re not doing it.

I disagree. They're not doing it to the same extent as the Palastinian militants (and note militant - as in not tarring everyone with the same brush), but they are doing it.

There is nothing in international law that says Jews cannot build settlements in these areas.

Wrong again.

If the Israelis were to kill him they would actually be doing the Palestinians a big favour.

So now you're advocating assisnation? Very reassuring...

They are the legitimate acts of a democracy at war. No society can afford to allow such people move about at liberty for lack of evidence that would hold up in a court of law.

So they should kill people they have no evidence against? Again, reassuring...

In what way is Israel the aggressor (unless you believe that Israel itself is illegitimate and must be destroyed)?

I don't believe Israel should be destroyed, but I believe they should give back the land that belongs to the Palastinian people. Bringing in the army, kicking people out of their homes, puting them in a refugee camp (dump, more like), bulldozing their houses, and building replacements for Israelis...? Do you expect these people to be pleased? That is agression! Your attempts to deny this are rediculous, in my opinion.

What are they supposed to do?

Not fire devastating missiles into refugee camps.

Frankly, I think your arguments are just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Please stop being wrong.

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
So you’re saying that someone who sets out to kill as many innocent civilians as possible is no different from someone who would try to stop that person from doing so, and all the while trying to avoid injury to civilians as much as possible?

Killing teenagers throwing rocks isn't really keeping Israeli citizens alive now is it?

No, what made her into a terrorist was her conscious, deliberate decision to strap on an explosives belt, enter a restaurant in Haifa and blow to pieces as many of her fellow human beings as possible. Who gave her the idea to do this and who assisted her in carrying it out? The psychotic, criminal leadership of the Palestinians.

Really, while he can't leave his headquarters?
Might it be the fact that her brothers were killed by IDF forces AFTER their arrest.

It hasn’t. But it has stopped them dying in far fewer numbers than would otherwise be the case.

Maybe if you forget reality and history.

Well I’m afraid I don’t accept that. There is no cycle of violence in the Middle East. What you have is acts of Palestinian aggression followed by an Israeli defensive response. Without Palestinian aggression, there is nothing for the Israelis respond to and thus no violence.

Which is why Israel has been such a peaceful country in the 50 years since it took over land inhabited by another group of people.

Without an Israeli response, however, the Palestinians would simply continue to kill. Palestinian violence is directed at destroying Israel, not as a response to Israeli violence.

You forget the myriad examples of "relative calm" which don't see one suicide bombing or Palestinian attack but do see consistant incursions and attacks on civilians that do kill Palestinian civilians.

1. The creation of the state of Israel did not involve genocide, at least not on the Jewish side. It did involve the Arabs attempting genocide against the Jews, but fortunately they failed.

It not only involved genocide (in the form of forced exile of the indigenous people) as well it involved terrorism committed by Jewish fundamentalists
I really think you need to look genocide up.

2. The creation of the state of Israel was endorsed by the UN. Does this mean that you:

I see so the UN's mandate of Israel is legitimate but UN resolutions demanding repatriation of land that it illegally invaded arent.

a. Accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel,

Only as far as it's borders as of it's creation by the UN and on terms that Palestinians agree to

b. Reject the authority of the UN and all resolutions it has passed criticising Israel, or

I'm not the one picking and choosing UN resolutions here.

c. Only recognise the authority of the UN when it is critical of Israel?

Please show where I haven't recognised the authority of the UN.

3. Do you believe in the collective guilt of the entire Israeli people for the actions of individual Israelis?

No but they do have some responsibility for their governments actions. Just like I have some responsibility of the American goverment's actions as well you for your respective government (whichever that happens to be).
Does that mean that they should be killed by suicide bombers...no not in my opinion.

4. If so, does your notion of collective guilt only apply to those Jews who were living in Palestine when Israel came into existence, or does it include those who were born there after 1948 also?

Yes they bare responsibility for taking someone else's land. Just like the settlers in America that took Native American land and were attacked by said people.
That being said I have never stated, nor do I beleive that Israel should be dismantled. It's too late for that. The illegal settlers are another matter and are often enough responsible for Palestinian civilian deaths as well as they steal their natural resources and harass them.

No Israeli settlements in the West Bank or Gaza were built on land taken from Arabs.

Please tell me the name of the Jewish homeland Israel attacked and took the land from then.

