Thoughts about the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre

[NewsGuy]

Recently, there has been a renewed interest in revisiting the Arab slaughter at the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla. Some seek to indict Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on charges of war crimes because of his indirect involvement in the issue.

If you're reading this and are not familiar with the facts, here's a very brief backgrounder:

By 1982, Israel could no longer sustain the Arab terrorism launched against Israel from Lebanon. At the time, Palestinian terrorists groups, including Arafat's Al Fatah faction and several others used Lebanon as a launch pad for terrorism against Israeli civilians. This was done with Iranian and Syrian support and influence, much like today.

At the time, it was the tail-end of the Lebanese civil war, in which the Lebanese Christians were also fed up with Muslim terrorism and mass murder against the Christians.

To protect itself, Israel led by then-defense minister Ariel Sharon, invaded Lebanon to create a buffer zone between Israeli civilians and Arab terrorists.

Ultimately, Sharon was successful in driving out the PLO from Lebanon, but was unsuccessful in protecting Israel against terrorist attacks from across the Lebanese border. Like all "partial" wars, where one side is prevented by political pressures from finishing the enemy once and for all, many see Israel's Lebanese campaign as a failure.

At one point, Israel took over a some Lebanese territory which contained the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla. As soon as the Christian Arabs found out that this occurred, they stormed into those refugee camps and took revenge against their Muslim countrymen and killed a few hundred Muslims.

When Israel found out this happened, Israel prevented further killings.

However, who does the world blame when Arabs kill each other in a civil war? Israel, of course. And Ariel Sharon took the brunt of the blame for the Arab Christian massacre of the Arab Muslims. At the time, he resigned his position and has never quite regained his full leadership status until the recent elections.

I’m not sure whether it was Sharon’s responsibility to protect the Muslims against their fellow Arabs, but I am sure that it was Arafat and his Palestinian terror groups whose actions led their Arab Christian neighbors to take revenge.

And, while the world talks about Sharon’s supposed accountability, I find it particularly interesting that no accountability is ever assigned for War crimes to any Arab dictator whatsoever. Not Ghaddafi, not the late Assad, not the Iranian Ayatollah terrorist, and not even Saddam Hussein were ever prosecuted for their crimes against humanity. Only Sharon is being called for prosecution for the Arab slaughter of one another, under the guise of committing war crimes.

You draw your own conclusions.

[Jean le Ne]

Well, that was a remarkably self serving account of the history as regards the slaughter of " a few hundred Muslims ". What the hell, eh, just a few hundred?

Sharon and the IDF knew what was going on, and did nothing to stop it, and that is a considerably more serious matter than what you present.

More importantly, always, but always, but always, the CONTEXT of the conflict is handily edited out of commentaries like the one you have just posted. No reference here to " why " the acts of terror directed against the Israelis. It's as if, one day, the entire Arab world just woke up and said, let's get Israel...

Speak about these matters honestly, for Christ's sake ( or Buddha's, or who ever's ), and you may find there is honestly in the responses you receive. Understand what fair minded people everywhere understand: the Palestinian people experience the illegal occupation and systematic oppression of their lands and people as acts of terrorism, and they will fight Israel as long as it takes to get out from under the boot.

If Israel responds with denial and stubborn insistence on some chosen people crap, then it's a bit silly to cry when the bombs continue to be detonated...

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Jean le Ne
Sharon and the IDF knew what was going on, and did nothing to stop it, and that is a considerably more serious matter than what you present.

More importantly, always, but always, but always, the CONTEXT of the conflict is handily edited out of commentaries like the one you have just posted. No reference here to " why " the acts of terror directed against the Israelis. It's as if, one day, the entire Arab world just woke up and said, let's get Israel...


First of all, Sharon and the IDF could not predict the Arab massacre of each other and did not know about it until several hundred Arabs were killed by their Arab "brothers."

So far as the context is concerned, you're right. I did not elaborate on it very much.

Let me fill in then:

Even before the creation of the State of Israel, the Arabs have always hated and mistreated Jews (as well as any other religion than Islam. This is true in the middle east and is true throughout the world even till today.)

With the creation ofthe State of Israel, the Arabs immediately decided to invade Israel and to murder all its Jewish inhabitants. They also ordered the native Arabs to vacate Israel and their own land, so that they will not be in the way of the invading Arab armies.

And so many of the Arab refugee camps were created, including the Sabra and Shatilla camps, which are poverty stricken, and lacking even the most basic modern services, even though their muslim brothers are rolling in legendary petro-dollar wealth.

Living in poverty and in general ignorance, the self-created refugees were also incited by extremist islamic groups to acts of violence. Instead of blaming their misery and homelessness on their Arab brothers, they always focused on blaming Israel.

It sure seems that Arabs never face the true sources of their own misery, which is typically their own corrupt and non-caring dictatorships. Never mind that the petro-dollars are always deposited into the personal bank accounts of the dictators and their families and allies, while the general population cannot afford to provide food and shelter to their families.

