[article] Palestinians New Weapons..

mike65

This from the UK Independent

Boy 'suicide bomber' arrested by Israelis
By Donald Macintyre in Hawara

25 March 2004

The Israeli Army produced for the television cameras yesterday a teenage boy they accused militant factions of having turned into a "human bomb" by sending him across a checkpoint in an explosive vest.

The boy, who said he was 14 and could be one of the youngest ever would-be suicide bombers, was ordered to stop at gunpoint as he moved towards a group of Israeli soldiers. Instead of running on and detonating the vest, he halted and raised his hands, an Army spokesman said.

In the latest intensification of its campaign to publicise what the spokesman says is the increasing use of children by the armed factions, the Army invited reporters to film the boy within hours of his detention and before he had been interrogated. Reporters were not allowed to interview the boy, named as Hussam Abdu, though in answer to shouted in Arabic by a television crew he said he was 14 and in the eighth grade and nodded when asked whether he knew what he had been carrying. The explosives which the Army said had been in the vest were later detonated nearby.

There was some confusion about the boy's age, who was filmed looking frightened and wearing a oversize Army jacket over his blue jeans which had been lent him by soldiers. Originally the Army said he was as young as ten while the family told a reporter in Nablus that the boy was 16. A spokesman for the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade the militant faction linked to Yasser Arafat's Fatah _also in inisted the boy was 16.

Abed Khabesa, a Palestinian cameraman who filmed the episode, said yesterday that he had been driving from Hawara at around 1.30pm and was between the two checkpoints before the entry to Nablus when he noticed that no one was passing through the second checkpoint.

He was told by an Israeli official he knows well that a suicide bomber had been detained on the approach from the other, Nablus, side of the second checkpoint. He asked if he could film what was happening and after the official had sought permission was told that he could.

"The boy was about 30 metres from the second checkpoint. He had his hands on his head. He was wearing a red jacket which he took off. Some Druze soldiers who spoke Arabic were hiding behind the concrete blocks at the checkpoint and shouting at him what to do. He took off his jacket and I saw that he was wearing a sort of grey vest. I could see him taking off one side of the vest and then the other. The vest slipped down to the ground."

Mr Khabesa said the soldiers also ordered the boy briefly to lower his trousers and then hitch them up again. They then warned him to keep away from the vest.

The Army said that that the boy had been running towards the soldiers, apparently after soldiers at the checkpoint had spotted something abnormal about the boys clothing as he stood in the queue to the checkpoint. The soldiers were on high alert after an incident exactly a week ago when soldiers apprehended at the same checkpoint a 10-year-old boy who they said had been carrying a bomb in one of two plastic bags he was carrying.

Military sources said the boy had said that he received 100 shekels about £15 _for the attack. Local media said that a Tanzim cell from the Balata refugee camp in Nablus took responsibility. Army Radio reported that the belt failed to detonate due to a technical flaw, but Channel 1 television later said that Israeli sappers had discovered no problem with the explosives and had speculated that the boy had simply lost his nerve.

The family of the boy said he was mentally slow. "He doesn't know anything," his brother, Hosni, said. Soldiers said they had received intelligence that there was an attack planned there, shut down the crossing and began searching people.

The boy, wearing an oversized red jersey, approached them in a suspicious way, said Lieutenant Tamir Milrad, an officer at the checkpoint. They ordered him to take off his jersey, revealing a large grey bomb vest underneath. "He told us he didn't want to die. He didn't want to blow up," Lt Milrad said. He cut off the vest after they sent him scissors with a small robot.

"This is another horrific example of how the Palestinians use their own children to spread terror against Israelis," said David Baker, an official in the prime minister's office. "These children are turned into human time-bombs for the purpose of spreading as much terror against Israelis as possible," he said.

Abdu's mother voiced astonishment at the incident. "Hussam left home this morning to school, and this was the first we hear of what happened," Tamam Abdu said Nablus, just north of Hawara. "This is shocking. To use a child like this is irresponsible, forbidden."

* Britain said yesterday that it would freeze assets held in the UK by five leading figures in Hamas, the militant Palestinian group, including its new leader Abdel Aziz Rantissi, on grounds that they were guilty of participating in acts in terrorism.

Local media reactions -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3567791.stm

Mike.

Sand

Its pure evil how cowardly these terrorists are - they prey on the weak and the gulliable and send them out to die for their own causes. They are unwilling to engage in conventional warfare, but afraid to accept the consequences of their own acts.

Its a bitter, bitter conflict. The men who sent that boy are feted as heroes.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
Its pure evil how cowardly these terrorists are - they prey on the weak and the gulliable and send them out to die for their own causes.

