View Full Version : 30 Casualties In Jerusalem Bus Bomb
TO HELL WITH THE ROAD TRAP!
----
30 CASUALTIES IN JERUSALEM BUS BOMB
By THE JERUSALEM POST INTERNET STAFF
A bomb ripped apart a bus in central Jerusalem Wednesday, killing several people and wounding dozens, rescue officials said.
The attack occurred on Jaffa Road, across from the Clal Center at about 5:30 p.m.
Officials said there were at least 30 casualties in the blast on Egged bus no. 14.
L@mplighterM
06-11-2003, 07:59 AM
I read about it earlier. Of course it was expected because Hamas had indicated that it would subject Jews to such attacks.
Originally posted by L@mplighterM
I read about it earlier. Of course it was expected because Hamas had indicated that it would subject Jews to such attacks.
Because you have doubts that the Hamas would not have planned such an attack even if Sharon destroy half the Jewish Communities in Yesha? They said it before Aquabe, during aquaba and after aquaba. It is written in their Charter "Israel must be destroyed". But I am awaiting the headlines on CNN "Hamas retaliated to Sharon attack - Bush said it would undermind peace". Bench of HYPOCRITES the whole lot of them!
minusthejihad
06-11-2003, 08:17 AM
Woops. Wait, are we still concerned about what the world thinks of us? I forgot. Personally, I'm happy you and I are still alive today. The world never wanted it that way anyway, so in my book, to hell with everyone else!
TheyAre
06-11-2003, 08:36 AM
Over the past three years, Israel has clamped down on terror from the West Bank and the terror groups based there.
Yet Hamas and Gaza are allowed to run wild. Does Sharon think allowing the largest and strongest terror organization outside of Hezbollah to run free will help peace?
Several months ago when the IDF finally moved large amounts of armor into Gaza I thought Sharon was going to get serious about Hamas. Yet he did nothing. A few pin missile strikes against Hamas leaders isn't going to destroy Hamas' infrastructure and severely hamper their capability to kill Jews inside Israel.
Does Sharon think that Yassin and Rantisi and the rest are respected figures in Europe? Europe is full of Arafatists, not Hamas lovers.
If Sharon wants to get the road map moving, he can tell Abbas that if he doesn't take out Hamas the IDF will. And if Abbas doesn't comply, then the tanks roll in.
Its ridiculous. Israel has the capability to decimate every terror group in the West Bank and Gaza, and to cripple Hezbollah as well if they were so inclined. After today's attack a few helicopters firing missiles into Gaza isn't going to get the job done. The arrest / killing of every top Hamas leader Israel can find and the decimation of its grunts and technicians (bombmakers, arms buyers, etc.) is what's needed.
Leaving the largest, strongest, richest terrorist Palestinian terrorist group alone is nothing more than a recipe for disaster.
15 dead, 60 injured. Tzahal has started to bomb Gaza. Go for it, even it take a 1 tonne bomb and let this world scream for all I care, they deserve everything they get - E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G!
cerulean
06-11-2003, 09:26 AM
It's simply not reasonable to ask families to put their loved ones in jeopardy by the mere act of going to work or school or shopping. How can there be peace without security for Israelis?
tandem
06-11-2003, 10:06 AM
according to israeli media, 17 dead, over 100 injured. hamas claims responsibility. the suicide bomber disguised himself as a religious jew when he boarded bus route 14
the police say the bomb was very powerful. 3 people outside the bus were killed as a result. the explosive device contained ball bearings, screws, and nails to maximize the number of casualties
in gaza, israeli gunships attacked a car that was carrying 6 hamas militants, including senior hamas official massoud titi. all of them were killed. from initial reports from the palestinian side, one or two bystanders were also killed
in further developments, a 16 year old palestinian suicide bomber from islamic jihad was intercepted on his way to carry out a murderous attack in natanya
as we see very clearly, the palestinian leadership is not interested in peace. the palestinian security force in gaza is largely intact, but instead of cracking down on militants with an iron fist, the palestinian leadership continues to let these people out on the streets and allow them to organize terrorist attacks to kill as many jews as possible. in my opinion, the retaliation for this attack must be massive. all of the hamas leadership must be targeted in one precision operation
Canajew
06-11-2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by tandem
all of the hamas leadership must be targeted in one precision operation
I second that motion.
Mediocrates
06-11-2003, 11:05 AM
Precision or not, here I come.
NewsGuy
06-11-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by tandem
in my opinion, the retaliation for this attack must be massive. all of the hamas leadership must be targeted in one precision operation
Yes. And after that, when their troops gather to attend the funerals and vow to kill more innocent Jews, several of those 1-ton bombs that took care of Shehada need to be dropped on the attendees.
The Hamas is not a police problem. That group requires a military solution.
Posted by Tendem:
as we see very clearly, the palestinian leadership is not interested in peace.
