Syria - where is the reaction?

So Syria likes to fund terrorist groups who use an independant sovereign country as a base from which to launch their terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Of course they know full well that, given Israel's penchant for overreaction and brute force, the only people who will suffer from the backlash are innocent Lebanese civilians. It's kinda like a win win situation for Syria. But in any event, just in case they think the Lebanese are getting uppity at any time, course they will just take out a political leader every now and again to let them know who's boss.

When the US play God in this manner with independant states, it goes to page after page here. Where is the outrage? Where is the disgust? Just because many posters might hate Israel, and so does Syria, do we tolerate this behaviour?

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

So Syria likes to fund terrorist groups who use an independant sovereign country as a base from which to launch their terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Of course they know full well that, given Israel's penchant for overreaction and brute force, the only people who will suffer from the backlash are innocent Lebanese civilians. It's kinda like a win win situation for Syria. But in any event, just in case they think the Lebanese are getting uppity at any time, course they will just take out a political leader every now and again to let them know who's boss.

When the US play God in this manner with independant states, it goes to page after page here. Where is the outrage? Where is the disgust? Just because many posters might hate Israel, and so does Syria, do we tolerate this behaviour?

There is no evidence that Syria was behind the assassination of Rafiki or the latest Christian leader (forget his name). A UN investigation of the first assassination said as much and the people that are suspected are being tried for the same.
If you are referring to Hezbollah (or Hizbollah) as a terrorist group, they are actually part of the Lebanese government and a resistance group to a country that occupies their nation.
Even if Syria funds Hezbollah they are largely Lebanese and Syria have every right to support their resistance to a country that defies many UNSC Resolutions.

Gurgle

Deleted User wrote:

So Syria likes to fund terrorist groups who use an independant sovereign country as a base from which to launch their terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.

Prove it.

Deleted User wrote:

When the US play God in this manner with independant states, it goes to page after page here.

The US plays God under the banner of 'Freedom and Democracy'. Its the hypocracy that generates the backlash.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

There is no evidence that Syria was behind the assassination of Rafiki or the latest Christian leader (forget his name). A UN investigation of the first assassination said as much and the people that are suspected are being tried for the same.

True. I have also heard that Hamas have blown up their own and pinned it on the Israelis.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

True. I have also heard that Hamas have blown up their own and pinned it on the Israelis.

I heard that the Virgin Mary appeared in a tortilla in Mexico several years ago.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

I heard that the Virgin Mary appeared in a tortilla in Mexico several years ago.

And announced that the Syrians would never harm a hair on a Lebanese head...

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

So Syria likes to fund terrorist groups
...
When the US play God in this manner with independant states, it goes to page after page here. Where is the outrage? Where is the disgust?

Hold on there....

Could you mention the last thread which went to pages and pages about the US funding terrorist groups?

Hobbes

Funny how yesterdays friend is now our Enemy.

Conor did you know that after 9/11 Syria was actually committed to stopping terrorism and did so with the help of the US.

It only ended when the US was looking for support for the Iraq war and Syria disagreed.

Of course more recently the US (Rice) have praised Syria on trying to stop terrorist attacks. You might recall that whole attempted bombing of the US embassy stopped by Syria.

You also might forget the recent talks between Syria and Israel in an attempt to stop the fighting going on in Lebanon. Don't recall any terrorist attacks at that meeting.

Of that Assad since coming to power in 2000 has over and over asked for a dialog with Israel to help settle everything. Only Israel had been ignoring him till recently.

True. I have also heard that Hamas have blown up their own and pinned it on the Israelis.

Heard from who exactly? Wheres your source?

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

So Syria likes to fund terrorist groups who use an independant sovereign country as a base from which to launch their terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Of course they know full well that, given Israel's penchant for overreaction and brute force, the only people who will suffer from the backlash are innocent Lebanese civilians. It's kinda like a win win situation for Syria. But in any event, just in case they think the Lebanese are getting uppity at any time, course they will just take out a political leader every now and again to let them know who's boss.

When the US play God in this manner with independant states, it goes to page after page here. Where is the outrage? Where is the disgust? Just because many posters might hate Israel, and so does Syria, do we tolerate this behaviour?

Its the hyprocrisy of it most people can't stand..