Agreed - it takes a very sick and twisted bastard to send a mentally handicapped boy out strapped to explosives like that.

pork99

My gut sympathies were always with the Palestinians but after something like this and the Madrid bombings you begin to think that the Israelis have a point.

(I know Palestinians were not responsible for Madrid but it gives you some idea of what Israelis have had to put up with)

MeatProduct

That's quite disgusting. There are some very sick people in this world. What's even more concerning is that this mentality is not restricted to terrorists.

Nick

Linoge

Originally posted by Sand
Its pure evil how cowardly these terrorists are - they prey on the weak and the gulliable and send them out to die for their own causes. They are unwilling to engage in conventional warfare, but afraid to accept the consequences of their own acts.

Its a bitter, bitter conflict. The men who sent that boy are feted as heroes.

If you believe half the **** that the Israelis feed to the news your being fillled with crap. Do you really think that a sane human being would do such a thing to a child? Notice how the Israeli army has happened to catch both children carrying bombs? That was nice of them.
The media were not allowed to interview the boy, no doubt the Israeli soldiers didn't want to put a Palestinian through any trauma.
Cowardly terrorists you call them? We all know the Palestianians are drug dealers and hate Israel because they are jealous of their standard of living.

Read between the lines people. Use your heads. The Palestinian people have historically been people of peace. The suicide bombings, which I in no way agree with, are an act of desperation. They can't send in a few tanks or a few helicopters to kill people like the Israelis are doing.
Israel is not engaged in a fight against terrorism. They are the (government funded) terrorists.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The Palestinian people have historically been people of peace

Linoge, what kind of crap are you smoking? No nation in the middle east have been peaceful. When have the palestinians been peaceful exactly?

I may lean more towards Israel, but i'm not stupid or naive enough to call either side peaceful.

Linoge

Originally posted by daveirl
This is just like the reaction the anti-war people had to that poll that didn't agree with what they wanted. Again this arguement basically degrades the pro-palestinian cause. I'd consider myself quite anti-Israeli and yet I wouldn't question this story because I trust the sources, i.e. BBC, Channel 4, The Independent. If you think that those channels are stupid enough to be conned by Israeli propoganda then fair enough.

What are you talking about 2 children? Are you even commenting on the same event as the rest of us?

Eins:

Originally posted by mike65

The boy, who said he was 14 and could be one of the youngest ever would-be suicide bombers, was ordered to stop at gunpoint as he moved towards a group of Israeli soldiers. Instead of running on and detonating the vest, he halted and raised his hands, an Army spokesman said.

Zwei:

Originally posted by mike65

The soldiers were on high alert after an incident exactly a week ago when soldiers apprehended at the same checkpoint a 10-year-old boy who they said had been carrying a bomb in one of two plastic bags he was carrying.

RTFQ

You trust those sources? If you read the extract you'd see that it was all "He was told by an Israeli official", "an official in the prime minister's office", "Military sources said" and "The Army said". The news is the news. They report what they are given. It is up to you as whether or not to believe it. How do you think propaganda is created? I remember stories about WOMD not too long back with gas masks and protective suits produced which were "clear evidence that WOMD must be nearby"

BTW, what poll? I'm not one of these tree hugging plane smashing hippie war protestors. Far from it. And I dont know how what I have said undermines the Palestinian movement, you really should elaborate on your points.

Originally posted by klaz
Linoge, what kind of crap are you smoking? No nation in the middle east have been peaceful. When have the palestinians been peaceful exactly?

Your cancer causing secondary smoke. Bring on March 29th. Klaz, you're still bitter over that whole smoking ban debate. Grow up.
What a joke of a statement. Why didn't you just add "All Muslims should be shot!"? It's not up to me to give you a history lesson. Your on the internet, google it. In fact google everything before you end up posting absurd crap like that again.

leonotron

Originally posted by daveirl
This is just like the reaction the anti-war people had to that poll that didn't agree with what they wanted. Again this arguement basically degrades the pro-palestinian cause. I'd consider myself quite anti-Israeli and yet I wouldn't question this story because I trust the sources, i.e. BBC, Channel 4, The Independent. If you think that those channels are stupid enough to be conned by Israeli propoganda then fair enough.

What are you talking about 2 children? Are you even commenting on the same event as the rest of us?

He is quoting the same story, if you read it properly you would know the second child he mentions. You would'nt question the sources? Did you believe everything they told you about the war in Iraq? Do you still believe it since they were proved wrong?

You're an idiot

pork99

Originally posted by leonotron
You're an idiot

Leave him alone, he's a student :rolleyes:

halkar

Well, Linoge might have a point here. It is easy to look at this as a propaganda material especially right after the assasination of Hamas leader. And yes media only told what Israel told them so and it is strange that they have missed so many suicide bombers and now when they capture a kid it is all over the media right after the assaination. I thought suicide bombers rather explode then be captured, what if he had exploded while these shots were taking by the media there? This capture was shown on the tv was too perfect to be true.

