Israel/Hezbollah/war crimes etc

AbusesToilets

By Frederico wouldn't have attacked them in the first place. From a military standpoint how about the IDF grow a pair and go in and fight Hezbollah instead of Nazi Germany-esque raising towns to the ground. They just flattened the place with little or no regard for human casualties, despite what the well groomed special media propaganda guys were saying

Pretty sure that's exactly what happened,that link that Nacho Libre provided has an Israeli Major talking about that point specifically.They didn't just flatten towns,they targeted infastructure along with buildings being used by Hezbollah fighters.
Did the campaign work?I don't think so.Israel did a lot of damage to Hezbollah assets and certainly weakened it.However,there were a lot of logistical problems and they suffered because of it.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

Pretty sure that's exactly what happened,that link that Nacho Libre provided has an Israeli Major talking about that point specifically.They didn't just flatten towns,they targeted infastructure along with buildings being used by Hezbollah fighters.
Did the campaign work?I don't think so.Israel did a lot of damage to Hezbollah assets and certainly weakened it.However,there were a lot of logistical problems and they suffered because of it.

They went into southern Beirut? not to my memory, they just bombed the hell out of it. They weren't only trying to root out Hezbollah, they were also punishing the civilians of Lebanon, its quite obvious, I don't think many have dared to say that in the media. Well they'd been planning this for well over a year I'd say so, I don't feel very sorry for them.

I had alot of respect for the IDF as a military force, but that has since evaporated.

AbusesToilets

Frederico wrote:

They went into southern Beirut? not to my memory, they just bombed the hell out of it. They weren't only trying to root out Hezbollah, they were also punishing the civilians of Lebanon, its quite obvious, I don't think many have dared to say that in the media. Well they'd been planning this for well over a year I'd say so, I don't feel very sorry for them.

I had alot of respect for the IDF as a military force, but that has since evaporated.

Given the logistical problems Israel had during the war i don't think it was a well planned out action.I think a lot of the bombings in civilain areas by the Israelis had to do with Hezbollah launching rockets from there.Do i agree with the scale of infastructure bombed by the Israelis.I'd have to say no,i think that there is truth in what you say about them punishing the Lebanese by destroying their infastructure.But i don't agree that they delibrately targeted civilians.No remotely competant military planner would think that that would have any benefits to their objectives and no western army can get away with that sort of carry-on.

RedPlanet

AbusesToilets wrote:

No remotely competant military planner would think that that would have any benefits to their objectives and no western army can get away with that sort of carry-on.

They wouldn't necessarily be military objectives (to bombing civilian areas) rather, political ones.
- to terrorize the local population

But what makes you say that a western army couldn't get away with it?
Can you think of any examples when a western army didn't get away with it?

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

I think a lot of the bombings in civilain areas by the Israelis had to do with Hezbollah launching rockets from there.

There you go re-writing history again.

"Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said in report released today. The pattern of attacks in more than 20 cases investigated by Human Rights Watch researchers in Lebanon indicates that the failures cannot be dismissed as mere accidents and cannot be blamed on wrongful Hezbollah practices."

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13902.htm

AbusesToilets

FYI wrote:

There you go re-writing history again.

"Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said in report released today. The pattern of attacks in more than 20 cases investigated by Human Rights Watch researchers in Lebanon indicates that the failures cannot be dismissed as mere accidents and cannot be blamed on wrongful Hezbollah practices."

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13902.htm

I'm not rewriting history,it's a plain fact that Hezbollah was using urban areas for launching rockets.There's no debating that,it's well documented.Whether you consider it wrongful or not for Hezbollah to do that,that's your opinion.How much distinguishing did Hezbollah do in it's rocket attacks?

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

I'm not rewriting history,it's a plain fact that Hezbollah was using urban areas for launching rockets.There's no debating that,it's well documented.

Well that is a convincing argument.

Here's more +evidence+ (god forbid you provide some):

"In fact, of the 24 incidents they document, HRW researchers could find no evidence that Hizbullah was operating in or near the areas that were attacked by the Israeli air force. Roth states: "The image that Israel has promoted of such [human] shielding as the cause of so high a civilian death toll is wrong. In the many cases of civilian deaths examined by Human Rights Watch, the location of Hezbollah troops and arms had nothing to do with the deaths because there was no Hezbollah around.""

The whole article is worth reading:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08032006.html

AbusesToilets

RedPlanet wrote:

They wouldn't necessarily be military objectives (to bombing civilian areas) rather, political ones.
- to terrorize the local population

But what makes you say that a western army couldn't get away with it?
Can you think of any examples when a western army didn't get away with it?

Mainly the huge amount of media scrutiny that an western army that operates, for example the Coaltion forces in Iraq, are under.i accept that civilians are going to die when you bmob targets in built up areas and that mistakes are made.But the suggestion that civilians are delibrately targeted by,in this instance Israel,makes little sense.I don't claim to have been party to the planning of any operations obviously,but that style of attack is very counterproductive to an army and miltary planners know this.It accomplishes little byway of destroying strategic objectives and reflects very negatively on your forces in the court international opinion.

FYI

Well at least you are willing to accept you have no basis for your assertion other than you believe Israel and the IDF to be a completely benign force.

AbusesToilets

FYI wrote:

Well at least you are willing to accept you have no basis for your assertion other than you believe Israel and the IDF to be a completely benign force.

I don't believe them to be a completely beniegn force,i believe they are a professional military.One which can see that delibrately killing civilians does little to advance their military objectives

AbusesToilets

FYI wrote:

Well that is a convincing argument.

Here's more +evidence+ (god forbid you provide some):

"In fact, of the 24 incidents they document, HRW researchers could find no evidence that Hizbullah was operating in or near the areas that were attacked by the Israeli air force. Roth states: "The image that Israel has promoted of such [human] shielding as the cause of so high a civilian death toll is wrong. In the many cases of civilian deaths examined by Human Rights
Watch, the location of Hezbollah troops and arms had nothing to do with the deaths because there was no Hezbollah around.""

The whole article is worth reading:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08032006.html

Here's a quote from your article

From http://www.counterpunch.org/cook08032006.html Although we should not romanticise Hizbullah, equally we should not be quick to demonise it either: unless there is convincing evidence suggesting it has been firing on civilian targets.

Here's what HRW had to say:

From http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/18/lebano13760.htm Hezbollah's attacks in Israel on Sunday and Monday were at best indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas, at worst the deliberate targeting of civilians. Either way, they were serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today.In addition, the warheads used suggest a desire to maximize harm to civilians. Some of the rockets launched against Haifa over the past two days contained hundreds of metal ball bearings that are of limited use against military targets but cause great harm to civilians and civilian property. The ball bearings lodge in the body and cause serious harm.

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

I don't believe them to be a completely beniegn force,i believe they are a professional military.One which can see that delibrately killing civilians does little to advance their military objectives

Because no 'professional military' outfit have ever targeted civilians. And there is no objective benefit from targeting civilians. That's the clincher.

Yugoslavia
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0126-05.htm

Iraq
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653831622.html

Sudan
http://hrw.org/english/docs/1998/09/16/sudan1301.htm

etc etc

Still your lack of evidence or argument is evident.

AbusesToilets

FYI wrote:

Because no 'professional military' outfit have ever targeted civilians. And there is no objective benefit from targeting civilians. That's the clincher.


Still your lack of evidence or argument is evident.