What makes you sicker?
That the Syrians would allow a man be tortured in their country?

Or that the US arrests a random muslim man based on the flimsiest evidence and sends him to be tortured for a year in Syria while preaching to us about freedom and democracy?

Anyway all you have to do is focus some light on the CIA and they makes the Syrians look like a bunch of treehuggers.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Could you mention the last thread which went to pages and pages about the US funding terrorist groups?

That's not what I said at all. I said that when the US play God in other countries, the reaction goes to page after page. Search here under 'US and Iraq' for a pretty good example.

Hobbes wrote:

Heard from who exactly? Wheres your source?

You haven't heard all that controversy about the Gaza beach attacks? One side saying it came from Israeli shells, the other from Hamas ordnance buried in the beach etc. etc.

One might validly say many signs point to Israeli responsibility, but then again one might equally say that many signs point to Syria as being up to their eyes in the execution of Lebanese politcians. One obviously cannot require a higher standard proof in those cases.

Frederico wrote:

What makes you sicker?

Neither. The point I am making is that when the blood is on Israeli/US hands, it seems to make many here sicker. In fact, I suspect the US has never received such a spirited defence here as Syria are getting...

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

There is no evidence that Syria was behind the assassination of Rafiki or the latest Christian leader (forget his name). A UN investigation of the first assassination said as much and the people that are suspected are being tried for the same.

Quite right. There is no evidence that Syria was behind the assassinations, however, it does strike a cord when its the anti-syrian group thats targeted. If anti-American politicians in a government were assassinated, most posters would automatically jump to the conclusion that it was financed or approved by the US.

If you are referring to Hezbollah (or Hizbollah) as a terrorist group, they are actually part of the Lebanese government and a resistance group to a country that occupies their nation.

They're a militia that has refused to disband despite the UN rulings covering their existance. They only gain some legitimacy because the Lebanese government said that they shouldn't be covered by the ruling. And Israel doesn't occupy Lebanon, with the exception of those areas covered by the UN's Blue line. I always find it interesting which parts of UN resolutions/rulings are conveniently relevent, and which can be ignored.

Even if Syria funds Hezbollah they are largely Lebanese and Syria have every right to support their resistance to a country that defies many UNSC Resolutions.

http://www.2la.org/english/eng-mainhelp_syria.htm#so03

Fairly good explanation of the Syrian invasion & occupation of Lebanon.

Its funny but people look to Israel all the time, but can't focus on the actions of the other countries in the region. Syria's own actions in Lebanon were as bad as israel at that time. There is nothing to suggest that Syria has lost its desire to pull Lebanon back into Syrian territory.

The IRA were mostly Irish, and yet I'd never have considered their motives to be similiar to the population of Ireland. These sort of groups operate on their own beliefs & motives, and the rest of the country factors very little in it. Hezbollah probably understands that if they're victorious most people will follow just to avoid trouble. If they fail, they can just continue what they're currently doing. No big loss either way....

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

That's not what I said at all.

Are you suggesting that I misquoted you?

I said that when the US play God in other countries,

Thats not what you said. Interesting you accuse me of misunderstandnig/misrepresenting you, and yet you provide the less accurate quote.

You've left out the in this manner that I included. They're part of the same sentence, and are relevant to the meaning.

With those three words added, you're saying not only are both playing God, but they are doing so in the same way. For Syria, you defined what that way was - the funding of terrorists.

Now, if you're clarifying that this is not what you meant to say, thats fine by me....I can't be expected to know when someone meant to say something other than what they said.

I took exception to what you said. Apparently its not what you meant.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote:

You haven't heard all that controversy about the Gaza beach attacks? One side saying it came from Israeli shells, the other from Hamas ordnance buried in the beach etc. etc.

I heard it was the piratical followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

One obviously cannot require a higher standard proof in those cases.

So you agree that my hypothesis is as likely as yours, given that the evidence rules neither out, and you can't require a higher standard of proof?

Or maybe a higher standard of proof is exactly whats needed here.

In fact, I suspect the US has never received such a spirited defence here as Syria are getting...

Sure it hasn't. Those threads run to pages and pages and every single post is from people like you agreeing how scummy the US has been. YOu should be ashamed of yourself....attacking the US like that and then complaining that it doesn't get defended.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

You haven't heard all that controversy about the Gaza beach attacks?