Anyone knows the truth tell me too, me finding it hard to beleive anything these days

bonkey

Originally posted by Linoge
Do you really think that a sane human being would do such a thing to a child?

Sane? No. Do I think that someone would do such a thing to a child? Sure. The same people who have no compunction about sending an adult to explode himself on a public bus, or at a public gathering, etc. where there are also children (often younger than the one in question) present.

If you are willing to slaighter the children of yoru enemy so callously, then its not stretching the bounds of credibility that you would also be willing to send children of your own people to die in a similar manner.

Notice how the Israeli army has happened to catch both children carrying bombs? That was nice of them.

Yes it was nice of them. There's a chance these kids - and those they would have killed in carrying out the act - could now have lives.

The media were not allowed to interview the boy, no doubt the Israeli soldiers didn't want to put a Palestinian through any trauma.

Given that what the boy was doing was unquestioably illegal, perhaps you could point out the last time a suspect was allowed to be interviewed so soon after detention in any situation???? If you can't, then I fail to see the relevance of this point.

The Palestinian people have historically been people of peace.

So have the Jews. Whats your point?

The suicide bombings, which I in no way agree with, are an act of desperation.

So is sending a child to do the suicide bombing in the first place - desperation mixed with something very dark and very cold. Kinda what you'd need to send a bomber of any age to blow up kids, really, which has been done.

Explain again the logic again as to why its so unbelievable?


jc

Sand

I know its difficult to debate with fanatics, as reason does not sit well with dogma, but Ill try....

Firstly on the point that the story is fabricated by the IDF as the only sources are the IDF.

If you read the whole article youll see where local media confirm that a Tanzim terrorist cell claimed responsibility for sending the child. Youll also see his mother castigating the terrorists for using her son as an expendable pawn in their campaign. The incident was also filimed by a palestinian camera man, which is where the still of the crying child comes from. Do I always believe what Im told? No - but there are so many varying sources and theres a damn photo of the child bomb at the checkpoint.

Secondly on the point, do i think there are people evil enough to send a child as a suicide bomber - yes, yes I do. There are sadly far too many people in this world who are that evil.

As for the rest, Id ask you - Bearing in mind all the Palestinians have suffered - and your reaction to this - can you even hypothetically conceive of a situation where you might view an act of theres as evil or cowardly terrorism?

Nuttzz

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=33&si=1152999&issue_id=10643

The teacher in school told us [about paradise]. He told us about the life of pleasure that waits there: a river of honey, a river of wine, and 72 virgins

there must be an endless supply of virgins there, what did he plan to do with all 72, and why 72? why not 84 or 365?

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
I know its difficult to debate with fanatics, as reason does not sit well with dogma, but Ill try....

I've seen some fanaticism on both sides here.

Firstly on the point that the story is fabricated by the IDF as the only sources are the IDF.

If you read the whole article youll see where local media confirm that a Tanzim terrorist cell claimed responsibility for sending the child.

I'd be more impressed if they were a little more verbos about that statement.
Who the hell are Tanzim? What "local media"?

Youll also see his mother castigating the terrorists for using her son as an expendable pawn in their campaign.

As any mother would be after they told her what happened, doesn't mean she knows the full story either.

The incident was also filimed by a palestinian camera man, which is where the still of the crying child comes from.

Yes but you only saw it because the IDF released it and they decided what you did see.

Do I always believe what Im told? No - but there are so many varying sources and theres a damn photo of the child bomb at the checkpoint.

And the only other source that you have gotten the information from was "local media".

I'm not saying that this didn't happen and if it did happen as they say then I also agree it's a horrible thing to do. On the other hand I find it no more horrible than the almost daily killing of kids in the West Bank.
I would also question why the UK government freezes the assets of Hamas and why it's relavent to this story.
Do they also freeze assets of Sharon and other top members of the Israeli government....for their daily acts of terrorism.

Secondly on the point, do i think there are people evil enough to send a child as a suicide bomber - yes, yes I do. There are sadly far too many people in this world who are that evil.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe in "evil". It's a horrible thing yes but it's also a human thing to do. I also find it done in the context of equally horrible acts.

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes it was nice of them. There's a chance these kids - and those they would have killed in carrying out the act - could now have lives.

Then compare what kind of life the former would have as compared to the latter.

Given that what the boy was doing was unquestioably illegal, perhaps you could point out the last time a suspect was allowed to be interviewed so soon after detention in any situation???? If you can't, then I fail to see the relevance of this point.