Lets put it differently. The Arabs are not interested in the current process of getting the final resolution.
the palestinian security force in gaza is largely intact,
It's an irrelevant force anyways.
but instead of cracking down on militants with an iron fist, the palestinian leadership continues to let these people out on the streets and allow them to organize terrorist attacks to kill as many jews as possible.
If Arafat wanted to Hamas, Jihads and others would have been brought to their knees.
in my opinion, the retaliation for this attack must be massive. all of the hamas leadership must be targeted in one precision operation
Wishfull thinking. Israel is a civilized nation....
tandem
06-11-2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Mil
Wishfull thinking. Israel is a civilized nation....
so is america, but look at what they did in afghanistan when america was attacked by terrorists. they killed taliban and al-qaeda by the truck loads and initially did most of it from the air
the israeli government needs to come to its senses and follow a similar policy. whenever these savages dance in the streets in gaza after 20 israelis were murdered, i say israel needs to do something about it to send a clear message to these people. call in the napalm
Posted by Tandem:
so is america, but look at what they did in afghanistan when america was attacked by terrorists. they killed taliban and al-qaeda by the truck loads and initially did most of it from the air
Israel had its share of killing terrorists. Don't warry.
the israeli government needs to come to its senses and follow a similar policy. whenever these savages dance in the streets in gaza after 20 israelis were murdered, i say israel needs to do something about it to send a clear message to these people. call in the napalm
Would you drop napalm on densly populated areas full of women and children? I would not.
Canajew
06-11-2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Mil
Would you drop napalm on densly populated areas full of women and children? I would not. [/B]
No matter what?
Originally posted by Mil
No matter what?
Yes.
Ok let's say that a guy has been organizing the massacre of hundreds of your people, will you stop killing him because you may kill 15 civilians if it is the only way to stop him? What did Bush said to the US Army on 9/11 if plane where going to crash? SHOOT THEM! When the US carpet bombed Irak, Serbia, or especially Afghanistan, did they care that they killed 1000's of people? When America blasted Israel for the use of cluster bomb in Lebanon, did they refrained using it? Do you want me to continue.
PS: The geneva convention says that "the presence of Protected Persons [ie: civilians] do not render the area immune from military operation". In simple term, the target has to be proportional to the "collateral" damages.
Mediocrates
06-11-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Canajew
No matter what?
America was attacked by terrorists once and two years later we're still going after people and kicking over places and the Israelis are expected to shrug every three hours when a bus explodes.
Would I advocate an Arc Light project? No what good would that do? What I would do is go after every single mid to upper level commanding terrorist with an absolute single minded ruthlessness and I would kill them all and anyone who stood in the way.
L@mplighterM
06-11-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by yoyo
Because you have doubts that the Hamas would not have planned such an attack even if Sharon destroy half the Jewish Communities in Yesha? They said it before Aquabe, during aquaba and after aquaba. It is written in their Charter "Israel must be destroyed". But I am awaiting the headlines on CNN "Hamas retaliated to Sharon attack - Bush said it would undermind peace". Bench of HYPOCRITES the whole lot of them!
Doubt? No I had no doubt that Hamas would engage in such avtivity their lspokesman said they would and i fully believed it.
L@mplighterM
06-11-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Mediocrates
Would I advocate an Arc Light project? No what good would that do? What I would do is go after every single mid to upper level commanding terrorist with an absolute single minded ruthlessness and I would kill them all and anyone who stood in the way.
I'll second that!
Canajew
06-11-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Mil
No matter what?
Yes.
Seems a little simplistic to me. I mean, circumstances may require such actions. Pre-empting nuclear attack, as an extreme example.
Alfred
06-11-2003, 03:11 PM
I would agree to that approach, with a few "typcial American" modifications.
1. Kill every mid to upper level Palestinian who appears to be involved in terrorism.
2. Kill Arafat....it is time.
3. Tell the US very publicly, that you love and appreciate us but cannot be expected to commit suicide for us.
I would do it fast and quick. When things drag out you get the UN and the world involved.
If the above fails I would surround Hamas cities/neighborhoods with 155mm howizters and make the declaration that every time an Islamic terrorist blows up a bus that Israel will send 20 shells into a Palestinian city.
Then you will have a motivation from the other side to negotiate.
Worked for the Germans
Worked for the Japs
Worked for the North Vietnamese
Worked for Libya
Until Israel does the above, I am tired of hearing her whine about terrorism. Put up or shut up. Quit playing the typical hand wringing jewish mom.... Israel will lose a tit for tat war.
Alfred
06-11-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Mil
Posted by Tandem
Would you drop napalm on densly populated areas full of women and children? I would not.
It is so much better to see Jews burn up in those buses......
Yes, I would. If you don't then the world owes an apology to Japan and Germany. Although I would not use napalm.
Every Hamas funeral, celebration and holiday gets a cluster bomb. Care of the IDF. 80% of America would give you a thumbs up on that one. Put Netanyahu on the TV to explain it to the average American.
Israel should declare open season on all green headbands and Hamas flagbearers. Pest removal, ethnic cleansing, urban renewal....what ever you call it. Israel has a cancer and needs to remove it. Otherwise you are wasting your time....and ours (America), at the least wasting the time of those who support Israel. If Israel does not have the will to defend itself, then why should we get up and support her?