No, which is why I asked you to post your sources. You got a link where you got the story from?

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

No, which is why I asked you to post your sources. You got a link where you got the story from?

Overview here...

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

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

Overview here...

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

Which you haven't read.

I had a look at that page and there is absolutly no mention of Hamas attacking its own people. In fact the only link I can find that may suggest that has been removed from the news site it links to.

So I'll ask again, where is this story you have obviously read?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Where is the outrage? Where is the disgust? Just because many posters might hate Israel, and so does Syria, do we tolerate this behaviour?

Who is "we" and how do you define "tolerate"?

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

When the US play God in this manner with independant states, it goes to page after page here. Where is the outrage? Where is the disgust? Just because many posters might hate Israel, and so does Syria, do we tolerate this behaviour?

"Just because many posters might hate Israel"

Almost sounds like hating for hating's sake with no reason at all. There are plenty of reasons for posters to be against Israel's actions and policies.

"Israel has dismissed an offer by Palestinian militant groups to stop firing rockets into Israel, if Israel ends attacks on Palestinians."

"Since June, Israeli troops have killed more than 400 Palestinians in Gaza, roughly half of them civilians. Three Israeli soldiers have died in operations and two civilians were killed by rocket fire."

Cluster bombs. White phosphorus. Occupation, state-terror, airstrikes, shelling civilians, cutting off water/electricity, oppression.

Constantly defying the UN. Shelling a UN position. Provoking and "Buzzing" the UN. The list is endless.

Sesshoumaru

Frederico wrote:

"Just because many posters might hate Israel"

Almost sounds like hating for hating's sake with no reason at all. There are plenty of reasons for posters to be against Israel's actions and policies.

"Israel has dismissed an offer by Palestinian militant groups to stop firing rockets into Israel, if Israel ends attacks on Palestinians."

oh wow what an offer! how could they refuse? Are the Israelis insane war mongers? All they have to do is stop ALL offensive actions against the terrorists and the terrorists will ONLY stop firing rockets. The usual ambushes and suicide bombing can continue.

Sesshoumaru

Frederico wrote:

"Since June, Israeli troops have killed more than 400 Palestinians in Gaza, roughly half of them civilians. Three Israeli soldiers have died in operations and two civilians were killed by rocket fire."

So that means they have killed around 200 terrorists as well. Way to go IDF! Probably most of the remaining 200 "civilians" were terrorists as well. Its not like they put on an army uniform before they go out to murder Jews.

sovtek

Sesshoumaru wrote:

So that means they have killed around 200 terrorists as well. Way to go IDF! Probably most of the remaining 200 "civilians" were terrorists as well. Its not like they put on an army uniform before they go out to murder Jews.

Those devious little Palestinians...ach ye sure they're all terrrorists...let just turn the whole place into a glass factory.

Sesshoumaru

Sesshoumaru wrote:

So that means they have killed around 200 terrorists as well. Way to go IDF! Probably most of the remaining 200 "civilians" were terrorists as well. Its not like they put on an army uniform before they go out to murder Jews.

Probably? Nope. Not really. Read Israeli reports of clashes with Palestinian forces. Many of their reports will make mention of casualties in the form of 3 militants and 2 civilians killed in an exchange of fire. Many of the deaths in that total above comes from larger incidents like the latest artillery "mistake" which killed 18 civilians. (Which I doubt was a mistake, despite my Israeli sympathies)

The other side of the coin though is the use of civilians while making attacks on Israeli patrols, or using their own people as human shields against israeli attacks, thus placing them in a position of harm.
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378457992&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

The "more than 400 deaths" listed above suggest that they were all killed directly by Israeli's without taking into account the presence of Paramilitary forces, firing on Israeli troops (Afterall, Palestinian forces being perfect shots, they'd never make a mistake and hit their own people).

Oh, and the uniform issue won't get you anywhere. It doesn't matter that Israeli forces wear uniforms which set them apart from civilians, and Palestinian forces don't. The only thing that matters is that civilians die, and that Israel is the cause of it all.

Jimboo_Jones

Sesshoumaru wrote:

oh wow what an offer! how could they refuse? Are the Israelis insane war mongers? All they have to do is stop ALL offensive actions against the terrorists and the terrorists will ONLY stop firing rockets. The usual ambushes and suicide bombing can continue.