Instead, there is always some enemy that is blamed, like Israel and the Jews. This is exemplified by placing the blame for Arabs massacering one another on Israel. And so, none of the Arabs who actually ordered the massacre or personally participated in the massacre are brought up on charges of crimes against humanity. Only Israel, and Ariel Sharon are blamed and to be tried by the hypocritical Belgium court, financed by the incredibly stupid Belgian tax payer.

You also mentioned how the Palestinians perceive themnselves as an occupied nation who must murder Jews to escape this supposed occupation. But you conveniently fail to mention that time and again, the Israelis have given Israeli land to Arabs countries in exchange for a peace which they never got. Egypt got the Sinai, Jordan got parts of the Jordan valley, yet there is no peace with those Arabs.

Israel also offered the Palestinians their own State with Jerusalem as their shared capital (which I think was a big mistake for Barak to offer), yet the Palestinians turned it down, instead preferring to go on murdering Jews and putting their own children in harm's way. Not to mention that the Palestinians have been given control over about 70% of the lands they claim, including Qalqilia, Bethlehem, Jericho, Gaza, and others, and this too is has not stopped the Arab terror against Israel.

So, I don't buy your claims that the Paletinians just want to get out from under some occupation. Unfortunately, the Palestinian track record shows that they will stop at nothing short of an ethnic cleansing of Jews from the land of Israel, and I think that Christian Arabs are next. Certainly, Arafat has publicly said so with regard to his intentions for the Jews, many times.

[Robert Furst]

An investigation by Israel's government determined that Sharon did not give the orders for the killing of the refugees. They did however blame Sharon for not anticipating the reaction to the killing of the Christian President of Lebanon.

The real question is "Should have the Israelis known what could have happened?" and did "Sharon know about it?". There are no really good answers only 20/20 hindsight.

[Jean le Ne]

First of all, thank you NEWS GUY and ROBERT FURST, for your replies. We are, of course, in the merry-go-round. But for the sake of maintaining and exchange of ideas, let's meet in the middle;

Context? Context is in the mind of the one who is examining the reality in front of them, I suppose. That's maybe one way to say it. So, I accept that you are sincere in what you present as the relevant context we are discussing. But let me say this: when you talk about giving land to the Palestinians, you really go straight to the heart of the matter, don't you? You speak of that land as if you know, for sure, that it is rightfully Israeli land. And I suggest if there is EVER going to be even a peaceful co-existence of two states, that idea is going to need re-examination.

There has been movement, all around the planet, as long as we have had recorded history. This region ( Israel/Palestine ) is certainly not the ONLY land that has ever been contested, conquered, retaken, reconquered etc.

What is the standard for rightful ownerhip of the land? Religion? And then how do you determine, with any fairness, whose God ought to prevail? What is another standard? Blood spilled? If blood spilled, even over the last months, is to be a standard, or currency used to claim a right to the land, then the Palestinians have earned some more land, have they not? All I ask is that we think, and that we be ready to challenge our own orthodoxy ( all of us ), in terms of political belief etc. There is no other path to peace...

[NewsGuy]

Hello,

I'd like to answer you in some detail, but find myself pressed for time.

For now, I'll just say that I have been enjoying your opinions. Nice to have your POV.

[caribakam]

THE ACTS OF TERRORISM(AS YOU SAY) CONDUCTED BY THE PALESTINIANS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE AGAINST THE NAZIs DURING THEIR OCCUPATION TO THE FRENCH TERRITORY, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE FRENCH REVOLUTIONISTS ARE TERRORISTS?

[Negev]

Originally posted by caribakam
THE ACTS OF TERRORISM(AS YOU SAY) CONDUCTED BY THE PALESTINIANS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE AGAINST THE NAZIs DURING THEIR OCCUPATION TO THE FRENCH TERRITORY, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE FRENCH REVOLUTIONISTS ARE TERRORISTS?

No. The acts of the Arab terrorists are more like those of the Nazis. Like the Nazis, the Arab and Muslims in general have tried to systematically kill all those of a different faith.

[takeo]

The question about why there still isn't peace, why the Palestinians turned down the latest offer of barak and why the Palestinians are fighting Israel have been mentioned and discussed already with you in the other forum.
Just let me remind you that Arab antipathy against Jews and Israel started when Israel started to colonise land belonging to an Arab people, the Palestinians. Untill the 19th century antisemitism in the Arab and islamic world was very low compared to Europe and Russia and the Christian world. In Islamic Spain Jews had a very high position and were banned, converted or burned when the Christians took power.
Nobody likes to see his land being colonised by another people, and resistance to this is only natural, it happened everytime in history (when the yankees took America, indians were described as "the bad guys" because they resisted, but in fact the bad guys were the Europeans taking the land of the Indians).
about the refugees: "And so many of the Arab refugee camps were created, including the Sabra and Shatilla camps, which are poverty stricken, and lacking even the most basic modern services, even though their muslim brothers are rolling in legendary petro-dollar wealth. "