My arguement is that Israel has not been deliberately targeting civilians.Here's a quote from an article written by Jonathon Cook in which an HRW representative is being interviewed:

From http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5698.shtmlThe most egregious example is to be found in a post-war interview between the New York Times and a senior HRW researcher, Peter Bouckaert, about a recent report, "Fatal strikes", in which the organisation provides evidence that Israel fired indiscriminately on Lebanese civilians during the fighting.

Rather than concentrating on HRW's findings of war crimes in Lebanon -- the focus of the research -- Bouckaert digresses: "I mean, it's perfectly clear that Hezbollah is directly targeting civilians, and that their aim is to kill Israeli civilians. We don't accuse the Israeli army of deliberately trying to kill civilians. Our accusation, clearly stated in the report, is that the Israeli army is not taking the necessary precautions to distinguish between civilian and military targets. So, there is a difference in intent between the two sides. At the same time, they are both violating the Geneva Convention."

AbusesToilets

Fom http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0126-05.htm JEREMY SCAHILL: General Clark, on that issue of the bombing of Radio Television Serbia, Amnesty International called it a war crime.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Excuse me -- I'm not --

JEREMY SCAHILL: Amnesty called it a war crime and it's condemned by all journalist organizations in the world. It killed makeup artists.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I want to answer this fellow. Because the truth was that that -- first of all, we gave warnings to Milosevic that that was going to be struck. I personally called the CNN reporter and had it set up so that it would be leaked, and Milosevic knew. He had the warning because after he got the warning, he actually ordered the western journalists to report there as a way of showing us his power, and we had done it deliberately to sort of get him accustomed to the fact that he better start evacuating it. There were actually six people who were killed, as I recall.

JEREMY SCAHILL: There were 16.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I recall six.

JEREMY SCAHILL: I was there at the time and I knew the families. They do hold Milosevic accountable and they also hold you accountable, sir.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: They were ordered to stay there.

JEREMY SCAHILL: And they were makeup artists, and they were engineers, and they were technicians

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I remember reading the story, but I want to tell you about it.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Amnesty International said you committed a war crime by bombing that.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: It was all looked at by the International Criminal Tribunal crime by Yugoslavia. All of my actions were examined and they were all upheld by the highest law in the United States.

JEREMY SCAHILL: And you think a media outlet is a legitimate target?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, but when it is used as command and control, it is. But then

JEREMY SCAHILL: Even if it kills…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Now wait a minute, you have to let me finish and then I will let you finish.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Go ahead.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: What I said is, we would give them the warnings. It was part of the command and control systems. It was approved as a legitimate target under the laws of land warfare and went through the U.S. Government. That was the basis on which we struck. We actually called the bombers back one time, because there was still -- it was still unclear to us that we weren't absolutely certain. What we know is that Milosevic ordered them to stay there, and it was wrong, but I was doing my duty, and I have been looked at by the law, so -- I mean, I respect Amnesty International. I think they're a good organization, but --

JEREMY SCAHILL: But do you feel any remorse for the killing of civilians that you essentially were overseeing?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, I do.

That's off the first link you put up.This feeds into what i have been saying,no professional army nowadays sets it's goal at the deliberate killing of civilians.Mistakes happen,it's a tradegy.No doubt about it,but that's the nature of war,especially when it's being fought in an urban setting.
You've accused me off provideing no evidence of my claims.let me ask you,do you have any evidence of a policy of deliberate targeting of civilians by Israel,the US or any other western army currently engaged in operations?

lostexpectation

AbusesToilets wrote:

That's off the first link you put up.This feeds into what i have been saying,no professional army nowadays sets it's goal at the deliberate killing of civilians.Mistakes happen,it's a tradegy.No doubt about it,but that's the nature of war,especially when it's being fought in an urban setting.
You've accused me off provideing no evidence of my claims.let me ask you,do you have any evidence of a policy of deliberate tageting of civilians by Israel,the US or any other western army currently engaged in operations?

so wesley was going to bomb whether there civilians there or not and tries to blame mislosevic

FYI

What you have basically provided there is a quote from a General who has disavowed the murder of innocent people. Not that conclusive.

AT wrote: "no professional army nowadays sets it's goal at the deliberate killing of civilians.Mistakes happen,it's a tradegy."

Well no. There are many accounts by Iraq vets who have admitted to killing innocent people. A true statement would be that "no professional army nowadays sets it's stated goal as the deliberate killing of civilians." Many of these cases are not 'mistakes'.

AT wrote:"do you have any evidence of a policy of deliberate tageting of civilians?"

I have given you evidence which you have accepted and then choosen to ignore.

HRW clearly state:

""Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon"

The apologetics by HRW is simply semantic word play.

AbusesToilets wrote:

My arguement is that Israel has not been deliberately targeting civilians.Here's a quote from an article written by Jonathon Cook in which an HRW representative is being interviewed:

Cook discusses this statement further here (you failed to mention this):

"First, how does Bouckaert know that Israel's failure to distinguish between civilian and military targets was simply a technical failure, a failure to take precautions, and not intentional? Was he or another HRW researcher sitting in one of the military bunkers in northern Israel when army planners pressed the button to unleash the missiles from their spy drones? Was he sitting alongside the air force pilots as they circled over Lebanon dropping their US-made bombs or tens of thousands of "cluster munitions", tiny land mines that are now sprinkled over a vast area of south Lebanon? Did he have intimate conversations with the Israeli chiefs of staff about their war strategy?

Of course not. He has no more idea than you or I what Israel's military planners and its politicians decided was necessary to achieve their war goals. In fact, he does not even know what those goals were. So why make a statement suggesting he does?"

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=10920
and in the link you provided

and more from Roth:

"“The Israeli military’s explanation of what happened raises more questions than it answers,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “Crucial information is missing to determine what led the IDF to attack these civilians. Only an independent international investigation can get at that.” "

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/03/lebano13910.htm

Also noted in relation to Hezbollah:

"Hizbullah’s rockets have been targeted overwhelming at strategic locations: the northern economic hub of Haifa, its satellite towns and the array of military sites across the Galilee.

and also that "....It is obvious to everyone in Nazareth, for example, that the rockets landing close by, and once on, the city over the past week are searching out, and some have fallen extremely close to, the weapons factory sited near us.

Hizbullah seems to have as little concern for the collateral damage of civilian deaths as Israel -- each wants the balance of terror in its favour -- but it is nonsense to suggest that Hizbullah’s goals are any more ignoble than Israel’s."

AbusesToilets

Ok lets get into this then.
With regards Wesley Clark,as he states in that interview,his actions were fully investigated by the International Criminal Court and there was no finding of wrong doing on his part (with him being responsible for the military actions of his command)

By FYIWhat you have basically provided there is a quote from a General who has disavowed the murder of innocent people. Not that conclusive.

AT wrote: "no professional army nowadays sets it's goal at the deliberate killing of civilians.Mistakes happen,it's a tradegy."

Well no. There are many accounts by Iraq vets who have admitted to killing innocent people. A true statement would be that "no professional army nowadays sets it's stated goal as the deliberate killing of civilians." Many of these cases are not 'mistakes'.

AT wrote:"do you have any evidence of a policy of deliberate tageting of civilians?"

I have given you evidence which you have accepted and then choosen to ignore.

HRW clearly state:

""Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon"

The apologetics by HRW is simply semantic word play.