Nothing else has worked has it?
Canajew
06-11-2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Alfred
If Israel does not have the will to defend itself, then why should we get up and support her?
Nothing else has worked has it?
I think Israel has the will, they just have not been alowed to exercise it because of international pressure. The international community changes the payoff matrix and suddenly Israel is faced with a situation where allowing appeasment is the least bad option. It is not the fault of Israel that this problem has not been dealt with. It is the fault of Europe. And the longer it takes the Europeans to realize this, the longer this conflict will be perpetuated. And the greater the cost of actually dealing with the problem when the time comes.
Alfred
06-11-2003, 03:38 PM
Then Israel is dead meat and we should write her off.
Seriously.
If Israel is expecting the Europeans to fix things then she is dead anyway.
As a matter of fact, things may improve if we write her off. Perhaps then she will act like the Israel of old...1948-1973, and take care of business.
All these "peace plans" just make things worse.
Ok Israel. Here is 5 years worth of ammo and spare parts. YOU solve the problem. You are on your own.
If you have to use Nukes, we will understand.
Canajew
06-11-2003, 03:47 PM
I'm not saying Europe needs to fix things. Not by any means. But Europe does need to get out of the way. Because that is the biggest impediment to Israel actually solving the problems for itself.
Posted by Alfred:
It is so much better to see Jews burn up in those buses......
Okay - then you got your justification. Go build a bomb and blow up a Palestinian day care in Gaza in revenge.
Yes, I would. If you don't then the world owes an apology to Japan and Germany. Although I would not use napalm.
God forbid you use a German example.
Every Hamas funeral, celebration and holiday gets a cluster bomb. Care of the IDF. 80% of America would give you a thumbs up on that one. Put Netanyahu on the TV to explain it to the average American.
Yes - a politician of a civilized democratic nation of Israel would go on TV explaining a massacre. How do you imagine that?
Israel should declare open season on all green headbands and Hamas flagbearers.
It did - long time back.
Pest removal, ethnic cleansing, urban renewal....what ever you call it. Israel has a cancer and needs to remove it. Otherwise you are wasting your time....and ours (America), at the least wasting the time of those who support Israel.
I support Israel but not barbarity in the name of it.
If Israel does not have the will to defend itself, then why should we get up and support her?
Why don't you go to the terretories and kill a few Arabs - if that's so easy. Drop some napalm. Fire a few Flashatte rounds into buildings.
Nothing else has worked has it?
In general, I would never support massive Israel retaliation if it will involve huge civilian casualties unless it's in response to something really huge terrorist act or in preemption of something really big.
Canajew
06-11-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Mil
Yes - a politician of a civilized democratic nation of Israel would go on TV explaining a massacre. How do you imagine that?
But what is a massacre? Is the killing of thousands of enemy soldiers in combat a massacre? It may well be. But all that means is that massacres are not necessarily wrong. The problem is discerning combatants from non-combatants, especially where they do not wear uniforms. If the Plaestinians have succeeded in convincing the world that "settlers" are combatants who are legitimately targeted, how could it not be possible that Palestinaians going around in Hamas green are not considered legitimate targets?
I kind of like this idea, but something really bad will have to happen before Israel will even think about doing something like this.
Israel should declare open season on all green headbands and Hamas flagbearers.
It did - long time back.
No it didn't. It declared a limited cull, but not one large enough to substantially reduce the herd.
I support Israel but not barbarity in the name of it.
but back again to the napalm thing. If you would never support an act that harms innocents on the other side, then you may be a moral supporter of the cause, but you are not a real supporter. Because you would prefer surrender to fighting back when the fighting risks getting dirty. What kind of support is that, really?
Why don't you go to the terretories and kill a few Arabs - if that's so easy. Drop some napalm. Fire a few Flashatte rounds into buildings.
Nothing else has worked has it?
It will take more than just dropping a couple of bombs. The gloves need to come off and the war needs to be fought. That is something we haven't tried yet. And that is the best road to a peaceful future. Paradoxical, it seems, but just because something is counter-intuitive doesn't make it untrue. The Palestinians need to give up. Other than that, nothing will work. Because they want Israel too. So until they give up, there will be no peace.
Posted by Conjew:
The Palestinians need to give up.
They will not.
Other than that, nothing will work.
Change the geopolitics of the Middle East and the Arab world and it will work. I guarantee it 100%.
Because they want Israel too. So until they give up, there will be no peace.
No - there will be no peace until the Arab forces beyond Palestine would decide for their to be peace. However, the Arab nations cannot decide because they are too restricted in the environment they themselves created of what they can or cannot do. Until there is going to be a drastic change in the Arab world toward normalcy - aka Democracy - the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would never end.
But what is a massacre?
Killing civilians.
Is the killing of thousands of enemy soldiers in combat a massacre?
We are not talking about a direct military exercise.