Here you "forgot" to mention one little detail, that Israel REFUSED to take this people back, even if it was forced to to so by international laws of war and human rights. why should other countries take those refugees if they were not allowed back at the land where they were born? It would have completed etnic cleansing. We all know that those refugee camps are a hotbed of terrorism, and this is only natural.
So let's now return to the original question of the poster: is Sharon responsible for the war-crimes at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps?
First let me mention that in your description of the facts, again you seem to have forgotten some little details.
yes, it wasn't Sharon personally or Israeli soldiers who massacred the civilians, it were Falangist militiamen (not representative for the christian community in Libanon, which some of them fighted the Israeli as well and it were christians who invited the Syrians to fight against the Palestinians). yes, Israel is not the only responsible for the civil war and war-crimes in Libanon (but it created the refugee problem and its intrusion into Libanon made things worse, also its occupation untill end of 90's prolonged the war in Libanon, as Libanese made a peace brokered by Syria in the end of 80's).
But you forgat to mention that it was Sharon who was responsible for everything happening in the city he had under controll (and at that time, Israeli had full controll over this parts of beirout). According to the Geneva-convention, the military leader in controll is responsible for all war-crimes happening on the territory he controlls. But there is more. sharon knew that the falangists were a bunch of extremists who had massacred palestinians in the past, but still he ASKED them to go into the camps, in fact that means that the falangists were ordered by the military power they cooperated with to do a task the Israeli army didn't want to do themselves. the offical task was to see if no terrorists were hidden in that camp. but Sharon knew sending in falangists in a palestinian refugee-camp could have easily provoced a massacre, even if he didn't literally "ordered" a massacre, one can not deny that his responsability in this is overwhelming.
But there is more. Some refugees could escape and some western journalists reported the massacres to a local israeli officer who was disgusted and immidiately informed sharon about it. And what happened? exactly nothing, only 24 hours later Sharon ordered the Falangists to retreat. they immidiately followed hos order, which means that Sharon could have stopped the massacre at any time. But he didn't, even after he knew for sure (i'm sure Sharon is not stupid and knew what kind of people the falangists were, so he should have known this from the beginning, and probably he did) that there was a massacre, he did do nothing. To me and to international justice and laws that is more than enough reason to be convicted for war-crimes.
i agree that other leaders as well are responsible for war-crimes, including the old Assad, Saddam Houssein, etc. But that doesn't mean that Sharon ISN'T a war-criminal.

[NewsGuy]

Takeo: "Just let me remind you that Arab antipathy against Jews and Israel started when Israel started to colonise land belonging to an Arab people, the Palestinians."

Nope.

Arab hatred of Jews was always an historical fact. Jews and other non-Muslims were always second-class citizens in Arab countries, as it is until today. Although not subject to ongoing public executions, pogroms and inquisitions like in Europe, the Jews were certainly never living on an equal footing with Muslims.

True, some people like to point to a very brief respot in active persecution of Jews in a scarce number of Arab countries and during a very small number of years. This was due to the Jewish community needing to pay exorbitant "taxes" (i.e., blood-money) to the currupt Arab dictators, who then also used the Jews as money-lenders at no interest.

Like the modern-day organized crime, after paying for "protection," the Jews were allowed to live in relative quiet in a very small number of cases. But this was very rare.

The Arabs were never good neighbors neither to their Jewish subjects nor to their Christian subjects. Just ask any Jew who lived in an Arab country...


As for colonization, I have noticed that this word is not used so much in the U.S., but it is part of the very highly-financed Arab campaign of disinformation and incitement in Europe against in Israel. This is utter nonesense when used in the context of Israel, but it strikes a chord in Europe who has never lived down their collectiove guilt about the brutal colonization that the Europeans did in many third-world countires, including some Arab ones.

It is a trigger-word designed to incite Europeans to hate Israel and Jews in general. It is a blood-libel and is devoid of any fact, used much like the massive anti-semitic literature that fills Arab countries and their European oil-client countries.

But I think it is an important enough subject to handle in its own thread, so I will move this discussion to a new one to give it the attention it deserves.

[NewsGuy]

Takeo: "Here you "forgot" to mention one little detail, that Israel REFUSED to take this people back, even if it was forced to to so by international laws of war and human rights. why should other countries take those refugees if they were not allowed back at the land where they were born?"

Well, what you "forgot" is that Israel in fact has a population of 1.5 million Arab citizens living in the heart of Israel today.

Israeli cities like Haifa, Jaffa, Akko, Beer Sheva, and Jerusalem are just a few places where the Arabs thrive, given a much higher standard of living, democratic political representation in the Knesset, municipal services and much more, all courtesy of the Israeli tax-payer.

The reason that other Arab countries should take in their Palestinian Arab brothers is that these Palestinians fled to those Arab countries, and not taking them in is nothing more than Arab apartheid against Palestinians. And beyond Arab apartheaid, I wonder why the oil-rich Arab states won't even give their poverty-stricken Palestinian brothers and sisters even a little money to afford food ans clothing for their children?

As you know, but choose to ignore, rather than spending their petro-dollars on helping their own Arab people, they spend their money on racist, anti-Western and anti-semitic disinformation campaigns and funding Islamic terrorism.

The truth is that despite all the high-priced loud incitement campaigns in Europe, the Arabs don't care at all about their fellow Palestinian Arabs. All the noise they make is just to give their own citizens something to divert their attention away from the real cause of the Arabs' misery, which is their own corrupt and brutal dictatorships.