You have no evidence of this whatsoever and the links you provided fail to support your claims.I took exerpts from said links and used them in my post.You,on the otherhand,have merely posted the links,provided no indication of where your arguement lies in said link and have given no evidence of supposed deliberate targeting.
I also like how you can accuse HRW of semantic wordplay on one hand and yet on a previous post use their findings as a basis for your claims deliberate targeting.

By FYI]There you go re-writing history again.

"Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said in report released today. The pattern of attacks in more than 20 cases investigated by Human Rights Watch researchers in Lebanon indicates that the failures cannot be dismissed as mere accidents and cannot be blamed on wrongful Hezbollah practices."

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/08/02/lebano13902.htm

First, how does Bouckaert know that Israel's failure to distinguish between civilian and military targets was simply a technical failure, a failure to take precautions, and not intentional? Was he or another HRW researcher sitting in one of the military bunkers in northern Israel when army planners pressed the button to unleash the missiles from their spy drones? Was he sitting alongside the air force pilots as they circled over Lebanon dropping their US-made bombs or tens of thousands of "cluster munitions", tiny land mines that are now sprinkled over a vast area of south Lebanon? Did he have intimate conversations with the Israeli chiefs of staff about their war strategy?

Of course not. He has no more idea than you or I what Israel's military planners and its politicians decided was necessary to achieve their war goals. In fact, he does not even know what those goals were. So why make a statement suggesting he does?"

So how can he go on to claim such deliberate targeting.Works both ways on that one.The difference with HRW is that they are an international recognised organisation who did investigations on the ground in Lebanon,which gives their assertions that bit more weight.

"Hizbullah’s rockets have been targeted overwhelming at strategic locations: the northern economic hub of Haifa, its satellite towns and the array of military sites across the Galilee.

Does the use of anti-personnel warheads constitute a strategic attack?Their use btw was reported by HRW:http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006...ebano13760.htm

oscarBravo

I've moved all this out of the Iran thread, as it's off-topic there.

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

Ok lets get into this then.
With regards Wesley Clark,as he states in that interview,his actions were fully investigated by the International Criminal Court and there was no finding of wrong doing on his part (with him being responsible for the military actions of his command)

You have no evidence of this whatsoever and the links you provided fail to support your claims.I took exerpts from said links and used them in my post.You,on the otherhand,have merely posted the links,provided no indication of where your arguement lies in said link and have given no evidence of supposed deliberate targeting.
I also like how you can accuse HRW of semantic wordplay on one hand and yet on a previous post use their findings as a basis for your claims deliberate targeting.


So how can he go on to claim such deliberate targeting.Works both ways on that one.The difference with HRW is that they are an international recognised organisation who did investigations on the ground in Lebanon,which gives their assertions that bit more weight.

Does the use of anti-personnel warheads constitute a strategic attack?Their use btw was reported by HRW:http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006...ebano13760.htm

One at a time then:

"Findings

The Members of the International War Crimes Tribunal find the accused Guilty on the basis of the evidence against them and that each of the nineteen separate crimes alleged in the Initial Complaint has been established to have been committed beyond a reasonable doubt. These are:

1. Planning and Executing the Dismemberment, Segregation and Impoverishment of Yugoslavia.

2. Inflicting, Inciting and Enhancing Violence Between and Among Muslims and Slavs.

3. Disrupting Efforts to Maintain Unity, Peace and Stability in Yugoslavia.

4. Destroying the Peace-Making Role of the United Nations.

5. Using NATO for Military Aggression Against, and Occupation of, Non-Compliant Poor Countries.

6. Killing and Injuring a Defenseless Population throughout Yugoslavia.

7. Planning, Announcing and Executing Attacks Intended to Assassinate the Head of Government, Other Government Leaders and Selected Civilians in Yugoslavia.

8. Destroying and Damaging Economic, Social, Cultural, Medical, Diplomatic -- including the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China and other embassies -- and Religious Resources, Properties and Facilities throughout Yugoslavia. 9 Attacking Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Population of Yugoslavia.

10. Attacking Facilities Containing Dangerous Substances and Forces.

11. Using Depleted Uranium, Cluster Bombs and Other Prohibited Weapons.

12. Waging War on the Environment.

13. Imposing Sanctions through the United Nations that are a Genocidal Crime Against Humanity.

14. Creating an Illegal Ad-Hoc Criminal Tribunal to Destroy and Demonize the Serbian Leadership. The Illegitimacy of this Tribunal is Further Demonstrated by Its Failure to Bring Any Case Regarding the Oppression of the Romani People, Who Have Suffered the Highest Rate of Casualties of Any People in the Region.

15. Using Controlled International Media to Create and Maintain Support for the U.S. Assault and to Demonize Yugoslavia, Slavs, Serbs and Muslims as Genocidal Murderers.

16. Establishing the Long-Term Military Occupation of Strategic Parts of Yugoslavia by NATO Forces.

17. Attempting to Destroy the Sovereignty, Right to Self-Determination, Democracy and Culture of the Slavic, Muslim, Roma and Other People’s of Yugoslavia.

18. Seeking to Establish U.S. Domination and Control of Yugoslavia and to Exploit Its People and Resources.

19. Using the Means of Military Force and Economic Coercion in Order to Achieve U.S. Domination.

The Members hold NATO, the NATO states and their leaders accountable for their criminal acts and condemn those found guilty in the strongest possible terms. The Members condemn the NATO bombardments, denounce the international crimes and violations of international humanitarian law committed by the armed attack and through other means such as economic sanctions. NATO has acted lawlessly and has attempted to abolish international law. "

http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/wct2000.htm

"US TROOPS ADMIT SHOOTING IRAQI CIVILIANS

Jun 19 2003
By Naveed Raja

American troops today admitted they routinely gun down Iraqi civilians - some of whom are entirely innocent.

As distrust of the invading forces increases amongst the local population US soldiers said they have killed civilians without hesitation, shot injured opponents and abandoned them to die in agony.

The testimonies of the troops on the ground further expose George Bush's claims about the role his forces are playing in the failing reconstruction of Iraq."

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/us_roops_admit_061903.htm

You see the problem is you seem unable to understand the politics of HRW's position:

"Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon"

This is tantamount to saying 'deliberate', but political forces leave them unable to state this so +you+ can understand. Read it again: "systematically failed" this either means that it is deliberate or the IDF are completely incompetent.

AT wrote:

"You have no evidence of this whatsoever and the links you provided fail to support your claims."

Thats rich coming from you.

nacho libre

AbusesToilets wrote:

In the article you linked to the Major being interviewed had this to say:
"Taylor says the one tactical area where the IDF has been particularly effective is also the area where they've been the most criticized: Attacks on villages where they believe Hezbollah supplies are stockpiled.

"The villages are used as logistic bases," he says, "but they usually fight from bunkers in outlying areas. They have tunnel systems with camouflaged entry points where they can enter in one place and exit somewhere else. We've been fairly successful at cutting off the supplies from the villages, which forces them to come out eventually."

The way to fight Hezbollah, he says, is to outlast them in a war of nerves."
What other way is an army meant to combat a force that operates in built up urban areas and uses civilian infastructure for it's operations?

Where does he actually say hezbollah used civilian infrastructure for their operations?
He does say they fight from outlying aeras. The IDF has army bases, and military resources in some Israeli cities and towns. would that give Syria the right, if Syria was attacked by israel, to bomb these, knowing it would harm their logistical bases but also kill many civilians who lived near by?
To flatten villages to the ground did not win Israel the war or weaken Hezbollah significantly. Hezbollah is even more popular now than before the war.