Because what the kid was doing you've only been told by the IDF. Otherwise we don't know what he was doing other than his mother sent him to school and that the IDF arrested him at a checkpoint.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
Linoge, what kind of crap are you smoking? No nation in the middle east have been peaceful. When have the palestinians been peaceful exactly?

I'd say prior to their land being stolen and ever since then constant aggression and land grabs.

bonkey

Originally posted by sovtek
Then compare what kind of life the former would have as compared to the latter.

I can't. I don't have enough faith in either side to be able to predict how this child's future - now that he has one again - will unfold.

What I do know is that when you're dead, there isn't even room for hope.

bonkey

From klaz :

Linoge, what kind of crap are you smoking?

From linoge :

Klaz, you're still bitter over that whole smoking ban debate. Grow up.

From leonotron :

You're an idiot

From pork99 :

eave him alone, he's a student

Do you guys think I haven't banned enough people this week or something, or that I've already banned too many so you're going to be let get away with this crap?

Either learn to be civil really quick, or learn that you won't be posting here again. Your choice.

jc

Sand

Who the hell are Tanzim?

Know your terrorists

Yes but you only saw it because the IDF released it and they decided what you did see.

Granted, but filimed by a palestinian and its hard to imagine the part where the IDF soldier grabs a child out of crowd, forces him at gunpoint to wear the bomb jacket or theyll murder his whole family - and then does an oscar performance taking it off under instruction.

I'm not saying that this didn't happen and if it did happen as they say then I also agree it's a horrible thing to do. On the other hand I find it no more horrible than the almost daily killing of kids in the West Bank.

Yes its terrible those kids die. Whose sending them to be killed by the IDF? The IDF may be guilty of their killings, and whoever is sending them is just as culpable of manipulating their deaths for political gain. Its another cowardly, evil act on their part.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe in "evil". It's a horrible thing yes but it's also a human thing to do. I also find it done in the context of equally horrible acts.

If there are no evil acts, then there are no good acts. Are you arguing that? And note I never said evil actions were not a part and parcel of human behaviour. Human beings have set attack dogs on infants because they werent sure how best to deal with them otherwise - call those acts what you want, I call them evil.

Memnoch

I don't understand this...

when the Israeli Military kills someone its ok because they are "defending themselves from terrorists"

but when the palestinians do it "they are terrorists".

I think people seem to continually forget a few basic points...

1) The Israeli's are illegally occupying Palestinian land.
2) The Palastinian's don't have a choice but to use suicide bombers against civillian targets as they don't have a military strong enough to fight the israeli's (they aren't given tanks and planes and weapons by the US as Israel is)
3) Israel's occupation of Palestine has been condemned by the world as has their "fence" building
4) The United States of Retards has veto'd 79 UN resolutions against Israel.

so again please tell me, why are Palastinian's "terrorists" ? These people are fighting for their freedom, they are inflicting damage on their enemies in the only way that they can.

But because American propaganda along with Israeli propaganda continuially calls them "terrorists" thats what they are?

The true terrorists are the Israeli's and the American's, that go around the world, imposing their will, killing people if it suits them. But they are powerful so what they do is ok right?

I mean Madeline Albright, admitted on CBS news that U.S. sanctions against Iraq, was directly responsible for the death of nearly half a million Iraqi children. But it was worth the price. So America targetted the same "soft" targets. But instead of killing these people instantly with a bomb, it let half a million children die slowly and painfully to disease and hunger, but this is not terrorism, it is legal. The rich and powerful legalise their own methods of murder because this is the way they do it, and the blindly ignorant people (of which there are many in this thread), fall for the propaganda time and time again.


Now please, someone justify America's killing of half a million Iraqi children?

All that being said, I don't condone the use of children in these suicide campaigns. But what a lot of people are forgetting is that this is all about propaganda. Israel and America continually try to depict palastenians as "bad evil people", all this stuff about 2 children or all that is mainly the focus of propaganda in the hope that people will forget the real issues. But no matter what the Israeli's say or what the palestinian's do, there is a basic underlying fact that people ignore that should never be forgotten.

Israel's occupation of palestine is illegal and immoral. They themselves have murdered many palastenians' children and adults. They have made countless palestinians homeless and destitute, taken away any hope these people have at a chance of a decent life.

What do you want the palestinians to do? Sit back and wait for the world to fix their problems? With the U.S. backing Israel for so long, do you really think anyone cares about the palestinians. No one does, they don't have any oil or other natural resource that the world will run to their rescue. Even if the world wanted to, the U.S. is there, guarding Israel like an impenetrable shield.