While the dictators live in legendary wealth, the ordinary Arabs live in filthy streets awash in sewage, with no public education, no future for their barefoot and poverty-stricken children, no retirement plans nor care for the elderly who are expected to just rot away.

So, the best place to send the Arab popular frustration and anger is at Israel and Ariel Sharon in particular. This is why the Arab-against-Arab massacres are still being blamed on Israel, rather than focusing their considerable resources on social advancement for the Arab population.

This in a nutshell is the reality of Sabra and Shatilla and other Palestinian refugee camps.

[hass]

NewsGuy,


It is highly obvious that you yourself are not seeking a 'peace process' when you constantly remark that 'the Arab Muslims faith encourages them to kill any other faith' and the like of such comments.

Such ignorance on your behalf is quite shocking, and to say such is absolutely absurd.

Being an Iraqi muslim, with Iraqi Christian friends who share the same view on Israel I find it absolutely horrendus that you are twisting the facts to lower public opinion on the Palestinean population.

How can it be in their faith to kill any other 'faith' if 60% of Palestineans themselves are Christians?

If you would like to discuss matters without the pathetic slander it would be beneficial. However the process in how you are conducing the discussion at the moment is quite shocking.

If you would like a more accurate view on the massacres of Shatilla follow <a href="http://www.hebron.com/massacres/sabra/acct-israeli-defense-army-lebanon.html">this link</a>.

You break your own logic by saying 'The town was in control of the Israelis' and then saying 'the massacre was conducted by Christian Arabs without the knowledge of the Israelis.

You tell me, If it was in control of the Isrealis would they not notice the entering of hundreds of Christian Arabs and the slaughter of 3000 people?

Farewell

Salam & Shalom

[takeo]

So this is a representative of those savage anti-semites, and even from the heart of the evil: Bagdad. Well, to me he sounds more reasonable and less extremist than you. (but not 60% of pals are christian, maybe 20%, i think you confuse with Libanon).

Arab regimes indeed are very corrupted and inequal, completely agree with that (besides Iraq isn't the worst, pro-US regimes saoudi Arabia, etc. for example are much worse). This however is not an excuse for the israeli refusal to stop the return of people who lived for centuries in your country.
about the Palestinian minority in Israel, see the other treath, but it is only a tiny percentage of the original population who remained to live there.

[L@mplighterM]

*LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLL*

hass who's your ISP provider????

[takeo]

hey
it's possible, last month i discussed with someone from Bagdad, they have internet-café's now in Bagdad.

[L@mplighterM]

*LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLL*

Really takeo. Whatever u say hass.

[hass]

Is this forum not to stimulate proper discussion?

I make a formal post and I recieve a 'whatever' reply.

I hope not all Israelis are like this.

[takeo]

unfortunately a lot (i mean israeli not Jews!!!!!!!!!)
And the higher the position they have, the worse

[L@mplighterM]

takeo or hass or whoever give me a break.

I stopped believing in fairy tales a long time ago.

I'm not taking in any of your BS.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by hass
It is highly obvious that you yourself are not seeking a 'peace process' when you constantly remark that 'the Arab Muslims faith encourages them to kill any other faith' and the like of such comments.

Such ignorance on your behalf is quite shocking, and to say such is absolutely absurd.


Hello Hass,

I think that this is your first day as a member of this forum, so I welcome you. I hope that you will find our community to be valuable to you, and I hope that, likewise, you will bring value to our community.

ok...

As for your first point, about Islam encouraging the murder of other religions, this is a point of view clearly expressed by the Islamic militants, and this "Jihad" view is, according to Islamists, the context that is used to justify murdering non-Muslims.

I understand that this is not the view of all Muslims, but it is certainly the view of a good number of them. This is true all over the world, where Muslims are causing wars and terrorism based on religion. For example, in Israel, in the US, in Afghanistan, in China, in India, in the Phillipines, in large parts of Africa, in Indonesia and in other parts of Asia as well.

Again, while this view is not expressed by all Muslims, there is a considerable number of Islamic militants and so-called Imams who do state this view openly. It is, IMHO, the true basis of the Arab/Israeli conflict, and even the basis for internal strife in some Arab countries. It was certainly the case in Lebanon's civil war, part of which resulted in the Christian Arab vs. Muslim Arab massacre in Sabra and Shatilla.

How can it be in their faith to kill any other 'faith' if 60% of Palestineans themselves are Christians?
You are simply mistaken on that figure.

The true figure is that Christians only make up .07% of the Palestinian population in Gaza, and less than 8% in the West Bank. So, your numbers are way, way off.


If you would like to discuss matters without the pathetic slander it would be beneficial. However the process in how you are conducing the discussion at the moment is quite shocking.

If you would like a more accurate view on the massacres of Shatilla follow <a href="http://www.hebron.com/massacres/sabra/acct-israeli-defense-army-lebanon.html">this link</a>.
Well, talk about slander (it's actually libel)... That pathetic Arab propaganda page is a joke. From the animated blood-dripping graphic to the fact that it never even mentions that Christian Arabs actually carried out the massacre, it is really an embarrasment to the Arab propaganda effort, which is pretty embarrasing to begin with.