There is nothing in international law that says Jews cannot build settlements in these areas.

Heres but one, there are others.

They have always indicated they are willing to compromise on the settlements issue. The settlements issue is not an obstacle to peace.

It is when they continually build them.

I assume you are referring to Sabra and Chatilla. Even if you accept his complicity in these massacres, which I don’t, you cannot seriously argue he is in anywhere near the same league as Arafat.

Yes and he does. He's even wanted in front of a court for it. Strangely enough a witness for that very court was killed in a rare car bomb in Lebanon two years ago.
Still you are comparing apples and oranges here. One is fighting for the freedom of his people while the other is killing the population of a people he occupies.

Arafat was supposed to reign in terrorism as part of the Oslo Accords.

And Israel was supposed stop building settlements and dismantle some as well...it didn't and it didn't.

He has made no effort to do so and never will.

Hard to do with an occupying army that continues to kill the people that voted you as their leader.

If the Israelis were to kill him they would actually be doing the Palestinians a big favour.

I guess that's why the voted for him and didn't support the one guy that Sharon and Bush did want.

It would give them the opportunity to elect new leadership committed to compromise and peace who would help lift them out of the squalor they currently reside in.

Being that they were in that squalor before Arafat came along, that's hardly evident. By the same rationale the Israelis could live in peace and security if they would elect a leader who would negotiate in good faith and end the oppression of the Palestinian people.

What kind of civilian casualties do you think there would be if they sent in troops to arrest suspects and battle it out in the streets?

If they worked with the Palestinian elected leader in catching these people instead of constantly incurring into his territory and killling his constituents there might be alot less civilians casualties on both sides.

They are the legitimate acts of a democracy at war.

Killing civilians is not a legitimate act no matter if carried out by democracy, dictator, monarchy or feudal lord.

No society can afford to allow such people move about at liberty for lack of evidence that would hold up in a court of law.

So I guess the rule of law is out and terrorism is in.

The teenage militants that are sent out to act as human shields for terrorist gunmen?

Even though there are no gunmen around and the IDF start the rock throwing by racial slurs directed at Palestinians youths.

Since when have Israel and America deliberately targeted civilians?

Well it started with area bombing in Dresden as well as other cities in Germany and ended with the bombing of Al-Jazeera in Iraq.
Israel has too many to list.

In what way is Israel the aggressor (unless you believe that Israel itself is illegitimate and must be destroyed)?

Your logical fallacy does not hold. Israel WAS created by taking land from it's indigenous people. In almost any other situation of similar context would it be called aggression.

Witness Israeli settlements - expansionism in all but name. I bet if you were to call it "lebensraum" you'd be condemned as an anti-semitic pro-nazi nutjob though.

Bonkey, remember the context of my comment. I was refering to the concept of Israel using their Nukes, not any other activities they might have undertaken. I'm not going to get into another argument about whether Israel is justified or not in their responses to palestinian actions.

Do you honestly believe that Israel would use a nuke against the middle East? Taking out the irrational concept that every action Israel performs is suspect, of course......

Again, the area created that the Israeli state encompasses was 95 % Arab before the creation of the Israeli state.

Actually no it wasn't. It was part of the british empire. And if you want to go back further, then it could have belonged to anyone. Everyone fought for that land all the time. It was rare that any nation settled or farmed that land. It was not Arab land.

Killing teenagers throwing rocks isn't really keeping Israeli citizens alive now is it?

I don't agree with the deaths, but you have to recognise how it happens. Palestinian teenagers act in a manner that deems them targets. Throwing stones at troops can be just as effective as a bullet in the head. If they stopped fighting, they wouldn't be targets.

Which is why Israel has been such a peaceful country in the 50 years since it took over land inhabited by another group of people.

And you're going to say it ws going to be a peaceful country, even if they hadn't? Arab Nations have always cried out for Israels destruction, since it was recognised. You're being naive if you really think Israel had any real choice. They assumed they could take the battle away from their own country and keep Israeli civilians safe. They failed.

You forget the myriad examples of "relative calm" which don't see one suicide bombing or Palestinian attack but do see consistant incursions and attacks on civilians that do kill Palestinian civilians.

and you seem to forget that violence occurs in palestine that doesn't involve either suicide attacks, and helicopter attacks. But yes, Israeli response is a bit excessive.