MeatProduct

It's good to hear someone talk a bit of sense. I had brought up elsewhere the issue of the half million children dying as well as the comments from Albright in 1996. You can be damn sure there are a lot more children dead now than that half million in 1996. It actually makes me ill to think of it. You are exactly right, the terrorists are the US administration. Since they have the money and power they call anyone they want terrorists and the public believe them cause it says so on TV.

Thank you for the breath of fresh air,

Nick

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Meh

Originally posted by daveirl
That might be alright if they only hit military targets, but they don't, they routinely and deliberately kill civilians.

Yes, just because you're being oppressed isn't a license to murder civilians.

Just to make it absolutely clear: when the Israelis deliberately target innocent Palestinian civilians, that's wrong. When the Palestinians deliberately target innocent Israeli civilians, that's equally wrong. The Geneva Conventions do not have an opt-out "No targetting enemy civilians (unless it's too hard to attack enemy soldiers)".

halkar

Originally posted by daveirl
That might be alright if they only hit military targets, but they don't, they routinely and deliberately kill civilians. Tell me were the Madrid Bombers, the 9/11 attakers and the Bali bombers terrorists?

Gone the days, when they only had swords and shields and bows. How can you compare their military capability to Israel's. If Palestine had the same tech and advances like Israel does I am sure Sharon would have bended over long time ago. So does US and Israel kill civilians. But when they do, they just say "Ooooops" :rolleyes:

MeatProduct

It's looks fairly clear to me that the US administration is not interested in peace. In fact they are supporters of death and actively promote it. Selling weapons to anyone is no way to get peace, it's such basic logic. If they wanted peace they would not put more tools of death into the system. If they wanted peace there are other possibilites open rather than handing out weapons. The bottom line is; if the US administration wanted peace, there would be peace. They don't want peace.

Of course I'm open to hear how handing out weapons assures less death and more peace without oppressing people.

Nick

Memnoch

Originally posted by daveirl
That might be alright if they only hit military targets, but they don't, they routinely and deliberately kill civilians. Tell me were the Madrid Bombers, the 9/11 attakers and the Bali bombers terrorists?

Okay firstly,
The Madrid bombings weren't commited by palastinians.

The fact of the matter is that the palastinian's cannot hit Israel military targets. Israel's don't NEED to kill civilians as they are the ones who are over powered and in control, but nevertheless they do kill civilians accidentaly.

Also like I pointed out in my post above, you don't need to actively blow someone up to destroy them.

EVERY SINGLE PALASTENIAN SUFFERS GREATLY, because of the Israeli occupation. They cannot work, they cannot make a living they cannot provide food for their families, they cannot get education, clean water, medicines etc etc etc etc.

So you're saying that the Israli's target only the palestinian military forces is actually an incorrect assessment of the facts. The fact is THROUGH the occupation of Palestine the israeli's are harming every single Palestinian civillian.

I will ask you a simple question,
If you were a palestinian, born in an occupied country, with no hope of progress or freedom, no hope of justice for family members killed by the Israeli's (accidentaly), no hope for the future, and the rest of the world standing idly by, what would you do?

Tell me, what viable, practical options do the palastinians really have?

Memnoch

Originally posted by Meh
Yes, just because you're being oppressed isn't a license to murder civilians.

Just to make it absolutely clear: when the Israelis deliberately target innocent Palestinian civilians, that's wrong. When the Palestinians deliberately target innocent Israeli civilians, that's equally wrong. The Geneva Conventions do not have an opt-out "No targetting enemy civilians (unless it's too hard to attack enemy soldiers)".

define oppressed?
for the majority of palestinian's their life is not much better than being dead, which is why they so readily commit suicide. They have no jobs, no money, no food, no future, no freedom. Their only way to fight back or inflict any kind of retribution on their tormentors is through these suicide bombings, so thats what they do.
Its easy for you to say what they shouldn't do,
why don't you instead suggest what they SHOULD do? something practical that they have the ability to do that will gain them their rights as human beings?

edit: Also - I couldn't help but notice how none of the people who replied to my previous replied to the murder of over half a million iraqi children by the americans. So by your silence I assume you agree that the American's are terrorists for comitting such atrocities?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Meh

Originally posted by daveirl
I think you're making the same point as I did. I was saying that the Palestinian suicide bombers were wrong!! read my post again!

Yeah, I was agreeing with you

Originally posted by Memnoch:
why don't you instead suggest what they SHOULD do? something practical that they have the ability to do that will gain them their rights as human beings?