Well, Israel keeps saying that the only reason that there are incursions into Gaza is to stop the rocket fire. Maybe Israel should call their bluff and say they would commit to a complete ceasefire.

Oh, and the uniform issue won't get you anywhere. It doesn't matter that Israeli forces wear uniforms which set them apart from civilians, and Palestinian forces don't.

I think thats the way its always been, when the IRA killed off-duty soldiers they where still classified as soldiers and indeed when Israel drops a one ton bomb on Palestinian militant as he sleeps, he is still a militant. And to be honest, I think its the only way that it could work.

nacho libre

Deleted User wrote:

Probably? Nope. Not really. Read Israeli reports of clashes with Palestinian forces. Many of their reports will make mention of casualties in the form of 3 militants and 2 civilians killed in an exchange of fire. Many of the deaths in that total above comes from larger incidents like the latest artillery "mistake" which killed 18 civilians. (Which I doubt was a mistake, despite my Israeli sympathies)

The other side of the coin though is the use of civilians while making attacks on Israeli patrols, or using their own people as human shields against israeli attacks, thus placing them in a position of harm.
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378457992&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

The "more than 400 deaths" listed above suggest that they were all killed directly by Israeli's without taking into account the presence of Paramilitary forces, firing on Israeli troops (Afterall, Palestinian forces being perfect shots, they'd never make a mistake and hit their own people).

Oh, and the uniform issue won't get you anywhere. It doesn't matter that Israeli forces wear uniforms which set them apart from civilians, and Palestinian forces don't. The only thing that matters is that civilians die, and that Israel is the cause of it all.

no... what matters is when civilians die due to deliberate targeting by Israeli forces. I agree with you not all civilians death are Israels fault but some are. Do you justify deliberate targeting? I suspect you deny it happens.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

"Israel has dismissed an offer by Palestinian militant groups to stop firing rockets into Israel, if Israel ends attacks on Palestinians."

As Sesshoumaru mentions below, there's no mention of suspending attacks by other means on Israeli positions or forces. Until Palestinian forces commit to such a move, I doubt we'll see Israel withdrawing its forces. Afterall, every time they've withdrawn from an area, attacks have actually increased.

Cluster bombs. White phosphorus. Occupation, state-terror, airstrikes, shelling civilians, cutting off water/electricity, oppression.

Ahh, yes, all of which have been used in Palestine during the occupation.. well, except for the first two. I think you're combining Palestine with Lebanon again. Unless, you can show me where they've used Cluster bombs, and White Phosphorus in Palestine? I assume you want to keep the topic on just Palestinian issues?

Constantly defying the UN. Shelling a UN position. Provoking and "Buzzing" the UN. The list is endless.

Constantly? Err, no. They've obliged the UN on a number of occasions in the past. They've also allowed the creation of the PA, the formation of a fully armed palestinian police force, palestinian controlled facilities, a civilian administration for 98% of all Palestinians in the west bank & gaza, and democratic elections which brought forth Hamas into the real limelight. But lets not acknowledge any of that, and focus on everything they've avoided.

Shelling the UN... I can't quite understand this one either. Despite the claims of the troops in the area, that Hezbollah forces were placing them in danger and using their area to launch attacks, Israel definetly shouldn't have shelled that area. Actually I do agree with you. However, I place the blame on the UN. Their observers should have had the military capacity to either puch Hezbollah away from their position, or left the area once they realised what was happening. Being neutral doesn't mean you have to be powerless.

As for Buzzing the UN, its a strange one. Can't see the point of it myself. Especially since the UN have fire orders regarding Israeli forces, but nothing in place for Hezbollah. In fact, they have nothing in place regarding Hezbollah should hezbollah decide to resume the war. And as for disarming/disbanding Hezbollah which was part of the ceasefire agreement which the UN brokered? ha! that disappeared rather quickly once Israel started withdawing.