AbusesToilets

Thanks for the move OscarBravo.
First off,these "findings" of yours of war crimes weren't made by any internationally recognised court of law.The website you got that list off is maintained by the International Action Center,which is,to qoute off Wikipedia

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Action_Center The International Action Center (IAC) is a radical activist group founded by former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark. It has a sister organization with similar goals, the All People's Congress (APC), which runs most of its offices, and a bookstore, Normals Books and Records in Baltimore, MD, which specializes in politically radical literature.

So what we have here is you using a radical website to purport to represent an actual legal verdict of war crimes on Wesley Clark and other members of NATO governments.Nice

As for the headline "US TROOPS ADMIT SHOOTING IRAQI CIVILIANS" on that page,there are quotes from 2 soldiers who say they have shot Iraqi civilians.There are no collaborating details in this article,like what unit they were in,where they were stationed,when these shootings took place etc.Also they talk about the difficulty of distinguishing enemy combatants from civilians because the enemy was dressd the same as the civilian populace.

So you are using the words of an article claiming to quote 2 soldiers to give the impression that the US army as a whole is deliberately killing civilians

By FYI You see the problem is you seem unable to understand the politics of HRW's position:

"Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon"

This is tantamount to saying 'deliberate', but political forces leave them unable to state this so +you+ can understand. Read it again: "systematically failed" this either means that it is deliberate or the IDF are completely incompetent.

So now you are telling us what the HRW meant to say?From what i've read from the HRW before,they don't seem to have too much difficult expressing their findings in clear,non-political statements.
My original statement stands:

"You have no evidence of this whatsoever and the links you provided fail to support your claims."

lostexpectation

wow abusedtoilets is a time travellor he's stuck in september

AbusesToilets

lostexpectation wrote:

wow abusedtoilets is a time travellor he's stuck in september

?

nacho libre

lostexpectation wrote:

wow abusedtoilets is a time travellor he's stuck in september

What do you mean?

are you pointing out he is new to this forum?
or, are you suggesting he is rehashing the same old argument time and again?

AbusesToilets

nacho libre wrote:

What do you mean?

are you pointing out he is new to this forum?
or, are you suggesting he is rehashing the same old argument time and again?

Way to add to the debate :rolleyes:

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

Thanks for the move OscarBravo.
First off,these "findings" of yours of war crimes weren't made by any internationally recognised court of law.The website you got that list off is maintained by the International Action Center,which is,to qoute off Wikipedia
So what we have here is you using a radical website to purport to represent an actual legal verdict of war crimes on Wesley Clark and other members of NATO governments.Nice

No that's what Clark won't tell you. In actuality the case is much more complicated:

"Nato has defended its bombing of Serbia's state television station, saying it was a legitimate target and a "ministry of lies"."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/326653.stm

Other findings still stand:

"Amnesty International, among others, reported that "NATO committed serious violations of the rules of war during it's campaign""

If you genuinely accept the ICC's findings then I suggest you have a look at their findings for Nicaragua vs. US.

The reality is you used a statement by a military general to confirm 'professional armies' only make mistakes. What happened in Hiroshima?

"The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

So you are using the words of an article claiming to quote 2 soldiers to give the impression that the US army as a whole is deliberately killing civilians

No. You asked for proof of the statement I made. If you re-read it you'll understand. Here's more:

"The most shocking revelation in the Newsnight film concerned the carrying of shovels and AK-47 rifles on US patrol vehicles - these were regularly dumped beside bodies to give the impression that they had been planting roadside bombs. Casey explained the orders he had been given:

“‘Keep shovels on the truck and an AK, and if you see anybody out here at night on the roads, shoot them. Shoot them, and if they weren’t doing anything, throw a shovel off.’ At that time when we first got down there, you could basically kill whoever you wanted - it was that easy…

“You’re driving down the road at 3 in the morning, there’s a guy on the side of the road, you shoot him… you throw a shovel off.”"

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/us-troops-you-could-kill-whoever-you-wanted

The BBC documentary referenced here: http://www.ivaw.org/

Remember Ishaqi:

"a report filed by Iraqi police accused US troops of rounding up and deliberately shooting 11 people in the house, including five children and four women, before blowing up the building."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5039420.stm

Then there's Haditha:

"Up to twenty-four Iraqis were subsequently killed; it is alleged that they were non-combatant local residents who were massacred by Marines in the aftermath of the insurgent attack"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre

and Mahmudiya:

"A US military hearing has examined testimony of how three soldiers took it in turns to try to rape an Iraqi girl aged 14 in Mahmudiya in March.

The girl and three family members were allegedly killed by four US soldiers."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5253160.stm

“The ROE (rule of engagement) was to kill all military age males on Objective Murray,” Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13974639/

So now you are telling us what the HRW meant to say?From what i've read from the HRW before,they don't seem to have too much difficult expressing their findings in clear,non-political statements.
My original statement stands:

No. Read it again: "systematically failed" this either means that it is deliberate or the IDF are completely incompetent.

systematically - In a systematic or consistent manner

systematic - Characterized by order and planning

It is crystal clear.

Have you conceded the original point?

AbusesToilets

By FYINo that's what Clark won't tell you. In actuality the case is much more complicated:

"Nato has defended its bombing of Serbia's state television station, saying it was a legitimate target and a "ministry of lies"."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/326653.stm

Other findings still stand:

"Amnesty International, among others, reported that "NATO committed serious violations of the rules of war during it's campaign""

If you genuinely accept the ICC's findings then I suggest you have a look at their findings for Nicaragua vs. US.

The reality is you used a statement by a military general to confirm 'professional armies' only make mistakes. What happened in Hiroshima?

"The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members."

I'm sorry,but what? The first link you provided doesn't say anything about Wesley Clark being found guilty of war crimes,something which never happened i might add.It's an article talking about NATO reasons for bombing the TV station.There's no Case,his actions were investigated,as is standard for a military deployment,and there was no wrong doing found.If you can show me otherwise let's see it.
And Hiroshima?What has that got to do with what we were talking about?I've said no professional,modern army would deliberate target civilians in todays world.WW2 armies were not professional,and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,while brutal in their destruction,probably saved millions of lives by ending the war early.

AbusesToilets

I readily accept that there have been cases where civilians have been killed,i'm not debating the veracity of that.The cases in the links you posted are all under investigation by the military,which goes back to my point.The military doesn't want it's soldiers out murdering civilians.It's not beneficial to the success of their mission hence the prosecutions.

No. Read it again: "systematically failed" this either means that it is deliberate or the IDF are completely incompetent.

systematically - In a systematic or consistent manner

systematic - Characterized by order and planning

It is crystal clear.

Have you conceded the original point?

I didn't realise HRW needed you to clarify what they mean.You seem to be bouncing around with their statement.One post you use it to try and say that Israel deliberately targets civilians.Then when it's shown that's what they explictly deny saying,you question their ability to come to that conclusion?

Quote:
From http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5698.shtmlThe most egregious example is to be found in a post-war interview between the New York Times and a senior HRW researcher, Peter Bouckaert, about a recent report, "Fatal strikes", in which the organisation provides evidence that Israel fired indiscriminately on Lebanese civilians during the fighting.