You break your own logic by saying 'The town was in control of the Israelis' and then saying 'the massacre was conducted by Christian Arabs without the knowledge of the Israelis.

No. I think you are mistaken about what I wrote about control of the camps. However, you are correct that the Arab vs. Arab massacre occured without Israel's knowledge.

[L@mplighterM]

I think based on all the information that I've digested it would be fair to state that the majority of Arabs/Muslims eighter support or are terrorists. Majority of course means 50% +1 but it's more likely between 100% - 1 or 2.

Call me a racist I dont really care one way or the other I don't make up the facts.

To all the Muslims here you make me sick and I think you're cowards. I guess killing makes your day, but one day there's going to be the straw that breaks the camels back.

[takeo]

lomplighter can i already buy a card of the Front national for you? They might consider your view a bit too extreme but anyway you'll be wellcome. if you find them too soft on the Arabs (they don't yet want a genocide...yet, just expulsion) there are more extremist neo-nazi groups as well who will be more suitable for your views that all arabs are terrorists and criminals(but in that case please don't mention that you're jewish).


"without Israel's knowledge"
lol, this is what is called pathetic denial..
even the israeli courts said Sharon was guilty of not assisting the victims even if he could( which, of course, is a gross understatement if you know that he ordered this guys in, had full controll of the city and knew from israeli officers that they were massacring inside)!

[yehudi]

Originally posted by takeo
"without Israel's knowledge"
lol, this is what is called pathetic denial..
even the israeli courts said Sharon was guilty of not assisting the victims even if he could( which, of course, is a gross understatement if you know that he ordered this guys in, had full controll of the city and knew from israeli officers that they were massacring inside)! I have to back this up.

As far as I know there is evidence an israeli officer was directly informed and reported. Besides isreali intelligence is excellent and Sharon had an excellent knowledge of the situation.

Of course I'd like to know what was answered regarding these evidence.


btw thanks for the link, Newsguy.

[minusthejihad]

Yehudi,

Have you posted on other Arab boards, including Christian Arab forums and asked them why they murdered other fellow Arabs? Just wondering? Or is it always the Jew's fault?

[yehudi]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Or is it always the Jew's fault? I'm not the blame-the-jews type or I'd have some family problems.

I do think criminals should be prosecuted and, if convicted, punished.

Why should anyone be immune for the responsibility his acts? In this particular case, a serious investigation should be conducted. What do you say?

[eyl]

Yeah, and there already was one - which ruled that Sharon should have anticipated it, not that he had knowledge of it. The full text of the Kahan Commission report is online at http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/kahan.html

(BTW - how come you've been resurrecting old threads recently?)

Originally posted by yehudi
I'm not the blame-the-jews type or I'd have some family problems.

I do think criminals should be prosecuted and, if convicted, punished.

Why should anyone be immune for the responsibility his acts? In this particular case, a serious investigation should be conducted. What do you say?

[minusthejihad]

he's been out digging in the dirt, and this is the best he comes up with.

[Mediocrates]

Isn't it obvious? There is a checklist and he's working his way down it. Soon we'll hear about Jenin again. And so on. There are only about 2 dozen 'issues' they have. This is one.

Here yud lemme help you

Deir Yassin
Vanunu
USS Liberty

That should keep you busy for a while.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by eyl
Yeah, and there already was one - which ruled that Sharon should have anticipated it, not that he had knowledge of it. The full text of the Kahan Commission report is online at http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/kahan.html Why was the Kahan Commission not recognized by the belgian court? On what legal ground?

Originally posted by eyl
how come you've been resurrecting old threads recently?) as explained on my post...


you speak of old threads as a plural. What are the other ones you refer to?

[eyl]

Originally posted by yehudi
Why was the Kahan Commission not recognized by the belgian court? On what legal ground?

I don't know for sure. I think, though, that the relevent Belgian law (before its recent amendment) did not concern itself with whether or not the defendent had already been tried. It could also be argued (note that I do not know if this was the position of the court; I read it in commentary) that the Kahan Commission was not technically a court at all, but rather a judicial commission, since it had no power to try defendents (only to recommend trials or to give certain other decrees).

you speak of old threads as a plural. What are the
other ones you refer to?

This one and "the call of the apache"

[Mercury]

Originally posted by hass

60% of Palestineans themselves are Christians


Where did you take this number from?

[Mediocrates]

From his ear. The number is closer to 2%.

[andak01]

Without changing your post, let me simply highlight a little of your well "balanced" rhetoric. I counted six links of Arabs or Palestinians to terrorism, only one mention that this was a military conflict and the final implication that Sharon was in no way involved at all, even though he was forced to resign over his involvement. I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Recently, there has been a renewed interest in revisiting the Arab slaughter at the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla. Some seek to indict Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on charges of war crimes because of his indirect involvement in the issue.

If you're reading this and are not familiar with the facts, here's a very brief backgrounder:

By 1982, Israel could no longer sustain the Arab terrorism launched against Israel from Lebanon. At the time, Palestinian terrorists groups, including Arafat's Al Fatah faction and several others used Lebanon as a launch pad for terrorism against Israeli civilians. This was done with Iranian and Syrian support and influence, much like today.