The list is indeed endless if you look at Israel's actions in a vaccum without ever considering the actions of the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Syrians, etc. If you ignore 60+ years of violence, and the ineptitude of external nations trying to dabble in the whole area. But hey, its easier to just focus on israel and never acknowledge Palestinian attacks, their tactics, or the failures to commit to their own agreements.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

Probably? Nope. Not really. Read Israeli reports of clashes with Palestinian forces. Many of their reports will make mention of casualties in the form of 3 militants and 2 civilians killed in an exchange of fire. Many of the deaths in that total above comes from larger incidents like the latest artillery "mistake" which killed 18 civilians. (Which I doubt was a mistake, despite my Israeli sympathies)

The other side of the coin though is the use of civilians while making attacks on Israeli patrols, or using their own people as human shields against israeli attacks, thus placing them in a position of harm.
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378457992&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

The "more than 400 deaths" listed above suggest that they were all killed directly by Israeli's without taking into account the presence of Paramilitary forces, firing on Israeli troops (Afterall, Palestinian forces being perfect shots, they'd never make a mistake and hit their own people).

Oh, and the uniform issue won't get you anywhere. It doesn't matter that Israeli forces wear uniforms which set them apart from civilians, and Palestinian forces don't. The only thing that matters is that civilians die, and that Israel is the cause of it all.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that it's "all Isreal's fault". However Israel is most surely the instigator and the weakest link on the path to peace. They are the aggressors/occupiers/colonists.
The only documented cases of "human shields" are on the Israeli side in Jenin.
You can't accuse resistance fighters of using human shields when they are fighting on their own territory unless they are deliberately doing so. No one's come up with anything convincing in that regard.
I suppose it doesn't matter that Israel also have billions in military aid and an unbridled economy in order to afford uniforms as well as enormous firepower so as not to necessitate the use of guerilla tactics.
The above mentioned also underscoring that to live in peace/security all Israel needs to do is stop occupying these people's land.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

As Sesshoumaru mentions below, there's no mention of suspending attacks by other means on Israeli positions or forces. Until Palestinian forces commit to such a move, I doubt we'll see Israel withdrawing its forces. Afterall, every time they've withdrawn from an area, attacks have actually increased.

Since 2000 there have several cease fires upheld by the likes of Hamas and the PLO that Israel have broken.

nacho libre

nacho libre wrote:

no... what matters is when civilians die due to deliberate targeting by Israeli forces. I agree with you not all civilians death are Israels fault but some are. Do you justify deliberate targeting? I suspect you deny it happens.

Actually if you read my post again, you'll see I said I doubted that the artillery attack that killed the 18 civilians was a mistake. In fact I do believe that Israeli forces make deliberate attacks on civilians. And I'm not even going to try pass it off the way many posters try to pass off Palestinian attacks on israeli civilians. Its wrong for either side to do.

Jimboo_Jones

Deleted User wrote:

The other side of the coin though is the use of civilians while making attacks on Israeli patrols, or using their own people as human shields against israeli attacks, thus placing them in a position of harm.

I wonder what your take on Israel using human shields is?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3650791.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1937599.stm

Frederico

Sesshoumaru wrote:

So that means they have killed around 200 terrorists as well. Way to go IDF! Probably most of the remaining 200 "civilians" were terrorists as well. Its not like they put on an army uniform before they go out to murder Jews.

Are you saying that those children who were blown apart are terrorists?
Are you justifying the murdering of civilians?
I don't condone 'collateral' damage when it's caused by terrorism or by state terrorism, and whether the perpetrators are wearing uniforms or not.

Your post seems scarily like something that psycho Rumsfeld would say before they booted him out.

Hobbes

sovtek wrote:

Since 2000 there have several cease fires upheld by the likes of Hamas and the PLO that Israel have broken.

Beat me too it. I recall these as well and I recall Israels administration saying something along the lines of "We welcome this, but we still have the right to bomb the fuk out of whoever we so choose" and continued to do so.

TBH its like picking sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. Both are as bad as the other and trying to defend the actions of one isn't very workable when neither have the moral highground.

nacho libre

Deleted User wrote:

Actually if you read my post again, you'll see I said I doubted that the artillery attack that killed the 18 civilians was a mistake. In fact I do believe that Israeli forces make deliberate attacks on civilians. And I'm not even going to try pass it off the way many posters try to pass off Palestinian attacks on israeli civilianshttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=52398920. Its wrong for either side to do.

Allright my mistake for not seeing that. Sorry. I agree with you it's wrong for both sides to target civilians.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

I haven't seen anyone suggest that it's "all Isreal's fault".