Rather than concentrating on HRW's findings of war crimes in Lebanon -- the focus of the research -- Bouckaert digresses: "I mean, it's perfectly clear that Hezbollah is directly targeting civilians, and that their aim is to kill Israeli civilians. We don't accuse the Israeli army of deliberately trying to kill civilians. Our accusation, clearly stated in the report, is that the Israeli army is not taking the necessary precautions to distinguish between civilian and military targets. So, there is a difference in intent between the two sides. At the same time, they are both violating the Geneva Convention."

nacho libre

AbusesToilets wrote:

I readily accept that there have been cases where civilians have been killed,i'm not debating the veracity of that.The cases in the links you posted are all under investigation by the military,which goes back to my point.The military doesn't want it's soldiers out murdering civilians.It's not beneficial to the success of their mission hence the prosecutions.


I didn't realise HRW needed you to clarify what they mean.You seem to be bouncing around with their statement.One post you use it to try and say that Israel deliberately targets civilians.Then when it's shown that's what they explictly deny saying,you question their ability to come to that conclusion?

No army is going to officially state they intentionally kill civilians.

The question is were they pro-active in unearthing all these incidents where soliders deliberately killed civilians? or were they reactive for obvious political reasons?
Were there any unofficial directives to kill anything that moved in hostile zones and cover up any trangressions- like planting incriminating evidence on civilians who were killed? It seems there were but you'll deny this of course because you are more of an authority on the subject than soliders and their superiors who have admitted such cover-ups did happen.

Any conclusions HRW arrive at will be couched in careful language.
So while they didn't explicitly say Israel targeted civilians it's pretty obvious they wanted to punish civilians. I think you actually realise this as you failed
to address my point about Israel's disproportionate use of cluster bombs in civilians aeras and the US investigation into this?
Anyhow, I presume you were this rigorous in your skepticism about America's conclusions about the threat Iraq's WMd posed to the world? No doubt, with any U.S. statements on Iran's desire to have a nuclear bomb, you apply the same criteria as any finding by HRW;you want concrete proof- no half-truths, or unsubstantiated claims.

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

The first link you provided doesn't say anything about Wesley Clark being found guilty of war crimes

If that was what I was trying to do then obviously I failed. But it wasn't. I suggest you discover the reality of NATO bombing in Yugoslavia.

AbusesToilets wrote:

And Hiroshima?What has that got to do with what we were talking about?

Oh, so armies only stopped targeting civilians.....can you give a date?

Pre-emptive war, bombing of civilian areas, collateral damage, cluster bombs. Civilians will be killed. The invasion of a soverign country is directly responsible for the murder of civilians. The insurgency is Iraq is a result of the invasion. The insurgents are essentially civilians. French resistence anyone?

AbusesToilets wrote:

It's not beneficial to the success of their mission hence the prosecutions.

Clarification. The prosecutions are a direct result of public and international demand for one. The first link provides testimonies of murders that will never be investigated.

AbusesToilets wrote:

I didn't realise HRW needed you to clarify what they mean.You seem to be bouncing around with their statement.One post you use it to try and say that Israel deliberately targets civilians.Then when it's shown that's what they explictly deny saying,you question their ability to come to that conclusion?

"systematically failed"

Do you remember the original argument?

You stated Hezbollah use civilians as human shields.

Frederico

Someone care to defend the fact that Israeli jets are flying low over the population of south Beirut, what purpose does it serve??

Akrasia

Frederico wrote:

Someone care to defend the fact that Israeli jets are flying low over the population of south Beirut, what purpose does it serve??

terrorism.

It's what Israel has gotten very good at over the last 40 years.

Frederico

Well thankgod the Israeli's are on 'our side', because if they weren't the Bush administration would have them top of the axis of evil hitlist instead of rushing them cluster bombs.

uberpixie

Frederico wrote:

Well thankgod the Israeli's are on 'our side', because if they weren't the Bush administration would have them top of the axis of evil hitlist instead of rushing them cluster bombs.

I thought Israel was only on Isreal's side .

Frederico

Just the last week or two for Israel

President - rape allegations
Olmert - corruption allegations
Overflying Lebanon
Buzzing german ship
cluster bombs still killing
Incursions, killing, raids into Gaza
etc, etc, etc, etc

The Israelis are like 8 yr old knackers, they know they can wreck and vandalise the place and everyone is pretty much powerless to stop them, because of course they are 'friendly with the West'. Tiresome double standards as usual. They'll just continue to bomb and maim and state terrorise the Palestinians unabated.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

Tiresome double standards as usual.

Ever feel like applying those standards of yours to the Palestinians or Hezbollah? Its funny how its Israel's transgressions that are highlighted but few people rush forward to mention Hezbollah or Palestinian actions. :rolleyes:

For example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/31/wleb31.xml

"Standing firm against international pressure to disarm, the Shia group is rearming and rebuilding tunnels and trenches destroyed by the Israeli army during this summer's 34-day war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4785963.stm

" Full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;"

nacho libre

Deleted User wrote:

Ever feel like applying those standards of yours to the Palestinians or Hezbollah? Its funny how its Israel's transgressions that are highlighted but few people rush forward to mention Hezbollah or Palestinian actions. :rolleyes:

For example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/31/wleb31.xml

"Standing firm against international pressure to disarm, the Shia group is rearming and rebuilding tunnels and trenches destroyed by the Israeli army during this summer's 34-day war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4785963.stm

" Full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;"

fair points. So i take it you are neither pro- Israeli or Palestinian.
You abhor resolutions being ignored by both sides.

Nope. Never said that. I tend to look at Palestinian or Hezbollah issues more than I'll look at Israeli infractions. Although, usually I'll end up examining Israeli actions simply in response to the posts like the above about Israel, which are quite frequent.

Rather, it was his use of "double-standards". He talks about double standards, highlighting Israeli infractions, yet no mention is made of any other factors. e.g. Israel is in the wrong automatically without looking to the actions of their own opponents (i.e. Hezbollah) in Lebanon, nor the UN's failure to enforce the ceasefire agreement. Same again, in Palestine. Israel is in the wrong, without looking to Palestinian issues/actions.

As for resolutions, all parties are just as bad as each other in following them. However, many posters seem to take the viewpoint whereby its awful that Israel ignores resolutions, and yet its ok to ignore Palestinian or Lebanese failures to follow them. Excuses are always allowed in their cases.

But I will admit that I'm hardly balanced in my own viewpoints. I do tend to favour the Israeli position, unless I'm convinced otherwise. (which has happened a few times )

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

Nope. Never said that. I tend to look at Palestinian or Hezbollah issues more than I'll look at Israeli infractions. Although, usually I'll end up examining Israeli actions simply in response to the posts like the above about Israel, which are quite frequent.

Rather, it was his use of "double-standards". He talks about double standards, highlighting Israeli infractions, yet no mention is made of any other factors. e.g. Israel is in the wrong automatically without looking to the actions of their own opponents (i.e. Hezbollah) in Lebanon, nor the UN's failure to enforce the ceasefire agreement. Same again, in Palestine. Israel is in the wrong, without looking to Palestinian issues/actions.

As for resolutions, all parties are just as bad as each other in following them. However, many posters seem to take the viewpoint whereby its awful that Israel ignores resolutions, and yet its ok to ignore Palestinian or Lebanese failures to follow them. Excuses are always allowed in their cases.