But all that means is that massacres are not necessarily wrong.
Yes they are if they specifically involve civilians.
The problem is discerning combatants from non-combatants, especially where they do not wear uniforms.
You better be right. Israel is trying its best.
If the Plaestinians have succeeded in convincing the world that "settlers" are combatants who are legitimately targeted,
They would never be able to convince the world that killing women and children of a Democratic nation will bring them any political concessions.
how could it not be possible that Palestinaians going around in Hamas green are not considered legitimate targets?
Go grab a gun and kill everyone wearing Hamas Green. We are all brave of words.
I kind of like this idea, but something really bad will have to happen before Israel will even think about doing something like this.
Good for Israel. Israel's biggest weapon is not it's nukes but is the fact that it's a normal, civilized, democratic nation and no leader in either Europe, America or Russia has any ammunition to argue otherwise where all they can do is to support no matter what but there is a catch.... Israel, no matter what, must remain normal, civilized and democratic.
Listen it was estimated by the Israeli General stuff that it will take a week and an armored brigade to completely dismantle the entire Palestinian terror infrustructure in both WB and Gaza. Guess why it has not happen yet?
Canajew
06-11-2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Mil
The Palestinians need to give up.
They will not.
Neither would the Japanese, of course. I'm not really saying that they will, only that giving up would be the best way for them to get the most of what they want. If they would have given up a while ago, they would not have gotten the right of return, and they may not have gotten much of Jerusalem, but they would have had a state of their own. And they would have been free.
Change the geopolitics of the Middle East and the Arab world and it will work. I guarantee it 100%.
This is a good idea, but I'm not quite sure its 100%. The Arab world has inculcated a Palestinian monster, and now that it is out of the closet, all the house-cleaning in the world won't make it go away. But I think our ideas go together. If the Arab world reforms itself, stops financially supporting Palestinian "resistance" and establishes normal relations with Israel, the Palestinians will be more inclinded to give up and settle the issue.
It is not about how or why the Palestinians give up, just that they do. they could give up pursuant to agreement, pursuant to peaceful dialogue, or by force. It makes little difference, only that they give up their ridiculous ideas about a full right of return, maximal territorial demands and the rest.
Because they want Israel too. So until they give up, there will be no peace.
No - there will be no peace until the Arab forces beyond Palestine would decide for their to be peace. However, the Arab nations cannot decide because they are too restricted in the environment they themselves created of what they can or cannot do. Until there is going to be a drastic change in the Arab world toward normalcy - aka Democracy - the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would never end.
I agree with you. So maybe we are both right. But each in and of itself may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace. If the Arab world doesn't change, there can be no peace, but until the palestinians do a full reality check and adjust their actions accordingly, there can be no peace, notwithstanding that the Arab world has had democracy imposed on it. And the Palestinians will never give up as long as the Arab world continues to back them financially, with incitement and with political support.
Canajew
06-11-2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Mil
But what is a massacre?
Killing civilians.
is it? I think that the term massacre refers to any wholesale killing of people, whether combatants or not. But your definition is obviously more functional, so I will defer.
Yes they are if they specifically involve civilians.
Massacres are bad. Obviously. But it is a different thing to say that if we attack X 10 innocents will die for sure, or if we attack X, a certain number of civilians may die. Now any moral government must try to, given the achievement of the objective, minimize the number of civilian casualties. But this does not always result in lowering expected casualties to zero. So then the question becomes, either what mission objectives are we prepared to forego in order to reduce innocent casualties, or, conversely, how many civilian casualties are we prepared to incur in order to achieve the objective.
I am not a supporter of incurring mass casualties among innocents. I think the Palestinians are really the only ones who think this way in any substantial numbers. But sometimes a massacre is necessary to avoid a massacre of one's own civilians. So which goal should be foregone, protecting your own civilians, or protecting the enemy's. Add to this the fog of war and imperfect intelligence, and you are left with one big conundrum. But that is why leadership is needed to exercise discretion and judgment. To make the qualitative assessments when the numbers are not enough. And while innocent casualties are regrettable, if there is no other way to kill a terrirst than to bomb his appartment building, so be it.
The problem is discerning combatants from non-combatants, especially where they do not wear uniforms.
You better be right. Israel is trying its best.
she is, but it is difficvult to do. And Israel, up to this point, has clearly erred on the side of caution and not bombed Hamas rallies and the like.
They would never be able to convince the world that killing women and children of a Democratic nation will bring them any political concessions.
see, here is where you are wrong. they have succeeded in this. Its the whole death toll tally thing. We kill your civilians, you go after our fighters, but in the end all that matters is we lost more people than you, therefore you owe us concessions. And whether they have convinced anyone of this or not, they HAVE received political concessions by their purposely targeting women and children. And we have the Europeans to thank for that.
how could it not be possible that Palestinaians going around in Hamas green are not considered legitimate targets?
Go grab a gun and kill everyone wearing Hamas Green. We are all brave of words.