Hobbes

Originally posted by klaz
I don't agree with the deaths, but you have to recognise how it happens. Palestinian teenagers act in a manner that deems them targets. Throwing stones at troops can be just as effective as a bullet in the head. If they stopped fighting, they wouldn't be targets.

ROFLMAO. Just as a effective as a bullet? Against people in body armor and tanks. Do you have a list of army deaths due to rocks being thrown?

Do you honestly believe that Israel would use a nuke against the middle East?

Yes. As soon as Israel knows it can get away with it, they will.

Everyone fought for that land all the time.

Why go back so far? Lets say from 9/11 to now. How much land has been taken? Quite a bit I believe.

I dont think Israel will ever use a nuke. Mainly because without the US support they're fúcked, and there's no way the US could remain their ally if they started nuking people.

ROFLMAO. Just as a effective as a bullet? Against people in body armor and tanks. Do you have a list of army deaths due to rocks being thrown?

no i don't. But then i've seen television images from the north whereby stone throwers deal visible damage to the armoured police.

Yes. As soon as Israel knows it can get away with it, they will

I on the other hand see it a bit far fetched. The same possibility of the US or Britain using them.

Why go back so far? Lets say from 9/11 to now. How much land has been taken? Quite a bit I believe

Because the reference was of who owned the land originally. How the land israel is founded is Arab land. We weren't talking abt the land siezed by Israeli forces, for occupation...

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by klaz
no i don't. But then i've seen television images from the north whereby stone throwers deal visible damage to the armoured police.

So that justifies killing the stone throwers?
What if the RUC/British Army murdered every kid up North that threw stones at them, what do you think would happen? i.e International reaction etc.

Tito

Sorry but everyone is attacking Isreal and blaming them for everything which is not right. How can you try have peace in the region when you have old Yasser doing everything possible to stay in power.
I do not think you can be searching for peace when you blow yourself up and kill innocent people.Yes I see a independent contolled state for Yasser to live in but Isreal is picked on by every country in that region

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Bonkey, remember the context of my comment. I was refering to the concept of Israel using their Nukes, not any other activities they might have undertaken.

Yes, but by the context of your comment, the only reason offered as to why the Israeli's would not use a nuke is that they "remember what happened" to themselves in the past.

I am simply pointing out that there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that they most certainly do not show that they remember what happened, or if they do, they only choose to do so when it is to their advantage.

I'm not going to get into another argument about whether Israel is justified or not in their responses to palestinian actions.

I'm not interested in whether or not its justified, with respect to the point I was making. I'm not even that concerned about BIffa's pointing out the outrage of some Israeli's at some of these actions.

What I am pointing out is the choice of action implemented by the military, presumably under the authority of Sharon, is frequently and repeatedly showing that the Israeli's are not remembering their past.

Do you honestly believe that Israel would use a nuke against the middle East?

I never suggested that either. All I did was question the assertion that they wouldn't do so because "they remember".

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
and all the while trying to avoid injury to civilians as much as possible?

You keep saying this.....as if somehow that people will start believing you despite the fact that you never offer any evidence of this. Indeed, the assertion itself seems to be considered the "evidence" you use to answer so many other questions.

Indeed, you might show how this is true considering that the death-rate currently stands somewhere around 3 Palestinians for every Israeli.

Or can I just expect another emotion-filled post explaining how people who don't agree with you make you want to puke, followed by some more

Disgusting. Let’s ignore the fact that ......

Right...loads of reasons clipped which all explain why this was completely not the same issue....which then gets followed by :

Let’s ignore the fact that there was uproar over this in Israel itself

Yes - exactly. If it was so acceptable...as the points I clipped for brevity were asserting, then why was there outrage from the holocaust victims about it?

And my point still stands. It only became an issue when the Israelis/Jews complained about it. When I complain about it even after the Israeli's themselves spoke out, my actions are disgusting - makes you want to puke. When Israeli's complained about it, it was "democratic and open", as well as sufficient to have the practice abandoned as having been needlessly insensitive. Kinda proves my underlying point - the only people who can criticise the Israelis without being branded in one way or another are the Israeli's themselves. The rest of us are wrong, even if we're making the same criticisms.

Well done Biffa. I think you've indicated the underlying hypocracy of the situation perfectly - that there are indeed double-standards at play here.

jc