The most immediate, practical thing that the Palestinians could do right now to improve their prospects for the future would be to stop attacks on Israeli civilians. Every dead Israeli civilian makes a peace settlement less and less likely. (And on the other side of the coin, the most immediate, practical thing that Israel could do to improve its prospects for peaceful, secure borders would be to stop killing Palestinian civilians.)

halkar

Originally posted by Meh
..The most immediate, practical thing that the Palestinians could do right now to improve their prospects for the future would be to stop attacks on Israeli civilians. Every dead Israeli civilian makes a peace settlement less and less likely. (And on the other side of the coin, the most immediate, practical thing that Israel could do to improve its prospects for peaceful, secure borders would be to stop killing Palestinian civilians.)

And none of it will happen. The way the country divided right now if Palestinians agrees to peace they will be surrounded with Israeli lands with no contact to other world and we probably see Israel putting more walls and barriers around them. How can be Palestine country if their cities scattered all over Israel? How will the people move between cities with so strick Israeli check points. Israel even wnats to control their Egypt borders which I think they do at the moment. It's a total mess with lots of dead ends and I am afraid worst yet to come.

You can compare todays Israel to the original UN map of Israel of 1947 from here http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/Israel%20in%20Maps/The%20Partition%20Plan-%20UN%20Resolution%20181%20-%2029%20Nov%20194 and you can ask yourself what happened to the Palestinians and Arabs of the lands they have taken by Israel.http://www.stanford.edu/class/history187b/ismap.htm

Meh

Originally posted by halkar
And none of it will happen. The way the country divided right now if Palestinians agrees to peace they will be surrounded with Israeli lands with no contact to other world and we probably see Israel putting more walls and barriers around them. ow can be Palestine country if their cities scattered all over Israel? How will the people move between cities with so strick Israeli check points. Israel even wnats to control their Egypt borders which I think they do at the moment.

But all of that stuff (and much worse) is going on right now, as you admit yourself. I'm told above that "for the majority of palestinian's their life is not much better than being dead, which is why they so readily commit suicide. They have no jobs, no money, no food, no future, no freedom". So the Palestinians have much more to gain than to lose from peace.

Given that they can never hope to defeat Israel militarily, as you say yourself above, it seems that a peace settlement is their only way forward.

Memnoch

Originally posted by daveirl
I think you're making the same point as I did. I was saying that the Palestinian suicide bombers were wrong!! read my post again!

I never said they were, I'm just simply pointing out that if that happened in Israel you'd argue it was justified because the Palestinians are oppresed. I'm saying that because you agree with the Palestinian cause you think Palestinian terror is OK, but you don't agree with Bin Laden so you don't think that's OK.

its not so much so an issue of cause... palestinian terror isn't terror, its "defence" against Israeli invasion in the only way that they can. Again I ask you, why is Israel's illegal occupation of palestine "legitimite" in your view as long as they only kill combatants, while palastinian's retaliation is terrorism?

Israeli's are the one's commiting the real aggression through occupation of palestinian terriroty. The palestinian's are just fighting back in any way that they can.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Meh
But all of that stuff (and much worse) is going on right now, as you admit yourself. I'm told above that "for the majority of palestinian's their life is not much better than being dead, which is why they so readily commit suicide. They have no jobs, no money, no food, no future, no freedom". So the Palestinians have much more to gain than to lose from peace.

Given that they can never hope to defeat Israel militarily, as you say yourself above, it seems that a peace settlement is their only way forward.

What kind of peace settlement? The israeli's will not give what the palestinian's deserve, its that simple. If the palestinian's stop fighting and capitulate to whatever the iraeli's choose to throw their way then yes in the short term things might be better for them, however in the long term, the palestinians need a sovereign state that is recognised internationally, and freedom for their people. Not to live of israeli scraps.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Originally posted by daveirl
You believe that blowing up restuarants, Bar Mitzvahs, Buses, Trains whatever, is a legitimate 'fight back' I don't. Now I could agree with attacking Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories but I can't agree with their current method of 'fighting back'

err, lets see, so you want the palestinian's to only attack Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories when those soldier's are better armed, with equipment, armor, have backup's in terms of tank's, airsupport etc etc. Where the palestinian's have pretty much a 0 chance to inflict any sort of damage whatsoever to these guys, would prolly take 5 palestinian deaths to 1 israeli soldier's death. What is that going to achieve for the palestinians? I find it hard to believe that you really think this is a viable practical alternative.

Also answer one question, does the Israeli occupation of palestine harm only combatants?

If the Israeli occupation of palestine harms civilians as well as combatants, then in my opinon the Israeli civillians are fair game for the palestinians.

Come on man, wake up, this is war, Israel has a lot more strenght and U.S. backing, so they can pretend to only take out "military" targets, because thats all they need to to do exert the control, while they oppress and dehumanise the occupied population. This does not in any way, shape or form entitle the Israeli's to the moral high ground that so many people seem to bestow upon them.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Memnoch
edit: Also - I couldn't help but notice how none of the people who replied to my previous replied to the murder of over half a million iraqi children by the americans. So by your silence I assume you agree that the American's are terrorists for comitting such atrocities?