Really? You don't see a trend in the type of responses? Think of your own reponse for example:

However Israel is most surely the instigator and the weakest link on the path to peace. They are the aggressors/occupiers/colonists.

Israel occupied the territories of West Bank and Gaza from Egypt & Jordan respectively. The Palestinian state wasn't even put forward until 1965 with the formation of the PLO, and during the period of the Arab occupation there was no desire to create a Palestinian state. So West Bank & Gaza inhabitants changed occupiers from Arab nations to Israel.

And I think if you'd be a little bit fairer you'd agree that both sides have messed the peace process(s) up considerably.

The only documented cases of "human shields" are on the Israeli side in Jenin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6162494.stm

"We call upon all the fighters to reject evacuating their houses and we urge our people to rush into the threatened houses and make human shields"
Spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees.

Wonderful thing, google.

You can't accuse resistance fighters of using human shields when they are fighting on their own territory unless they are deliberately doing so. No one's come up with anything convincing in that regard.

Well, that's convenient. Nice that they have no responsibility for choosing where to attack from, and how that affects the civilians in the area. After all, Israel is rightfully responsible in choosing where it attacks and how that affects the civilians in that area. You don't believe that civilian casualties help the Palestinian cause, and they take this into account? Don't be naive.

I suppose it doesn't matter that Israel also have billions in military aid and an unbridled economy in order to afford uniforms as well as enormous firepower so as not to necessitate the use of guerilla tactics.

necessitate? Hardly. The inhabitants of West Bank & Gaza would likely have gained independence from Israel after a decade or two, if they hadn't turned to violence from the outset. At the beginning of the occupation, Israel treated them in quite the same manner of their previous occupiers, and gave them more religious access. Through peaceful means, and help by the UN, Israel would have likely returned a large partion of the areas of Gaza & West Bank by now, without the need for bloodshed.

Pure speculation I know. But seems more logical that 40 years of violence, especially when you consider that Israel has returned land to nations to achieve peace, and Palestinians have civilian control over a decent bit of territory as it is.

The above mentioned also underscoring that to live in peace/security all Israel needs to do is stop occupying these people's land.

What absolute rubbish. To stop the attacks Israel would need to cease to exist. Afterall, one of the main reasons the Palestinian people are living in Poverty, is because Hamas refuses to remove the clause to destroy Israel from its charter.

Palestinians have not shown that withdrawing from any areas of Palestine would actually decrease the attacks (since they haven't before). So why should withdrawing from all of West Bank/Gaza achieve anything different?

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Beat me too it. I recall these as well and I recall Israels administration saying something along the lines of "We welcome this, but we still have the right to bomb the fuk out of whoever we so choose" and continued to do so.

And the flip side of the coin, is where Israeli forces are withdrawing from agreed area's and Palestinian attacks increase. Or where hamas may declare a peace, but bears no repsonsibility for the attacks by some other militant group.

TBH its like picking sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. Both are as bad as the other and trying to defend the actions of one isn't very workable when neither have the moral highground.

Agreed.

Sesshoumaru

Frederico wrote:

Are you saying that those children who were blown apart are terrorists?
Are you justifying the murdering of civilians?
I don't condone 'collateral' damage when it's caused by terrorism or by state terrorism, and whether the perpetrators are wearing uniforms or not.

Your post seems scarily like something that psycho Rumsfeld would say before they booted him out.

Nope I'm not justifying the murder of civilians. I'm just not naieve enough to think that innocents never get killed in war.
No I'm not saying those children were terrorists, but since there is plenty of Palestinian propaganda featuring children wearing suicide vests.... who knows? I only said that probably most of them were terrorists. I didn't say all of them.

Jimboo_Jones

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

I wonder what your take on Israel using human shields is?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3650791.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1937599.stm

The use of Human shields by any side is wrong and shouldn't occur. You think that because I criticise Palestinian methods, I approve of israeli doing something similiar? Nope. I'm totally against it in any shape or form.

Just as I'm against the guerilla style fighting which places civilians in harm by the very nature of its tactics. Both the attacker and the force responding, place those civilians in danger. And the responsibility rests on both sides for the deaths caused as a result of them. Probably worth mentioning, that I'm also against the use of planes, gunships or artillery in civlian areas.

oscarBravo

Sesshoumaru wrote:

I only said that probably most of them were terrorists.

