So Sharon finds last nights attack a "success"

Hellrazer

The murdering of 9 children-the youngest being 2 months was a "success"Murdering ba$tard.
I think he should be tried for crimes against humanity.
Just my 2cent worth.

sceptre

Agree with you. GF was appalled watching the news and complained to me afterwards. What Sharon has applauded would have been something akin to , say, if the WW2 Allies had dropped a nuke on Berlin, killing 5 million people, purely to kill Hitler. Not that I'm likening even a Hamas leader to Hitler, mind. Sharon may well win that tag himself before many years have passed.

Xterminator

I found the images very disturbing.

I believe the Israelis have gone down to the same level as the Suicide Bombers,e.g. happy to cause indiscrimate carnage.
Perhaps the worst thing though is the Israeli's defending there actions as an act of 'self defense'.

I dont believe either side has the will or the leaders capable of stopping the violence now. If its going to stop it will take an outside influence.

X

D-Generate

Remember "to the winner the spoils", at the moment Israel are military winning, not winning in the PR stakes though.

Take the bombing of Dresden in WW2, that was easily a war crime but since the Allies won why would they bring war crimes against themselves

Venom

Take the bombing of Dresden in WW2, that was easily a war crime but since the Allies won why would they bring war crimes against themselves

Very true indeed.Bomber Harris is made out to be a hero by the English for his actions in WW2.He went out of his way to flatten every German city and tried to cause as much civilian death's as possable.

Even the type of bomb's that were droped where designed to cause fires more than to damage a building.

bugler

They dropped a lot of incendiary on Dresden yes, and the other part of the tactic was to drop some explosive devices to block the streets with rubble, preventing emergency services getting around. Also, Nagasaki and Hiroshima anyone? Remember, the above attacks were greeted with delerium in the Allied nations, a point worthy of note when criticising Palestinians for celebrating terrorist attacks.

pro_gnostic_8

Didn't Israel subsequently issue a statement regretting the collateral damage?
In contrast, Hamas, in a communique, promised the death of Jewish babies in retaliation for this mistake.
Which of these is civilised responsibility / and which is naked hatred and terrorism?

Clintons Cat

collateral damage is a load of bollocks.
those who ordered and planned the airstrike are every bit as culpable as those who ordered and plan the suicide bombings.
the only difference is one side is funded to the tune of 3 billion per annum of US taxpayers money.

Lemming

Indeed, the Israeli government has stated that it is carrying out an internal investigation into why "such an unsually large bomb was used".

In other words, they knew that the bomb was total overkill (excuse the pun) for the job at hand and must have known what kind of "collateral" damage it would carry out. That is just as bad as sending a 17 year old kid into a pizza parlour with explosives strapped to his chest.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Lemming
Indeed, the Israeli government has stated that it is carrying out an internal investigation into why "such an unsually large bomb was used".

'Least they're trying to determine why innocents also suffered in this operation.
If only Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade could also carry out a similar investigation into, and also express their apology for the 30 odd teenage deaths they caused in that callous disco bombing recently.

Winters

I am annoyed that the UN have yet to take any action against the Israelis. Under the agreement made back in the 1950s the country was split into 2, 50/50 (about that). Ever since that israel has invaded the Palastine area and disobeyed (Sp?) the UN. I think its time for the UN to stop this and do somefin.

Hamas are in the right .. as they are the only people trying to defend there country... although i dont like there methods what there doing is protecting there country.

Clintons Cat

'Least they're trying to determine why innocents also suffered in this operation

It might take them some while to figure that one out.

bonkey

Originally posted by Winters
Hamas are in the right .. as they are the only people trying to defend there country... although i dont like there methods what there doing is protecting there country.

Hamas are not in the right to be targetting civilians.

Its possible for both sides to be in the wrong - as is the case in this conflict.

jc

Shinji

Indeed, neither side is in the right.

However, until the western governments recognise that terrorism is still terrorism, whether it's carried out by a wild-eyed Muslim youth with explosives strapped to his chest or a well-scrubbed Jewish youth in a clean pressed uniform carrying an American-funded assault rifle, its going to be very hard to end this conflict. With every passing day the stances of the western governments - specifically the UK and the US - merely reinforce Israel's hardline stance.