But I will admit that I'm hardly balanced in my own viewpoints. I do tend to favour the Israeli position, unless I'm convinced otherwise. (which has happened a few times )

How many Israeli civilians killed these last 2 weeks? had their houses demolished? been terrorised by military jets? been blown up by cluster bombs? I listened to the radio as an Irish teacher described her visit to Palestinian terrority this summer as pure hell, practically every day and night jets flying low causing sonic booms, families been thrown out of their apartments, their houses being demolished, important public facilities being demolished, random civilians being shot, killed, injured, a constant terror and fear that everyone lived under...

How do we the West react to this situation? well its quite simple to judge by our actions, we rush bombs to Israel, we fund them, we cut funding to Hamas, we decry terrorism, etc. We break down violence into two categories, justify our 'own', demonise 'theirs'. Double standards.

3 Israeli civilians killed by suicide bomb in Tel Aviv - will be first on most Western media news

3 Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli military strike on 'militant' - will probably get barely a mention

Double standards.

If I wanted to kill innocent Palestinian civilians because of some past hate, how would I do it? join the Israeli airforce, bomb a house. Consequences for myself? none.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote:

Ever feel like applying those standards of yours to the Palestinians or Hezbollah? Its funny how its Israel's transgressions that are highlighted but few people rush forward to mention Hezbollah or Palestinian actions. :rolleyes:

Whenever an Israeli civilian is killed, I will condemn it. Compare like with like.
Not disarming fast enough is not on the same level as continously bombarding Gaza with mortar helicopter tank and sniper fire and maintaining a brutal siege over more than a million people.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

How many Israeli civilians killed these last 2 weeks? had their houses demolished? been terrorised by military jets? been blown up by cluster bombs? I listened to the radio as an Irish teacher described her visit to Palestinian terrority this summer as pure hell, practically every day and night jets flying low causing sonic booms, families been thrown out of their apartments, their houses being demolished, important public facilities being demolished, random civilians being shot, killed, injured, a constant terror and fear that everyone lived under...

And the flip side of the coin are the bombings of disco's, and public areas by Palestinian fighters. The attacks on border crossings, and defensive placements. The use of women and children to carry out attacks. The use of civilians as cover while making attacks. The use of hate propaganda by Palestinians about Israel to continue the hatred.

How do we the West react to this situation? well its quite simple to judge by our actions, we rush bombs to Israel, we fund them, we cut funding to Hamas, we decry terrorism, etc. We break down violence into two categories, justify our 'own', demonise 'theirs'. Double standards.

Aye, double standards. Western aid agencies apparently neutral condemn Israel while supporting Palestinian freedom fighters. Reports of western aid & rights groups using their vehicles to transport weapons and fighters are ignored. Peace protestors wear Hezbollah colours while decrying the actions of Israel. Feverent Anti-war activists go to Palestine to act as human shields, but you don't see them doing the same against palestinian attacks.

A border crossing necessary for Palestinians to survive is closed. Criticism of israel is usually quick to follow. Its rare that its the attack by Palestinian forces that caused the border crossing to be closed, nor that the crossings are opened again later.

The failure to live up to commitments, while Israel is blamed when they don't. Excuses are made for Palestinians. The same isn't allowed for Israel.

3 Israeli civilians killed by suicide bomb in Tel Aviv - will be first on most Western media news

3 Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli military strike on 'militant' - will probably get barely a mention

Really? I find that Palestinians killed by Israeli forces are given quite a large amount of limelight, and usually Israel is protrayed as instigating the violence without pointing out the involvement of Palestinian armed forces. In fact, didn't the Irish Independent describe a recent fight where 5 militants and 3 civilians were killed as being a massacre?

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=33&si=1716332&issue_id=14832

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/782090.html

If I wanted to kill innocent Palestinian civilians because of some past hate, how would I do it? join the Israeli airforce, bomb a house. Consequences for myself? none.

No consequences? The possiblity of dying is a real possibility for any Israel soldier. But hey, it would be much easier for you to kill Israeli's as a Palestinian. You could fight in civilian clothes, launch your attacks from a crowded civilian house, or pay some kid to walk around with an explosive belt. After all, thats easier to forgive/ignore than the Israeli's way of fighting.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

Whenever an Israeli civilian is killed, I will condemn it. Compare like with like.
Not disarming fast enough is not on the same level as continously bombarding Gaza with mortar helicopter tank and sniper fire and maintaining a brutal siege over more than a million people.

And I'm not comparing them. He posted about both hezbollah and palestine.

However, I would compare the palestinian violence & actions over the last few decades with the Israeli violence to palestinians over the same period. Where palestinian forces continously make attacks on Israeli forces, snipe, mortor attacks, bombs, infiltration attempts, tunnels into secure areas etc.

As for a brutal siege, the way to peace has been offered many times. While Israel has failed on a number of occasions, the only thing the Palestinians have actually followed through on was the PA's recognition of Israel when they were first formed.

FYI

Deleted User wrote:

I find that Palestinians killed by Israeli forces are given quite a large amount of limelight, and usually Israel is protrayed as instigating the violence without pointing out the involvement of Palestinian armed forces.

Completely false Klas. Israel's actions are always labeled as a response to some Palestinian attack. The war in Lebanon for example, about 1000 civilians killed, and all in response to a kidnapping, something Israel does daily.

Then theres the latest 'incursions' into Gaza, all a response to a kidnapping, same thing.

This is true for almost every media report.

Gablin

Never agreed with ISpy much, but I read how the Galway Alliance Against War are bringing Ibrahim El Moussaoui (a senior figure within Hizbollah) and George Galloway to speak in the Town Hall Theatre this Sunday. I agree this guy's a terrorist, and to think that he'll be passing close to my home on OS map 47, speaking in my county, makes my blood boil.

Ian Doherty's ending thoughts on it:

"Galway Alliance Against Irony, more like.
Honestly, where's a Mossad wet squad when you need them?"

My thoughts exactly. Or maybe an IED on the Dublin/Galway road somewhere on OS map 47? Taste of their own medicine.

This GAAW bunch are putting my county to shame. I mean, I love Galway's irevverence and atmosphere, but this bunch just try to bring it to the real world. It doesn't work people, art and politics don't mix!

(And for anyone who's wondering yes I am kidding about the IED. And I hold Mossad in the same regard as Hizbollah i.e. contempt)

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

And the flip side of the coin are the bombings of disco's, and public areas by Palestinian fighters. The attacks on border crossings, and defensive placements. The use of women and children to carry out attacks. The use of civilians as cover while making attacks. The use of hate propaganda by Palestinians about Israel to continue the hatred.

These people are fighting back anyway they can, if Israel wasn't a friend of the West we would be demonising them for their actions.

Aye, double standards. Western aid agencies apparently neutral condemn Israel while supporting Palestinian freedom fighters. Reports of western aid & rights groups using their vehicles to transport weapons and fighters are ignored. Peace protestors wear Hezbollah colours while decrying the actions of Israel. Feverent Anti-war activists go to Palestine to act as human shields, but you don't see them doing the same against palestinian attacks.

A border crossing necessary for Palestinians to survive is closed. Criticism of israel is usually quick to follow. Its rare that its the attack by Palestinian forces that caused the border crossing to be closed, nor that the crossings are opened again later.

The failure to live up to commitments, while Israel is blamed when they don't. Excuses are made for Palestinians. The same isn't allowed for Israel.

"Feverent Anti-war activists go to Palestine to act as human shields, but you don't see them doing the same against palestinian attacks."