You also offered absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this rather bizarre "probability".

Condemn Syria?

It seems that this thread has stopped even mentioning Syria...

Sesshoumaru

oscarBravo wrote:

You also offered absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this rather bizarre "probability".

Whats so bizarre? The Palestinians voted in the terrorists. They have to take their share of the responsibility. Whether by taking direct action against the Jews or voting in someone who would, its all the same.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

Condemn Syria?

It seems that this thread has stopped even mentioning Syria...

How about you back up your earlier accusation with something a bit more concrete then "I heard" and we can start from there again.

Hobbes

Deleted User wrote:

Or where hamas may declare a peace, but bears no repsonsibility for the attacks by some other militant group.

How would you expect them to reign them in? It would be like the provisional IRA being held accountable for the Real IRAs attacks.

Part of the problem is when the hit an objective the other side ignores it anyway, or they are given objectives that are just impossible to agree to.

Agreed.

Glad we agree on something.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

How would you expect them to reign them in? It would be like the provisional IRA being held accountable for the Real IRAs attacks.

Part of the problem is when the hit an objective the other side ignores it anyway, or they are given objectives that are just impossible to agree to.

Its interesting that when a journalist is kidnapped in Palestine they're found or released within a couple of days whereas the Palestinian police force does nothing to prevent the attacks on Israel. Strange, since that was one of the reasons it was founded. To reduce the attacks by palestinian influence, rather than Israel always going in with military force.

While I understand that there's many independent fighting groups in Palestine, I also understand that they're all going to be somehow under the influence of the Main paramilitary groups. Whether it be the acquisition of weapons/ammo, training, etc they would have some ties to hamas/PA. And yet we've seen nothing to suggest that Hamas/(and previously the PA) has ever really tried to enforce a ceasefire on these groups. (unless the recent civil war/shizm counts)

Glad we agree on something.

woot. Actually there's quite a few things we agree on. Its just that most of what we disagree on is about Palestinians/Israeli's.

Diogenes

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Whats so bizarre? The Palestinians voted in the terrorists. They have to take their share of the responsibility. Whether by taking direct action against the Jews or voting in someone who would, its all the same.

The Israeli's voted in a war criminal in Sharon who commited the Hebron massacre and provoked the 2nd Infatata? Doesn't, using your rational, make the Israeli population responsible for a share of the violence and sucide bombings they've endured

You can ignore Israeli's actions as much as you want, doesn't mean the rest of us will.

BTW would it kill you to stop refering to Israeli as "The Jews". Plently of Jewish people object to the acts of the Israeli state, and don't want anything to do with them, and plenty of palestinians don't object to the Jewish faith per see, just to the actions of the jewish state.

Frederico

Deleted User wrote:

Ahh, yes, all of which have been used in Palestine during the occupation.. well, except for the first two. I think you're combining Palestine with Lebanon again. Unless, you can show me where they've used Cluster bombs, and White Phosphorus in Palestine? I assume you want to keep the topic on just Palestinian issues?

Read the thread more carefully, the first page.

Constantly? Err, no. They've obliged the UN on a number of occasions in the past. They've also allowed the creation of the PA, the formation of a fully armed palestinian police force, palestinian controlled facilities, a civilian administration for 98% of all Palestinians in the west bank & gaza, and democratic elections which brought forth Hamas into the real limelight. But lets not acknowledge any of that, and focus on everything they've avoided.

Shelling the UN... I can't quite understand this one either. Despite the claims of the troops in the area, that Hezbollah forces were placing them in danger and using their area to launch attacks, Israel definetly shouldn't have shelled that area. Actually I do agree with you. However, I place the blame on the UN. Their observers should have had the military capacity to either puch Hezbollah away from their position, or left the area once they realised what was happening. Being neutral doesn't mean you have to be powerless.

As for Buzzing the UN, its a strange one. Can't see the point of it myself. Especially since the UN have fire orders regarding Israeli forces, but nothing in place for Hezbollah. In fact, they have nothing in place regarding Hezbollah should hezbollah decide to resume the war. And as for disarming/disbanding Hezbollah which was part of the ceasefire agreement which the UN brokered? ha! that disappeared rather quickly once Israel started withdawing.