It's terrorism when a teenager who has witnessed nothing but captivity all his life blows up a bus full of civilians. When an expensive bomb blows up a building full of civilians, though, it's "collateral damage".

Gotta love the double standards.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt
Unfortunately for all my care 2 "non combatant" flowers and a slug bit the dust.

Its was not intentional...but that’s how it worked out.

Sure. And if they weren't your flowers, I'm sure the owner of the flowers (and the slug) wouldnt have had a major problem....

assuming that you hadnt been using something like a jackhammer to do your weeding - which would be a close analogy in the case at hand.

jc

bugler

Once again Mercury_Tilt, you have managed to outdo yourself in the posting of complete crap competition. If you can draw interesting and relevant analogies please do. If the above is the best you can come up then I think any person of sound mind would agree you should keep it to yourself.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Shinji
Indeed, neither side is in the right.


It's terrorism when a teenager who has witnessed nothing but captivity all his life blows up a bus full of civilians. When an expensive bomb blows up a building full of civilians, though, it's "collateral damage".

Gotta love the double standards.

With respect, Shin, there is one fundamental difference between the two scenarios. The incident involving the termination of the Hamas terrorist was a strategic military operation with attendant but unintentional non-combatant casualties.
On the other hand, the teenager blowing up a bus of civilians is carrying out a pre-determined act of murder planned and intended to kill as many innocents as possible.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

bugler

Scene from the Israeli enquiry:

Israeli1: Well, what happened? How did we kill so many bystanders?

Israeli2: Well, we dropped a one tonne bomb on a residential area, to kill one guy.

Israeli1: Case closed!

If I see another person telling me about how Israel is morally superior in all of this shíte I may puke. We are repeatedly told about this "democratic" government, the only one in the region don't you know, and its 'defence' forces, who are pure of arms. This country and its successive governments have/had such a high moral standard, that it can invade its surrounding countries at will, and have little or no action taken against it.

It has such high moral standing, that it can engage in the shooting of children who throw stones at its oh so pure soldiers. It is of such high moral standing, that it can assassinate men who it suspects or claims (or knows- however you want to put it, just remember it isn't subject to due process of law) are terrorists. It has such a high moral standing that it can legitimise some limited forms of torture by its own security forces, and help many of its allies to do worse, eg the SLA and Khiam jail. Electric shock to the genitals, anyone?

Oh, and yes, it also detains Palestinians it suspects may be involved with militant groups indefinetly. I suppose they should count themselves lucky they aren't blown up, eh? All of this isn't even to mention how morally superior the Israelis are when they blockade and economically cripple a people without a country to call their own, just like the jews once were.

Opposed to all this, we have groups like Hamas, a terrorist organisation, which is considered as such practically world-wide, whose members are subject to arrest and punishment should they be caught, if they avoid the death squads. These men aren't lauded in the media(certain sections) like the Israelis. They can't march around freely, in smart uniforms. Their representatives won't get dinner at the white house.They don't get an understanding ear when they kill innocents. Their honesty at least reveals them for what they are, cold-blooded remorseless killers. They have no rich sponsors in the US congress or big business.

Israel knew it would kill many innocent people when it bombed Gaza. It went ahead with it. Is the presence of one man enough to justify the taking of the lives of so many? At this point I'd like to point out that Israel, being a spartan society, requires almost all its people to serve in the military. Therefore, every suicide bombing is almost certainly likely to target a member of the IDF, whether they be reservist or careerist. This is an occupying army. Is Hamas justified in its suicide bombings, seen as they strike at military targets? I mean, nevermind the innocent. It's bound to happen, collateral damage baby! So long as Hamas manage to include just one soldier in its attacks can it kill the innocent too without rebuke?


Yes indeed, maybe Israel has the moral superiority. But then again, what's the competition?

bonkey

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
The incident involving the termination of the Hamas terrorist was a strategic military operation with attendant but unintentional non-combatant casualties.

The issue is that a lot of people are beginning to suspect that "unintentional" is no longer valid in this context. In fact, some would go so far as to say "intentional".

If this is the case, the the only difference is that the Israelis construct a valid cover story for their atrocities whereas the Palestinians dont bother.

jc

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by bonkey


The issue is that a lot of people are beginning to suspect that "unintentional" is no longer valid in this context. In fact, some would go so far as to say "intentional".