It's not for me to do, but for the government of Israel. And I am not brave. But it is still possible to analyze a situation and make policy decisions. There is bravery in fighting, but there is also bravery in being prepared to sacrifice your own moral conscious for an objective which you kinow is right. I don't like killing. I have never killed anyone, nor do I have any desire to. But this is not to say that I am therefore a pacifist. Sometimes things need to be done. Doing them may cause a lot of guilt, but not doing anything will only perpetuate suffering. that is what the French did with Iraq. Easy to get mad at the US seeing pictures of people who were hurt by their bombs. Less easy to get mad at those who stand by and do nothing and let others enslave and butcher people.
Good for Israel. Israel's biggest weapon is not it's nukes but is the fact that it's a normal, civilized, democratic nation and no leader in either Europe, America or Russia has any ammunition to argue otherwise where all they can do is to support no matter what but there is a catch.... Israel, no matter what, must remain normal, civilized and democratic.
I agree with you on much of this, but I can't help but feel some degree of .. naivite is not the right word... anyways, its close, but without any negative connotation. Read what the leftist europeans write on this site. they do not perceive Israel as anywhere close to a normal civilized country. They believe what they see on their news. And that is another issue entirely.
Listen it was estimated by the Israeli General stuff that it will take a week and an armored brigade to completely dismantle the entire Palestinian terror infrustructure in both WB and Gaza. Guess why it has not happen yet? [/B]
because of US and European pressure?
Mil,
What is a military target? A guy with a greenish uniform? Because I see lots of them in blue Levis jeans and a kalashnikov in the hand. Maybe I should be a bit more American, maybe I should name them as you name the people you hold in Guatanamo... how do you call them? Ho yes "illegal combattant". What do you think of West Bank Bay and Gaza Bay? Like this Israel could fight a war fair and square like the US does. Off shore, just like you, in a place that we owe just like this tiny place in Cuba, and outside Israel democratic jurisdiction (that is for the camp's guests) And if the UN come and tell us about "lawyers"/"illegal emprisonement"/"basic human rights" we will tell them that when YOU stop, WE stop.
Deal?
richcrassus
06-11-2003, 06:00 PM
WHat israel has to do is re start its program of developing [deleted - you knew that was coming] But unfortunately they stoped the project, because some israeli politician who survived the holocaust said that he expected such a weapons to be invented by DR Mengele, not by a jewish state.
richcrassus
06-11-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Mil
Posted by Alfred:
Yes - a politician of a civilized democratic nation of Israel would go on TV explaining a massacre. How do you imagine that?
Comes easily to President Bush.
Nothing else has worked has it?
tandem
06-11-2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Mil
Israel had its share of killing terrorists. Don't warry.
they do so out of necessity, not pleasure. the palestinian leadership must accept the fact that they are responsible for their people in areas that they control
the gaza strip, which is a hamas hotspot, is one of the areas where the palestinian security apparatus is mostly intact. there is no excuse for them not to crack down on the terror infrastructure there
Would you drop napalm on densly populated areas full of women and children? I would not.
yeah, i sure would. we're getting attacked regardless of whether we target palestinian civilians or not, so we might as well spoil their hafleh. you see, even if we do this, it doesn't make any difference with regards to how israel is perceived by the entire world. we already are killers, murderers, occupiers, no?
timeout: a bit off topic, but still interesting. there is a lawyer for hamas being interviewed right now on "on the record" on foxnews. his name is stanley cohen. he says that israel is responsible for all the violence, hamas is a peace group, hamas never targets civilians, the israeli military is the biggest terrorist group in world, etc. now who said every jew in america is married to the state of israel? oh yeah all these kkk aryan nation hicks
Israelite-Tribe
06-12-2003, 04:35 AM
Well ladies and gentlemen it looks like missiles, dozers, boats and small bombs don't scare the palestinians away... Why not transfer all of them to gaza and let them live there but install mines all around the place like a zoo... the roadmap, just destroy them already so that we won't have any problems anymore... I don't know what to say ... Goodbye
Adversary2Arabs
06-12-2003, 06:27 PM
I'm already considered a bigot and racist so wtf....
I agree.
ben Shimshon
06-12-2003, 10:59 PM
I also say ' to hell with the roadmap'. The roadmap serves to legitimize all the arab terrorist organizations. Palestinians - there is no such creature on this planet. These arabs are no more than leftovers from 1948 and belong in Jordan with their brothers.
The IDF should cammandier every bus in the country and in a 48 hour swoop, round up every ethnic arab within Israel's borders and dump them on the east side of the Jordan River, then blow the **cking bridge to hell.
Adversary2Arabs
06-13-2003, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by ben Shimshon
I also say ' to hell with the roadmap'. The roadmap serves to legitimize all the arab terrorist organizations. Palestinians - there is no such creature on this planet. These arabs are no more than leftovers from 1948 and belong in Jordan with their brothers.
The IDF should cammandier every bus in the country and in a 48 hour swoop, round up every ethnic arab within Israel's borders and dump them on the east side of the Jordan River, then blow the **cking bridge to hell.