Getting into the realms of fantasy and the impossible there. I suppose you could sit at a random bus stop in Israel for eternity. There is MUCH MORE violence in Palestine, 39 killed since Wednesday - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6115950.stm

Close minded pro-Israeli types will happily swallow the IDF military lies and propaganda of course about all of them being evil terrorist militants, not real human beings who are suffering every day and being degraded by a brutal occupation.

Really? I find that Palestinians killed by Israeli forces are given quite a large amount of limelight, and usually Israel is protrayed as instigating the violence without pointing out the involvement of Palestinian armed forces. In fact, didn't the Irish Independent describe a recent fight where 5 militants and 3 civilians were killed as being a massacre?

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=33&si=1716332&issue_id=14832

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/782090.html

I'm afraid thats just false. At least 1 Israeli is killed, first on most news media outlets, 1 Palestinian is killed, barely a mention, I am surprised they even get a bare mention at all.

No consequences? The possiblity of dying is a real possibility for any Israel soldier. But hey, it would be much easier for you to kill Israeli's as a Palestinian. You could fight in civilian clothes, launch your attacks from a crowded civilian house, or pay some kid to walk around with an explosive belt. After all, thats easier to forgive/ignore than the Israeli's way of fighting.

Zero consequences, the example I gave was for a pilot. As a pilot you can bomb a house with a Palestinian family in it, kill them all, and get off scot free, any journalist, expert, anyone with knowledge of the middle east will tell you that.

"or pay some kid to walk around with an explosive belt."

Seems to be a very detached from reality type of comment. I try to understand both sides, and I understand how the Israeli's feel, but I don't understand why they react like this, its completely illogical. We in the West tolerate the whole thing of course. The language would be very different if the Israelis were enemies of the West, then they'd have even less supporters than they have now.

I would love to see a tv program where they get 10 redneck pro-war pro-Israeli types and make them live in Gaza for 1 year, see how pro-war pro-Israeli they are after that.

tallus

Frederico wrote:

I would love to see a tv program where they get 10 redneck pro-war pro-Israeli types and make them live in Gaza for 1 year, see how pro-war pro-Israeli they are after that.

They'd set up an illegal settlement and bulldoze the natives from their houses.

FYI

Edit: Err, the nick is Klaz btw.

FYI wrote:

Completely false Klas. Israel's actions are always labeled as a response to some Palestinian attack.

wrong? Hardly. Israeli Media may label it as being a response to palestinian actions, but European press is very quick to label it as being more oppression of the Palestinian people. If you look at the media at large there is very much a spin machine in operation whereby the Palestinians because they're weaker, are given the moral highground, and israel is proposed as the aggressor.

The war in Lebanon for example, about 1000 civilians killed, and all in response to a kidnapping, something Israel does daily.

Daily? Maybe once a week, perhaps? Or once a month? Guess it varies... And i suppose the people that are arrested/kidnapped are never guilty of what the Israeli's are taking them for?

I'm not arguing that Israel is innocent of crimes. They have kidnapped hundreds of people over the years, many of whom have not been charged, or released. Thats wrong in itself. But your stance seems to suggest that Israel is never right in kidnapping people, regardless of their reasons.

Then theres the latest 'incursions' into Gaza, all a response to a kidnapping, same thing.

Same thing? I find this funny. Rockets are fired from Gaza into Israel on almost a daily basis, but that doesn't get any limelight in the media. Attacks made by palestinian fighters on Israeli troops, and civilians occurs quite often, but that doesn't get all that much limelight. However, when Israel responds to these attacks, suddenly the media sit up and take notice.

The operations in Gaza are in response to the kidnapping and the recent attacks made by Palestinian forces in that area. Ya, same thing.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

The operations in Gaza are in response to the kidnapping and the recent attacks made by Palestinian forces in that area.

Nah. I think Israel are generally warming things up. I'm convinced they will try and come up with a tried-and-tested solution to their Palestinian Question before Bush leaves office and Iran builds it's nuke.
Israeli public opinion hardening (note recent criticism of Lebanon adventure - we didn't go in hard enough), the most Israel-friendly US admin. ever which will basically write them a blank cheque - possibly all the way up to ethnic cleansing, but on the downside - some of their neighbouring enemies growing in wealth and power. Israel may never get a better chance to expel a few hundred thousand Palestinians and reduce their problems alot!

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

These people are fighting back anyway they can, if Israel wasn't a friend of the West we would be demonising them for their actions.

Ahh but you do demonise Israel for their actions. But do you mean western nations? Nah, they don't give a damn as long as it doesn't really affect their own countries.

Deleted User wrote:

"Feverent Anti-war activists go to Palestine to act as human shields, but you don't see them doing the same against palestinian attacks."

Frederico wrote:

Getting into the realms of fantasy and the impossible there. I suppose you could sit at a random bus stop in Israel for eternity.

why even bother quoting my piece? its not as if you answered to it...

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/01/15/shields/index.html

Close minded pro-Israeli types will happily swallow the IDF military lies and propaganda of course about all of them being evil terrorist militants, not real human beings who are suffering every day and being degraded by a brutal occupation.

As opposed to the Close minded pro-palestinian types that will believe that all palestinians are innocent and they're justified in every action they do.... right. Nobody believes that all palestinians are terrorists. However many people seem to believe that no palestinian acts like a terrorist. Or that no palestinian is responsible for the current situation.

After all, its not as if they elected a paramilitary group into power to represent them who's founding principle is the destruction of Israel, and refuses to withdraw that pledge. How unreasonable it is to expect the Palestinians to seek peace rather than war, in order to gain freedom & prosperity for themselves. But, no we can't believe that, because it would lower the cause that makes it ok to continue a struggle through violence.

Answer me this. What has their violence over the last 30 years achieved? Every bit of freedom, and land that the palestinians have gained has been through peace negotiations, and Israeli goodwill. And I do say Israeli goodwill, because the Palestinians have failed to follow through on just about every agreement they've made with Israel. Palestinians have gained alot from the formation of the PA, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from many areas, their own police force and eventually the ability to hold elections. What have the Palestinians given back in return for all of this? Peace? a reduction in attacks? Nope.

I'm afraid thats just false. At least 1 Israeli is killed, first on most news media outlets, 1 Palestinian is killed, barely a mention, I am surprised they even get a bare mention at all.

Here's an example. Look above. There's a link to an Irish newspaper, that reports quite heavily about Palestinians being killed by Israeli's.

Zero consequences, the example I gave was for a pilot. As a pilot you can bomb a house with a Palestinian family in it, kill them all, and get off scot free, any journalist, expert, anyone with knowledge of the middle east will tell you that.

Or you can serve with the army, wearing a uniform that marks you apart from the civilians around you, and be asked to keep the peace and protect your own people from attacks. Never knowing if the people that walk by your patrol, or approach your position, are going to throw a grenade at you or not. I wonder why they all haven't become pilots.

But what about the Israeli ambulance drivers that can't enter Palestinian areas, for fear of their own lives because their ambulances would be attacked?

Seems to be a very detached from reality type of comment. I try to understand both sides, and I understand how the Israeli's feel, but I don't understand why they react like this, its completely illogical. We in the West tolerate the whole thing of course. The language would be very different if the Israelis were enemies of the West, then they'd have even less supporters than they have now.

Detached? Not really. Actually, I found your response(s) to be more detached. You make a quick comment and move on from the point onto something else. This isn't a dig at you, but rather something about most people that support the palestinian right to fight back. Many people are just not willing to really consider the manner in which Palestinians resist the occupation, nor really consider how the palestinian actions delay an Israeli withdrawal.