At the time, it was the tail-end of the Lebanese civil war, in which the Lebanese Christians were also fed up with Muslim terrorism and mass murder against the Christians.

To protect itself, Israel led by then-defense minister Ariel Sharon, invaded Lebanon to create a buffer zone between Israeli civilians and Arab terrorists.

Ultimately, Sharon was successful in driving out the PLO from Lebanon, but was unsuccessful in protecting Israel against terrorist attacks from across the Lebanese border. Like all "partial" wars, where one side is prevented by political pressures from finishing the enemy once and for all, many see Israel's Lebanese campaign as a failure.

At one point, Israel took over a some Lebanese territory which contained the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla. As soon as the Christian Arabs found out that this occurred, they stormed into those refugee camps and took revenge against their Muslim countrymen and killed a few hundred Muslims.

When Israel found out this happened, Israel prevented further killings.

However, who does the world blame when Arabs kill each other in a civil war? Israel, of course. And Ariel Sharon took the brunt of the blame for the Arab Christian massacre of the Arab Muslims. At the time, he resigned his position and has never quite regained his full leadership status until the recent elections.

I’m not sure whether it was Sharon’s responsibility to protect the Muslims against their fellow Arabs, but I am sure that it was Arafat and his Palestinian terror groups whose actions led their Arab Christian neighbors to take revenge.

And, while the world talks about Sharon’s supposed accountability, I find it particularly interesting that no accountability is ever assigned for War crimes to any Arab dictator whatsoever. Not Ghaddafi, not the late Assad, not the Iranian Ayatollah terrorist, and not even Saddam Hussein were ever prosecuted for their crimes against humanity. Only Sharon is being called for prosecution for the Arab slaughter of one another, under the guise of committing war crimes.

You draw your own conclusions.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by andak01
Without changing your post, let me simply highlight a little of your well "balanced" rhetoric. I counted six links of Arabs or Palestinians to terrorism, only one mention that this was a military conflict and the final implication that Sharon was in no way involved at all, even though he was forced to resign over his involvement. I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Perhaps wherever terrorism rears its ugly head you would prefer to call it "patty cake" and wherever a Jew is murdered you would perhaps like to substitute "inconvenienced".

Or, perhaps you have other euphemisms you'd like to use instead calling things what they are.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by eyl
This one and "the call of the apache" Right

Go for the plural. And let's say two months is old...

[eyl]

Two is plural, last I heard, and two months is a long time these days

Originally posted by yehudi
Right

Go for the plural. And let's say two months is old...

[abu afak]

"""...In calling Sharon a "war criminal," Johnson is no doubt referring primarily to Sharon's failure to prevent the massacre of hundreds of civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon during the 1982 war. Following those massacres, Israel's government formed the Kahan Commission of Inquiry, which found that the Israel Defense Forces had erred in allowing Christian Phalangists -- who perpetrated the massacre -- into the camps. The committee specifically held Sharon (who was then defense minister) and General Raful Eitan (who was then the Israeli Army's chief of staff) responsible for failing to anticipate that the Phalangists would kill civilians. Both men were dismissed. It was widely assumed that Sharon's career had ended in disgrace.

Let's compare Sabra and Shatila to another 1982 incident, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad's massacre of 20,000 of his own citizens in the town of Hama. It may come as a surprise to Mr. Johnson that Assad was never held "indirectly responsible" for these massacres by an independent commission of inquiry. Nor was he forced to resign in disgrace. Why? Because genocidal autocracies don't form commissions of inquiry to investigate themselves. But democracies -- such as Israel -- do.

Amazingly, King Hussein of Jordan never formed a commission of inquiry to publicly question his offensive against Palestinian militants in September 1970, which resulted in thousands of deaths. I may be going out on a limb here, but I'll bet the fact that he's a king has something to do with this. And I am certainly looking forward to Saddam Hussein's formation of a commission of inquiry to publicly rebuke his own government for the gassing of its citizens at Halabja in 1982...."""

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/06/letter-s-06-25.html

[abu afak]

Let me also say, for our new uninformed posters le narc and haas, that Sabra and Chatilla were one in a long series of Atrocities by Palestinian/Syrian/Lebanese Arab Muslims and Christians against each other. .. mostly committed by Muslims.
Indeed, Lebanon has been cleansed of more than 1 million of it's Christians.

Amazingly, this (Sabra and Chatillla) was the only one that could even indirectly blamed on a Jew. .. and so it was, of course, made famous.

ie

Damour

The Massacre and Destruction of Damour

Damour lay across the Sidon - Beirut highway about 20 km south of Beirut on the slopes of a foothill of the Lebanon range. On the other side of the road, beyond a flat stretch of coast, is the sea. It was a town of some 25,000 people, containing five churches, three chapels, seven schools, private and public, and one public hospital where Muslims from near by villages were treated along with the Christians, at the expense of the town.