Wtf I'm already considered a bigot and racist...
I agree with you too.
--------
There are many roads to peace. All end with the Arabs Out.
danholo
06-13-2003, 11:18 AM
Right...
Posted by CanaJew:
Massacres are bad. Obviously. But it is a different thing to say that if we attack X 10 innocents will die for sure, or if we attack X, a certain number of civilians may die. Now any moral government must try to, given the achievement of the objective, minimize the number of civilian casualties. But this does not always result in lowering expected casualties to zero. So then the question becomes, either what mission objectives are we prepared to forego in order to reduce innocent casualties, or, conversely, how many civilian casualties are we prepared to incur in order to achieve the objective.
How many civilian casualties would justify an outcome? How many do you think Israel would be justified in inflicting both infront of the world community and itself?
I am not a supporter of incurring mass casualties among innocents. I think the Palestinians are really the only ones who think this way in any substantial numbers. But sometimes a massacre is necessary to avoid a massacre of one's own civilians.
Agreed.
So which goal should be foregone, protecting your own civilians, or protecting the enemy's. Add to this the fog of war and imperfect intelligence, and you are left with one big conundrum. But that is why leadership is needed to exercise discretion and judgment. To make the qualitative assessments when the numbers are not enough. And while innocent casualties are regrettable, if there is no other way to kill a terrirst than to bomb his appartment building, so be it.
Feel lucky you don't have to make the decisions of striking apartment buildings.
she is, but it is difficvult to do. And Israel, up to this point, has clearly erred on the side of caution and not bombed Hamas rallies and the like.
Even if Israel did it would not do a thing.
see, here is where you are wrong. they have succeeded in this.
No, they have not.
Its the whole death toll tally thing. We kill your civilians, you go after our fighters, but in the end all that matters is we lost more people than you, therefore you owe us concessions. And whether they have convinced anyone of this or not, they HAVE received political concessions by their purposely targeting women and children.
The Democratic world - no matter what - would always be on the side of Israel. Take this as an axiom.
And we have the Europeans to thank for that.
Europeans - don't warry I will not be going on vocation there for a long time to come. They can live without my tourist money - and it's not just because of Israel. Even Britain - screw them all.
It's not for me to do, but for the government of Israel. And I am not brave. But it is still possible to analyze a situation and make policy decisions. There is bravery in fighting, but there is also bravery in being prepared to sacrifice your own moral conscious for an objective which you kinow is right.
Israel is a Democracy and sacrificing its moral standing to terrorism will imply a victory to the terrorists. No argument to that.
I don't like killing. I have never killed anyone, nor do I have any desire to. But this is not to say that I am therefore a pacifist. Sometimes things need to be done. Doing them may cause a lot of guilt, but not doing anything will only perpetuate suffering. that is what the French did with Iraq.
France..... I already responded to our friend Tokeo on the matter.
Easy to get mad at the US seeing pictures of people who were hurt by their bombs. Less easy to get mad at those who stand by and do nothing and let others enslave and butcher people.
I have spent lots of my free time reading up on the Middle East in general. The region is so used to slaughter on political, ethnic, religious and other lines that what's happening in Palestine does not even rise any emotion as to death and distruction. At least nothing to suprise the Middle Easterns. The only thing that puts Israeli death into light is that these are free people of a normal society with whom many in the Western World can associate.
I agree with you on much of this, but I can't help but feel some degree of .. naivite is not the right word... anyways, its close, but without any negative connotation.
This is not as naive as you make it out to be. Democracy takes you places.
Read what the leftist europeans write on this site. they do not perceive Israel as anywhere close to a normal civilized country.
Listen - I have dealt with these people. I can find dirt on any one of their countries to shut them up. Do you no what are the most important qualities of Democratic countries?
They believe what they see on their news. And that is another issue entirely.
Don't warry. However, how tye bend the truth the reality is something else.
because of US and European pressure?
No. Because it would involve very large civilian casualties.
Canajew
06-13-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Mil
How many civilian casualties would justify an outcome? How many do you think Israel would be justified in inflicting both infront of the world community and itself?
I don't know. I would think it depends on circumstances. Sometimes 0, sometimes a lot. But the point was only raised in order to demonstrate that it is not always a black and while all or nothing type of situation.
So which goal should be foregone, protecting your own civilians, or protecting the enemy's. Add to this the fog of war and imperfect intelligence, and you are left with one big conundrum. But that is why leadership is needed to exercise discretion and judgment. To make the qualitative assessments when the numbers are not enough. And while innocent casualties are regrettable, if there is no other way to kill a terrirst than to bomb his appartment building, so be it.
Feel lucky you don't have to make the decisions of striking apartment buildings.
I do feel lucky. I would not want to have the responsibility of making these decisions. But this is different than saying these decisions should therefore not be made. they must be, and that's why countries have leaders.
she is, but it is difficvult to do. And Israel, up to this point, has clearly erred on the side of caution and not bombed Hamas rallies and the like.