I would love to see a tv program where they get 10 redneck pro-war pro-Israeli types and make them live in Gaza for 1 year, see how pro-war pro-Israeli they are after that.

I'd love to see 10 european peace activists get dressed in Israeli military or police unforms and be forced to join their patrols into Palestinian areas. But, hey I'd be living in a fantasy if I believed those people really wanted to understand what Israeli's have to live with.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote:

Nah. I think Israel are generally warming things up. I'm convinced they will try and come up with a tried-and-tested solution to their Palestinian Question before Bush leaves office and Iran builds it's nuke.
Israeli public opinion hardening (note recent criticism of Lebanon adventure - we didn't go in hard enough), the most Israel-friendly US admin. ever which will basically write them a blank cheque - possibly all the way up to ethnic cleansing, but on the downside - some of their neighbouring enemies growing in wealth and power. Israel may never get a better chance to expel a few hundred thousand Palestinians and reduce their problems alot!

This is the usual kind of attitude that makes me stop posting in these boards. Ethnic cleansing and explusions of thousands of Palestinians.

Lets think about this for a second. Palestinians currently have more rights, freedoms, and actual land to control themselves that they've ever had before. They have their own police force, and an elected government.

And yet the first thought is that Israel will go back to the expulsions and ethnic cleansing (I assume u mean the cultural expulsion as opposed to actual killing)

The annoying fact is that during the most recent of withdrawals by Israeli forces, palestinian violence/attacks actually increased. Israeli's are questioning providing any more concessions to Palestinians simply because they're not getting anything in return. They're still getting attacked by rockets launched from palestinian areas, their patrols are still being attacked, and the Israeli people don't feel any safer despite the promises of their government that this will help.

But actually I agree with you. Things are going to warm up. Because providing concessions hasn't worked to reduce attacks, Israeli's will likely turn to the old fashioned manner of using superior firepower. And they know that regardless of what happens, Israel will be in the wrong. Even if Israel withdrew from palestine altogether, somehow Israel would be in the wrong, and the attacks would continue to increase. damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

So I wouldn't be suprised if we see more hardline attitudes coming to the front in full support by the Israeli people.

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

Ahh but you do demonise Israel for their actions. But do you mean western nations? Nah, they don't give a damn as long as it doesn't really affect their own countries.

I am talking about the West's reaction to Israeli actions.

Deleted User wrote:

"Feverent Anti-war activists go to Palestine to act as human shields, but you don't see them doing the same against palestinian attacks."

So why do you think these people are so FOR the Palestinians and so AGAINST the Israelis.. even when they go down there and see the situation for themselves?

As opposed to the Close minded pro-palestinian types that will believe that all palestinians are innocent and they're justified in every action they do.... right. Nobody believes that all palestinians are terrorists. However many people seem to believe that no palestinian acts like a terrorist. Or that no palestinian is responsible for the current situation.

Palestinians are reacting, why did the first intifada happen? they were being treated like absolute crap and they exploded, the whole place did.

After all, its not as if they elected a paramilitary group into power to represent them who's founding principle is the destruction of Israel, and refuses to withdraw that pledge. How unreasonable it is to expect the Palestinians to seek peace rather than war, in order to gain freedom & prosperity for themselves. But, no we can't believe that, because it would lower the cause that makes it ok to continue a struggle through violence.

We hear all about Israeli good intentions, we're indoctrinated with it, they just tell us a load of lies and we think oh, they want peace they are trying to do something, but they aren't. We don't experience the violence, the Palestinian people do, every day, 300 killed since that soldier was taken, god knows how many Palestinians thrown into prison without trial, thats what they see. Thats what they experience.

Answer me this. What has their violence over the last 30 years achieved? Every bit of freedom, and land that the palestinians have gained has been through peace negotiations, and Israeli goodwill. And I do say Israeli goodwill, because the Palestinians have failed to follow through on just about every agreement they've made with Israel. Palestinians have gained alot from the formation of the PA, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from many areas, their own police force and eventually the ability to hold elections. What have the Palestinians given back in return for all of this? Peace? a reduction in attacks? Nope.

Then answer me this, why wasn't all this done years ago? Why has it taken the Israeli's so long to pull out of any of the territories? Can we stop the fake politics for a second, the Israelis are desperate for land, and if the Palestinians were peaceful, bent over and took their occupation like good little whelps, they'd still be being treated like crap by the Israelis.

A reduction in attacks? lets use the Israeli phrases here, be careful.. the Palestinians are 'responding' to Israeli aggression, they are 'striking a blow' at the IDF to reduce its power, they are 'defending' themselves.

Here's an example. Look above. There's a link to an Irish newspaper, that reports quite heavily about Palestinians being killed by Israeli's.

When is the last suicide attack by a Palestinian in Israel?.. I garuntee if it was inside Israel against civilians, it was basically on just about every Western media outlet in the world.

THREE HUNDRED dead since that soldier was taken..

Very few people know that, even people who watch the news avidly will know that, but by god if THREE HUNDRED israeli's were dead we'd know.

Or you can serve with the army, wearing a uniform that marks you apart from the civilians around you, and be asked to keep the peace and protect your own people from attacks. Never knowing if the people that walk by your patrol, or approach your position, are going to throw a grenade at you or not. I wonder why they all haven't become pilots.

Or you can be any Palestinian civilian, probably lost several relatives, friends to Israelis. You are subjected to checkpoints everywhere by your occupiers. You can't sleep from the constant sonic booms. Your house could be demolished any second. You could be killed in any number of ways, sniper, missile, bomb, etc. Some soldiers have it so easy.

But what about the Israeli ambulance drivers that can't enter Palestinian areas, for fear of their own lives because their ambulances would be attacked?

How about they give those jobs to Palestinians then, they are the ones suffering, there are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are in constant REAL fear all day long, their refugee camps get raided, water gets cut off, if you don't wanna be a little Israeli ambulance driver.. you can QUIT. Its pretty hard as a Palestinian when you have no money, no job and under constant threat of violence from your oppressors heh.

Detached? Not really. Actually, I found your response(s) to be more detached. You make a quick comment and move on from the point onto something else. This isn't a dig at you, but rather something about most people that support the palestinian right to fight back. Many people are just not willing to really consider the manner in which Palestinians resist the occupation, nor really consider how the palestinian actions delay an Israeli withdrawal.

I just thought the little bit about paying a boy to put on a bomb was hilarious, these are human beings with thoughts, what drove them to this hate. Whats the latest excuse.. oh yeah religion.

I'd love to see 10 european peace activists get dressed in Israeli military or police unforms and be forced to join their patrols into Palestinian areas. But, hey I'd be living in a fantasy if I believed those people really wanted to understand what Israeli's have to live with.

What do the Israeli's have to deal with? people go on holiday there.. its cushy.. I wouldn't mind living there, whats there to fear? the odd suicide bomb.. thats it, I could try living out on the outskirts to see some action, but if I didn't like the sparse rocket attack I could just live in Tel Aviv.

Then again I could live in the occupied territories, I'd have to deal with the electric and water supply being randomly cut off, maybe my house being demolished, friends/family getting injured or worse killed..

Actually you know what, its a no brainer, any intelligent person right wing or left wing can tell you its 100 times safer in Israel than it is in the occupied territories.