On 9 January 1976, three days after Epiphany, the priest of Damour Father Mansour Labaky, was carrying out a Maronite custom of blessing the houses with holy water. As he stood in front of a house on the side of the town next to the Muslim village of Harat Na’ami, a bullet whistled past his ear and hit the house. Then he heard the rattle of machine-guns. He went inside the house, and soon learned that the town was surrounded. Later he found out by whom and how many — the forces of Sa’iqa, consisting of 16,000 Palestinians and Syrians, and units of the Mourabitoun and some fifteen other militias, reinforced by mercenaries from Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a contingent of Libyans.

Father Labaky telephoned the Muslim sheikh of the district and asked him, as a fellow religious leader, what he could do to help the people of the town. ‘I can do nothing,’ he was told ‘They want to harm you. It is the Palestinians. I cannot stop them.'

While the shooting and some shelling went on all day, Father Labaky telephoned a long list of people, politicians of both the Left and the Right, asking for help. They all said with apologies and commiserations that they could do nothing. Then he telephoned Kamal Jumblatt, in whose parliamentary constituency Damour lay. ‘Father,’ Jumblatt said, ‘I can do nothing for you, because it depends on Yasser Arafat.’ He gave Arafat’s phone number to the priest.

An aide answered, and when he would not call Arafat himself, Father Labaky told him, ‘The Palestinians are shelling and shooting at my town. I can assure you as a religious leader, we do not want the war, we do not believe in violence.’ He added that nearly half the people of Damour had voted for Kamal Jumblatt, ‘who is backing you,’ he reminded the PLO man. The reply was, ‘Father, don’t worry. We don’t want to harm you. If we are destroying you it is for strategical reasons.’
Father Labaky did not feel that there was any less cause for worry because the destruction was for strategical reasons, and he persisted in asking for Arafat to call off his fighters. In the end the aide said that they, PLO headquarters, would ‘tell them to stop shooting’.

By then it was eleven o’clock in the evening. As the minutes passed and the shooting still went on, Father Labaky called Jumblatt again on the telephone and told him what Arafat’s aide had said. Jumblatt’s advice was that the priest should keep trying to make contact with Arafat, and call other friends of his, ‘because’, he said, ‘I do not trust him’.

At about half-past eleven the telephone, water and electricity were all cut off. The first invasion of the town came in the hour after midnight, from the side where the priest had been shot at earlier in the day. The Sa’iqa men stormed into the houses. They massacred some fifty people in the one night. Father Labaky heard screaming and went out into the street. Women came running to him in their nightdresses, ‘tearing their hair, and shouting “They are slaughtering us!” The survivors, deserting that end of the town, moved into the area round the next church. The invaders then occupied the part of the town they had taken. Father Labaky describes the scene:

'In the morning I managed to get to the one house despite the shelling to bring out some of the corpses. And I remember something which still frightens me. An entire family had been killed, the Can’an family, four children all dead, and the mother, the father, and the grandfather. The mother was still hugging one of the children. And she was pregnant. The eyes of the children were gone and their limbs were cut off. No legs and no arms. It was awful. We took them away in a banana truck. And who carried the corpses with me? The only survivor, the brother of the man. His name is Samir Can’an. He carried with me the remains of his brother, his father, his sister-in-law and the poor children. We buried them in the cemetery, under the shells of the PLO. And while I was burying them, more corpses were found in the street.'

The town tried to defend itself. Two hundred and twenty-five young men, most of them about sixteen years old, armed with hunting guns and none with military training, held out for twelve days. The citizens huddled in basements, with sandbags piled in front of their doors and ground-floor windows. Father Labaky moved from shelter to shelter to visit the families and take them bread and milk. He went often ‘to encourage the young men defending the town’. The relentless pounding the town received resulted in massive damage. In the siege that had been established on 9 January the Palestinians cut off food and water supplies and refused to allow the Red Cross to take out the wounded. Infants and children died of dehydration. Only three more townspeople were killed as a result of PLO fire between the first night and the last day, 23 January. But on that day, when the final onslaught came, hundreds of the Christians were killed. Father Labaky goes on:

'The attack took place from the mountain behind. It was an apocalypse. They were coming, thousands and thousands, shouting ‘Allahu Akbar! God is great! Let us attack them for the Arabs, let us offer a holocaust to Mohammad ‘And they were slaughtering everyone in their path, men, women and children.'

Whole families were killed in their homes. Many women were gang-raped, and few of them left alive afterwards. One woman saved her adolescent daughter from rape by smearing her face with washing blue to make her look repulsive. As the atrocities were perpetrated, the invaders themselves took photographs and later offered the pictures for sale to European newspapers. Survivors testify to what happened. A young girl of sixteen, Soumavya Ghanimeh, witnessed the shooting of her father and brother by two of the invaders, and watched her own home and the other houses in her street being looted and burned. She explained:

'As they were bringing me through the street the houses were burning all about me. They had about ten trucks standing in front of the houses and were piling things into them. I remember how frightened I was of the fire. I was screaming. And for months afterwards I couldn’t bear anyone to strike a match near me. I couldn’t bear the smell of it'........

....When eventually Father Labaky found the charred bodies of the father and brother in the Ghanimeh house ‘you could no longer tell whether they were men or women’.