Even if Israel did it would not do a thing.
You sure? it would do something. I don't really know what, but it would do something.
They would never be able to convince the world that killing women and children of a Democratic nation will bring them any political concessions.
see, here is where you are wrong. they have succeeded in this.
No, they have not.
They have. Not in words, but in effect. Every additional terrorist attrocity only confirms to the Europeans that Israel must make concessions in order to end the conflict. Lots and lots of people and western governments hold this position. Terroism works in getting the palestinians' concessions, and were it up to the world, they would get even more.
Its the whole death toll tally thing. We kill your civilians, you go after our fighters, but in the end all that matters is we lost more people than you, therefore you owe us concessions. And whether they have convinced anyone of this or not, they HAVE received political concessions by their purposely targeting women and children.
The Democratic world - no matter what - would always be on the side of Israel. Take this as an axiom.
on what is this assertion based? It was not true in the 1940s and it is not true today. The people of Europe are NOT on Israel's side in this dispute. The Americans are, but the US is not the entire democratic world.
It's not for me to do, but for the government of Israel. And I am not brave. But it is still possible to analyze a situation and make policy decisions. There is bravery in fighting, but there is also bravery in being prepared to sacrifice your own moral conscious for an objective which you kinow is right.
Israel is a Democracy and sacrificing its moral standing to terrorism will imply a victory to the terrorists. No argument to that.
Not sure this is true. The terorrist's goal is not to get Israel to enter the depths of depravity, it is to destroy the country and replace it with a state of their own. whether Israel acts like a first rate democracy or the worst of dictatorships is irrelevant in this. And it is not about sacrificing morals but DEFINING them. because rarely are moral principles absolute, and it is usually about flushing out the "grey area" between obviously acceptable and obviously unacceptable. Like assessing what level of collateral damage is acceptable in certain circumstances.
I agree with you on much of this, but I can't help but feel some degree of .. naivite is not the right word... anyways, its close, but without any negative connotation.
This is not as naive as you make it out to be. Democracy takes you places.
This post only confirms my inclination. It is full of high principle and political science type idealism. Democracy doesn't necessarily take anyone anywhere. And the Europeans are certainly not advocating for Israel in all of this.
Listen - I have dealt with these people. I can find dirt on any one of their countries to shut them up. Do you no what are the most important qualities of Democratic countries?
but that is irrelevant. just because their criticisms are invalid or hypocrytical does not mean they are not criticizing. And I have never said they are right, only that they are loud and exert policy influence on their governments, and that these governments are subsequently hostile to Israeli interests. Democracy notwithstanding.
because of US and European pressure?
No. Because it would involve very large civilian casualties. [/B][/QUOTE]
Maybe some overlap between these two positions :)
This "zero tolerance" in civilian death we have in the West is very noble but it is not very practical. Throughout history some periods involved many civilians dying during wars, others did not. For centuries before WWII there was distinct battlefield, civilians where largely exempt from the fire. During WWII civilians suffered onced again from war.
Should there be distinct battlefield, there would be near zero civilian deaths but the way the war are conducted against terrorism it is impossible. Terrorist and arab dictator hides their arm in civilians population in order to get maximum death. For my part, I do not wish random worthless killing of civilians but I could not give a damn if it takes 100 arabs dead to kill one head of Hamas with a 3-ton bomb. The media and the picture can be disturbing, I may have lost all sense of feeling during the last 3 years but it does not disturb me at all. The idea that a country have to put the life of their citizen at risk to gain a "moral medal", given by unconcerned people sitting at a bar talking politics is despicable and immoral. Who cares what the average French or Canadian think? They are not the one taking their life in the hand everytime they take a bus. In France we say that "the ones that give advices are not always the ones who pays".
As for bombarding Hamas funeral, I don't really know. I suspect however that "making examples" will work. After all, you kill one man, they kill one - it is a war. They kill one man, you kill 50 - it is a cold war....But if they kill one man and you destroy one town - THERE IS NO WAR. If it take the destruction of Damascus, Teheran and Ramallah for them to understand who is boss then SO BE IT. All I am concern is the Israelis staying alive, whatever it takes and having any regards for the ennemies of Israel (which by the way declared and continue the war) would be unatural.
Posted by Canajew:
They have. Not in words, but in effect. Every additional terrorist attrocity only confirms to the Europeans that Israel must make concessions in order to end the conflict. Lots and lots of people and western governments hold this position. Terroism works in getting the palestinians' concessions, and were it up to the world, they would get even more.
Don't warry. Countries are not run by public opinion but by politicians who are bit more realistic.
on what is this assertion based?
Historical precedence. I recommend you read Kissinger's "Diplomacy."
It was not true in the 1940s and it is not true today. The people of Europe are NOT on Israel's side in this dispute.
Western Europeans are pretty much supportive of Israel. Don't warry.
The Americans are, but the US is not the entire democratic world.
America is the so-called Democratic World. Without US Europe is worth absolutely zero.
Not sure this is true.
It is true.