The sanctions were imposed by the UN when Iraq invaded Kuwait and were left in place as a condition of disarmamant. The blame for those children lies totally with Saddam. He knew the conditions, and he didn't give two $hits about those kids. He merely used them as pawns to try to gain the sympathy of the world, and sadly, much of the world followed right along rather than condemning Saddam for allowing his population to die because he wouldn't comply with what the UN wanted. Even now we read that the oil for food programme was in reality nothing more than a tool used by Saddam's government to fleece the UN of more than 10 billion US dollars. Here was a programme enacted as a response to the complaints about the sanctions and meant to ease the suffering of the Iraqi children by allowing unlimited oil to be sold, provided the money was used for humanitarian goods and food. And what happened? Saddam basically stole the money from his own people, how many of those children would some 10+ billion US dollars have saved if it was spent in the way in which it was intended to be spent? And yet, blame for this still falls to the US? Why?

I'm completely against military intervention in all but a select few cases and I do not believe the US should have invaded Iraq, but I have no problem with economic measures, especially in this case because of the circumstances under which they were enacted. So anyway, to answer your question, I don't believe that the US was responsible, in any way, for a single child that died as a result of sanctions imposed on Saddam.

halkar

So lets look at the picture here. Saddam invaded Kuwait and went against UN and punished with sanctions, Israel goes and puts illegal settlemenst on Palestine lands and goes against UN many times they get no punishment. Iran tries to build Nuclear facilities (not only Iran but anyone in Middle East) they get mouthfull from UN and US. Israel won't let anyone to inspect their nuclear capabilities so breaking rules again. Why no sanctions to Israel for so many years? Why not teach them a lesson or two if rest of the world has to be told what to do what not to do by UN and US? What is so speacial about Israel that they get away with many things while rest of the Middle East countries dare to do? And now with the new laws past in Iraq (US laws in Iraq), they are prepearing to send kurdish jews back to north Iraq and guess what they will do there with the support of Israel? Buy lands and drink the oil. So we will see soon that Israel get their oil, legaly or not legaly who cares. Black gold after all and people kill for money, sooooooo true.

I am sure you know the answers to these and maybe it give you some idea why Middle East is full of US and Israel haters then supporters.

Meh

Originally posted by Memnoch
err, lets see, so you want the palestinian's to only attack Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories when those soldier's are better armed, with equipment, armor, have backup's in terms of tank's, airsupport etc etc. Where the palestinian's have pretty much a 0 chance to inflict any sort of damage whatsoever to these guys, would prolly take 5 palestinian deaths to 1 israeli soldier's death. What is that going to achieve for the palestinians?

What is blowing up civilians going to achieve for the Palestinians?

Also answer one question, does the Israeli occupation of palestine harm only combatants?

If the Israeli occupation of palestine harms civilians as well as combatants, then in my opinon the Israeli civillians are fair game for the palestinians.

I learnt in junior infants that two wrongs don't make a right. I guess you must have been out sick that day.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
err, lets see, so you want the palestinian's to only attack Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories when those soldier's are better armed, with equipment, armor, have backup's in terms of tank's, airsupport etc etc.

If they're set on armed resistance to whatever they see as being wrong with Israel, then I personally want them to do just that, yes.

Where the palestinian's have pretty much a 0 chance to inflict any sort of damage whatsoever to these guys, would prolly take 5 palestinian deaths to 1 israeli soldier's death.

I'm sorry - but what is considered acceptable conduct is entirely independant of what is considered successful tactics. I fail to see how you're making a connection.

Are you saying that once you're on what clearly would be the losing side, the rules can and should go out the window, and that everything should be acceptable because you don't want to lose?

Thats a pretty scary philosophy to me.

What is that going to achieve for the palestinians?

Personally, I don't care what it would achieve for the Palestinians. If it wouldn't achieve anything, then they shouldn't do it....but that still doesn't mean that they are in any way excusable or right to resort to terrorism as an alternative approach.

I can understand why it is done, but thats no different to saying I can understand why some people rob banks. It doesn't make it right, or excusable.

I find it hard to believe that you really think this is a viable practical alternative.

I find it terrifying that you could be even suggesting that the bombing of innocent children is a "viable practical " anything.....which is what you're saying if you reverse the perspective.

It reverses to say "Bombing innocent men, women and childrenis far more practical than attacking military targets as an alternative".

Do you really think that is a good argument to be making? Because whether you intend to or not, you are making that argument.

If the Israeli occupation of palestine harms civilians as well as combatants, then in my opinon the Israeli civillians are fair game for the palestinians.