The list is indeed endless if you look at Israel's actions in a vaccum without ever considering the actions of the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Syrians, etc. If you ignore 60+ years of violence, and the ineptitude of external nations trying to dabble in the whole area. But hey, its easier to just focus on israel and never acknowledge Palestinian attacks, their tactics, or the failures to commit to their own agreements.

Is Israel ahead of Iraq for defying UN resolutions? I read a few years ago, its a very high number of times, I don't have time to look it up now, but will later. I think if you wanna make a top10 of 'bad' countries who defy the UN then Israel is close to the top.

Gurgle

Frederico wrote:

Is Israel ahead of Iraq for defying UN resolutions?

Technically no, the US veto any resolutions against Israel.

Diogenes

Diogenes wrote:

The Israeli's voted in a war criminal in Sharon who commited the Hebron massacre and provoked the 2nd Infatata? Doesn't, using your rational, make the Israeli population responsible for a share of the violence and sucide bombings they've endured

Of course, the general Israeli population is responsible for the actions of their government & its military in Palestinian areas, or just about anywhere they act. Just the same as the Palestinian people are responsible for the actions of the paramilitary groups they support. Just as Americans are responsible for the actions of Bush, or how we're responsible for the actions of our own government.

You can ignore Israeli's actions as much as you want, doesn't mean the rest of us will.

I wouldn't ask you to ignore Israels actions. It would be nice if we saw the same focus and criticism applied to Palestinian actions though.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

Is Israel ahead of Iraq for defying UN resolutions? I read a few years ago, its a very high number of times, I don't have time to look it up now, but will later. I think if you wanna make a top10 of 'bad' countries who defy the UN then Israel is close to the top.

Israel's defiance of the UN is well-documented, and repeated in most threads about Israel/Palestine. Don't worry your head to find the numbers, its quite high.

How about in the Lebanon region, Israel has actually complied with more UN resolutions and proposals than the Lebanese & Hezbollah over the last 10 years? But excuses are allowed for Lebanon, but there's no excuse for Israel's defiance.

You look at Israel defying the UN telling them how to run their country(and Palestine), but don't seem to feel any cringing sensation of their lack of action regarding Lebanon/Hezbollah (I'm making an assumption here, because you haven't been criticising them from what I can see).

Its interesting that most people that point out Israel's record with the UN, usually find the UN's stance with Aid & Hamas unacceptable. Afterall its acceptable that Hamas defies the UN, but Israel shouldn't ever be allowed to do so. Right.

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote:

Technically no, the US veto any resolutions against Israel.

Not really. the US has allowed a number of resolutions to be applied to Israel in the past. But they have blocked the majority of resolutions made against israel.

sovtek

Deleted User wrote:

And I'm not even going to try pass it off the way many posters try to pass off Palestinian attacks on israeli civilians. Its wrong for either side to do.

I have yet to see anyone say that Palestinian deliberate attacks on civilians is right.

Sesshoumaru

Diogenes wrote:

The Israeli's voted in a war criminal in Sharon who commited the Hebron massacre and provoked the 2nd Infatata? Doesn't, using your rational, make the Israeli population responsible for a share of the violence and sucide bombings they've endured

You can ignore Israeli's actions as much as you want, doesn't mean the rest of us will.

BTW would it kill you to stop refering to Israeli as "The Jews". Plently of Jewish people object to the acts of the Israeli state, and don't want anything to do with them, and plenty of palestinians don't object to the Jewish faith per see, just to the actions of the jewish state.

As Klaz already pointed out, I've never said we should turn a blind eye to what the Jews get up to in the West Bank and Gaza. It would just be nice if the extreme left would acknowledge the failings of the Palestinians. They are not helpless victims merely flowing in the current as the extreme left make them out to be. You can ignore the actions of the Palestinians if you want to. Doesn't mean the rest of us will.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

I have yet to see anyone say that Palestinian deliberate attacks on civilians is right.

True enough, but excuses are made.

Israel has modern equipment, so the attacks are justified. Its the only way that Palestinians can fight back. etc. Know what I mean? Its not saying that Palestinians attacking civilians is right, its saying that its acceptable under the circumstances.....