If this is the case, the the only difference is that the Israelis construct a valid cover story for their atrocities whereas the Palestinians dont bother.

jc

'Fraid this is known as "proceeding from a false premise", Bonk. And that's always a dangerous road to go down......... can lead into conspiracy theory territory.
Does it honestly make sense to you that Israel would deliberately initiate this operation with the aim of snuffing 14 innocent non-combatants. If mass-murder was the agenda why wouldn't they go for a much higher kill-count> Say 14,000. Like all the commentators here would say: they have the weaponry to achieve this.

Shinji

They can't get away with killing thousands at once. But they can certainly get away with killing thousands over the course of a nasty war of attrition which the Palestinians cannot hope to win.

There have been Israeli assaults on Palestinian residential districts without any evidence of terrorists being harboured, by the way. Which kinda scuppers your argument.

bonkey

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
'Fraid this is known as "proceeding from a false premise", Bonk. And that's always a dangerous road to go down......... can lead into conspiracy theory territory.

No - Im not proceeding from a false premise. I'm proceeding from a very true one - that the method used was overkill, and that this should have been known from before the event.

At the very least, the Israeli's were aware of the probability of significant loss of civilian life due to the approach taken. This is not an unreasonable claim when you're talking about munitions experts knowing the damage their hardware does.

This leaves us with one of three inescapable conclusions :

1) Someone screwed up badly, in which case that person should be found, and appropriate steps taken. Yes, Israel have announced an investigation into why such a large bomb was used, but I seriously doubt that anyone will ever be punished for it.

2) The Israelis were aware that they were using overkill and simply didnt care if there were civilian deaths as long as they got their man. In this case, there may be sufficient grounds for war crime charges to be brought - not caring about civilian life is not an excuse.

3) The Israeli's were aware that they were using overkill and for some reason wanted civilian deaths. This is headed towards the conspiracy theory end, but the timing of this attack was highly coincidental at the very least. While I'm not sure I believe in this option, to rule something out just because it can be called a conspiracy theory is a bad idea.

To be honest, option 3 is only a conspiracy theory when you start supplying what the "some reason" is. I have no idea what it is. I can think of several though. For this reason, this remains a credible, though unlikely, possibility

Does it honestly make sense to you that Israel would deliberately initiate this operation with the aim of snuffing 14 innocent non-combatants. If mass-murder was the agenda why wouldn't they go for a much higher kill-count> Say 14,000. Like all the commentators here would say: they have the weaponry to achieve this.

No, but it makes sense to me that Israel might contrive to ensure that there will be some civilian deaths. This was not an end-game. Killing this guy, no matter how you look at it, was nothing more than a stepping stone.

The question is what it was a stepping stone to.

If you believe it was purely to "slow down" Hamas, or to defend against Hamas, then fair enough. I believe that this is only a partial reason.

There was talk that Hamas were trying to curb the violence amongst their follwoers to enable dialog to take place once more. This is now out the window. Furthermore, the reprecussions from this act will once again "prove" Sheron correct in saying "you cant talk with terrorists - look at what they do". This may be another partial reason. There are dozens of others.

All I'm saying is that there are so many credible possibilities that it is dangerous in the extreme to assume that such a controversial move as this was nothing more than what it appeared - an assassination with collateral damage.

My current opinion is that Israel is walking a very fine line, being as barbaric as it can, but upping the tempo gradually to make sure that it doesnt lose what international support it has through its actions.

I expect Israel to be well behaved for about 2-3 weeks after this event, to show that they really are the good guys, and so the public only hears about Palestinian atrocities for a bit. Then they'll move on to the next op which will show an almost-equally (although probably slightly less so) callous regard for innocent life.

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey

Furthermore, the reprecussions from this act will once again "prove" Sheron correct in saying "you cant talk with terrorists - look at what they do". This may be another partial reason. There are dozens of others.

As we saw today.

I'm (as usual) being perhaps a little naif here but:
Someone has to start (and care for) negotiations leading to a true peaceful settlement. As in the UK, the best people to do this are legitimately elected politicians. The risk taken by politicians and eventually the UK government wrt the Irish situation illustrates that it's a risk that can pay off. There will always be a lunatic fringe, granted, but it's time that the Israelis listened to themselves talking about the importance of human life and went and did something about it.

Will they do this? Not on your nelly.