The terorrist's goal is not to get Israel to enter the depths of depravity, it is to destroy the country and replace it with a state of their own.
You would be suprised by Arabs in reality really really want a settlement. It's just they want it at Israel's expense - something that would never work.
whether Israel acts like a first rate democracy or the worst of dictatorships is irrelevant in this.
Oh yes it does matter. It matters a lot.
And it is not about sacrificing morals but DEFINING them.
because rarely are moral principles absolute, and it is usually about flushing out the "grey area" between obviously acceptable and obviously unacceptable.
Western Democratic values are based on very strong principles of morality which at the end differentiates from all non-Democracies. May be you never experienced living outside a Democracy - I did.
Like assessing what level of collateral damage is acceptable in certain circumstances.
The Shabra and Shattila is still remembered. At the same time Asad was doing wanders in the city of Homs, northern Syria, leveled half of all the buildings and massacred over 10,000 Sunnis. Syrian heroics are not remember because this idiotic nation is considered to be immoral - where Israel is. See the difference?
This post only confirms my inclination. It is full of high principle and political science type idealism.
This high principles combined with the political idealism is the most peaceful and the most natural form of governance.
Democracy doesn't necessarily take anyone anywhere.
Europe is in peace because most all countries there are now Democracies.
And the Europeans are certainly not advocating for Israel in all of this.
European rumbling is pure politics brought out by their politicians in order to somehow enforce a resolution to the conflict. Everyone is tired of it already. But this in no way makes Europeans enemies of the state of Israel or change Israel's political system to be something else.
By the way - Democracy is the cornerstone of American, US, Diplomacy. In any conflict, if you ever follow those, US would ALWAYS take the side of a Democracy. ALWAYS!!!!
[b], only that they are loud and exert policy influence on their governments, and that these governments are subsequently hostile to Israeli interests. Democracy notwithstanding.[/b[
The strongest qualities of a Democracy, from my previous post:
Democracies are very transparent and are very predictable. When in business of international politics you would prefer to deal with the latter than with idiotic autocracies which are not very predictable at all.
ben Shimshon
06-13-2003, 02:21 PM
This has nothing to do with bigotry or racism on Israels' or the part of its supporters, this has to do with self defence and nothing more. There is no hope of finding a solution whereby the 2 sides can live in harmony, not even side by side. The arab nations have sworn to eradicate Israel, the western powers must finally accept this fact. The Palestinian state already exists, it name is Jordon.
The only solution is in fact a political one as I suggested yesterday. Physically deport all ethnic arabs by force, Jordon would be the logical place, whether they like it or not. What the hell is Jordon going to do about it after it's done anyway. At worst they will have another anti-Israeli UN resolution passed, big deal.
After this is done the IDF can deal finally with Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. These countries have the courage of a 'roach and would pose little resistance once Israel showed it was finally solving the problem of defeating its enemies.
Originally posted by Mil
Western Europeans are pretty much supportive of Israel. Don't warry. [/B]
Living in Europe myself, I can tell you that you are mistaken. European politicians for the most are trying to erase their culpability of the Holocaust by branding Israel no better than Hitler. In France for Example, Ariel Sharon is refered on the news as "General Sharon" whilst Arafat has the immoral title of "President". There is also internal problems, France again has a demographic problem with the arab North Africans. As for Blair he is not the worst of the bench but he is the most hypocrite. He refused once to see Sharon (after Pinochet came and the legal case he was worry) only after Bush gave him a "hot" phone call he saw him. He then recently refused to meet Netanyahu but the day after he had time to speak to Arafat and the rest of the PA. And I know for a fact that they see the kind of media and school curriculum in the PA Area, yet then still say "so what? Israel must withdraw, we'll see later on what will happen". According to my friend in Spain, they are far worst there, so I suppose it is not a uniform line.
As for the "big picture", Europe, they are for the most anti-Americans and anti-Israelis. You can see it from the man on the street to half of the politicians. And there is many reasons for that. First of all, Europeans prefers to deal with tyrans like Saddam than democratie. Most of the arm sales to Iraq where Europeans. Second Europe prefer to be the superpower in dealing with arabs than the child being ruled by the US. They don't want capitalism, they are drawn to socialism. And third Europe has superpower ambitions to model the world to their image as much as America - problem it is not the same image!
Knowing that, it is understandable how Chirac's best friend, ambassador for France to the UK had the guts to say "we are going to have WWIII because of this ty little country".
Originally posted by Mil
You would be suprised by Arabs in reality really really want a settlement. [/B]
I am surprise because Few Projects, headed by Madeleine Albright, have survey the entire muslim world to find out that 80% of the population wants the destruction of Israel.
Originally posted by Mil
The Shabra and Shattila is still remembered. At the same time Asad was doing wanders in the city of Homs, northern Syria, leveled half of all the buildings and massacred over 10,000 Sunnis.[/B]
Yes but the fact that even Hamas blame the Phallange and the Syrians before they blame Sharon prooves that the hatred towards Israel is greater than any truth.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.