So you believe that both sides are right in what they do then? Would it be so hard to say instead that they are both wrong?

Israel has a lot more strenght and U.S. backing, so they can pretend to only take out "military" targets, because thats all they need to to do exert the control, while they oppress and dehumanise the occupied population. This does not in any way, shape or form entitle the Israeli's to the moral high ground that so many people seem to bestow upon them.

Hang on a second. A minute ago you were talking about "effective alternatives". YOu've admitted this is a war, so offer an effective alternative for teh Israeli actions? Otherwise, they - by your own "whatever it takes" logic - are as correct in their actions as you are arguing that the Palestinians are.

I may not agree with your beliefs and standards, but I would say that if you want an argument to have any weight, you should apply those standards equally to both sides. You are not doing that.

jc

Boston

Would you not agree that settlers, of all types, as well as solders are viable targets bonkey? Because I would.Most Palestinitians groups used to restrict attacks to settlers and soldiers, until things escalated.

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
Would you not agree that settlers, of all types, as well as solders are viable targets bonkey?

I can see the logic, but I personally wouldn't agree that they are "viable" targets.

To do so, one would have to consider why they are viable, and teh conclusion is because they ahve settled in disputed territory. Note - not Palestinian territory (as Palestine is not a nation) but disputed.

Now if its ok for Palestinians to target Israeli civilians for living in the disputed areas, then the reverse would also be true - the Israeli's would have the right to attack any Palestinian living in the same area, for exactly the same reasons.

Would you accept that in return for your stance? Would you not object if the Israeli's sent in tens of thousands of military to remove all Palestinians from the disputed terriroties?

jc

halkar

Israel already took those disputed lands, they are all settled by Israelis (or jews that came from abroad) and that is where the problem is. They have settled those lands and I don't see them giving up. You can look at the maps I have posted earlier for a clearity of what was Israel and what it became off. Palestinians can not form a nation there with their current status as they are pretty much prisoned by Israel in the lands they have.

bonkey

Originally posted by halkar
Israel already took those disputed lands, they are all settled by Israelis (or jews that came from abroad) and that is where the problem is.

Yes, I know that. What I'm saying is that saying only one side has the right to disputed lands kinda ignores the fact that they're disputed.

Either both sides should be allowed settle there in peace, pending resolution, or neither should. But for someone to say that its OK for Palestinians to settle there, but not for Israeli's shows that they don't consider the territories to be disputed at all - they consider them to be Palestinian.

So, if a Palestinian considering them to be his people's land gives him the right to kill Israeli's who settle there (or excuses it in any way), then the same logic must hold true for Israeli's settling there - they are entitled to consider it their people's land, and having done so are rigt to kill any Palestinians who try to settle there.

Thats not really a good way to find a peaceful solution to who gets what land.

They have settled those lands and I don't see them giving up.

"I don't see" is hardly grounds to justify terrorism.

jc

halkar

So why do you think they have the refugee camps in Israel now? Where are these people coming from? You seem to be missing the point that those lands were taken by Israelis, not given to them. Look at the original UN map. What are they disputing? You can't increase a population of country by buying people from abroad and giving them lands of others. What was the population of Israel then and what is it now? If one is a jew , they can go there and they will be given a land, house money taken from others to settle and if you are palestinian or anyone else you will get a boot and sent to the refugee camps and then they will turn against you.

The only way to piece there is to go back to the original UN maybe with some modifications but this will not happen as long as US is vetoing everything that is against Israel. It does not look like there will be a Palestine nation anytime soon and I doubt Israel wants a Palestine nation there either. As most of their actions will be attacking a sovereign nation and not acceptable by UN, not that they care about UN or anyone else.

Boston

Originally posted by bonkey
I can see the logic, but I personally wouldn't agree that they are "viable" targets.

To do so, one would have to consider why they are viable, and teh conclusion is because they ahve settled in disputed territory. Note - not Palestinian territory (as Palestine is not a nation) but disputed.

Now if its ok for Palestinians to target Israeli civilians for living in the disputed areas, then the reverse would also be true - the Israeli's would have the right to attack any Palestinian living in the same area, for exactly the same reasons.

Would you accept that in return for your stance? Would you not object if the Israeli's sent in tens of thousands of military to remove all Palestinians from the disputed terriroties?

jc

I'm talking about land given as the palestinian state at the time isreal was established. This is the area the isreali's seized during wars and which belong to the palestianians, and the syrians. Isreali's have no right ot be there. As for your last point, isnt that what already happened?

Hobbes

Didn't read the whole thread but apprantly the whole incident has been reported as staged.

mike65

Originally posted by halkar
You can't increase a population of country by buying people from abroad and giving them lands of others.

*Ahem, White Austrailia Policy....*

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.