In a frenzy to destroy their enemies utterly, as if even the absolute limits of nature could not stop them, the invaders broke open tombs and flung the bones of the dead into the streets.Those who escaped from the first attack tried to flee by any means they could......

....... A few minutes after they had gone, ‘the PLO came and bombed the church without entering it. They kicked open the door and threw in the grenades.’ They would all have been killed had they stayed.

The priest led his flock along the shore to the palace of Camille Chamoun. But when they got there they found it had already been sacked and partly burnt. They found shelter, however, in the palace of a Muslim, who ‘did not agree with the Palestinians’, and then got into small boats Which took them out to a bigger boat, in which they sailed to Jounieh. ‘One poor woman had to give birth to her baby in the little open boat on the rough winter sea.’

In all, 582 people were killed in the storming of Damour. Father Labaky went back with the Red Cross to bury them. Many of the bodies had been dismembered, so they had to count the heads to number the dead. Three of the men they found had had their genitals cut off and stuffed into their mouths.

The horror did not end there, the old Christian cemetery was also destroyed, coffins were dug up, the dead robbed, vaults opened, and bodies and skeletons thrown across the grave yard. Damour was then transformed into a stronghold of Fatah and the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). The ruined town became one of the main PLO centres for the promotion of international terrorism. The Church of St Elias was used as a repair garage for PLO vehicles and also as a range for shooting-practice with targets painted on the eastern wall of the nave.

The commander of the combined forces which descended on Damour on 23 January 1976 was Zuhayr Muhsin, chief of al-Sa’iqa, known since then throughout Christian Lebanon as 'the Butcher of Damour'. He was assassinated on 15 July 1979 at Cannes in the South of France.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2587/damour.html


Who was it that wanted "context"?

Lots more available.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by andak01
Without changing your post, let me simply highlight a little of your well "balanced" rhetoric. I counted six links of Arabs or Palestinians to terrorism, only one mention that this was a military conflict and the final implication that Sharon was in no way involved at all, even though he was forced to resign over his involvement. I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Trust me, Andak, I'm not a Clintonite in any way.

Which rhetoric are you referring to? Do you dispute the facts I mentioned or is it that you just don't like the facts?

btw - Since it was never disputed that one set of Arabs massacred another set of Arabs as a result of an inter-Arab civil war, I am curious to know whether you have ever held any Arabs accountable for the Sabra and Shatila massacre?

----

abu afak,

Very interesting posts. Should be mandatory reading in all Arab schools. Of course in reality, it will be swept under the magic carpet and denied vehemently forever by most Arabs.

[jewbyc]

Originally posted by yehudi
I'm not the blame-the-jews type or I'd have some family problems.

I do think criminals should be prosecuted and, if convicted, punished.

Why should anyone be immune for the responsibility his acts? In this particular case, a serious investigation should be conducted. What do you say? Ok I agree lets bring the people responsible to justice

"The killings were perpetrated to avenge the murders of Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel and 25 of his followers, killed in a bomb attack earlier that week"

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf11.html

Now all we need to do is find who was the mastermind behind the assassination of Gemayel. Lets face it thats what started the whole thing in the first place.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by abu afak
"""...In calling Sharon a "war criminal," Johnson is no doubt referring primarily to Sharon's failure to prevent the massacre of hundreds of civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon during the 1982 war. Following those massacres, Israel's government formed the Kahan Commission of Inquiry, which found that the Israel Defense Forces had erred in allowing Christian Phalangists -- who perpetrated the massacre -- into the camps. The committee specifically held Sharon (who was then defense minister) and General Raful Eitan (who was then the Israeli Army's chief of staff) responsible for failing to anticipate that the Phalangists would kill civilians. Both men were dismissed. It was widely assumed that Sharon's career had ended in disgrace. We know Sharon became prime minister of israel after that. Is it a failure of the israeli democratic system ?

And Ariel Sharon, under an unfortunate electoral system known as proportional representation, holds office despite having been opposed in this year's election by more than 60 per cent of Israelis.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030726.fcdoug/BNStory/International

I still find it shocking that someone whose responsibility was proved in a massacre can become the leader of Israel. Democracy sometimes leads to ugly things. That's no news anyway...

.

[Communication]

The election of Sharon was a response to the intifada.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by yehudi
I still find it shocking that someone whose responsibility was proved in a massacre can become the leader of Israel. Democracy sometimes leads to ugly things. That's no news anyway...
You and your ilk assign guilt to your enemy and saintliness to your own agenda. You ignore any explanation counter to what you wish to believe and just keep spouting lies while patting yourself on the back for your valor in regurgitating your selected version of history in a forum where you know you are hated.

Why are you here? What is your purpose?

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Communication
The election of Sharon was a response to the intifada. More arguably, the second Intifada was triggerred by Sharon provoquing it .. and this provocation helped radicalize the isrealis voters.

So i'd rather complement what you say :

"Sharon was elected because of the intifada" Yes but because he actually made a provocation to trigger it.



more on that? I could provide you with a reference but you can find yourself around 1740 links on that with google
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=sharon+visit+intifada+triggered&spell=1
Only four months before his election, the ever-confrontational Sharon visited al-Haram ash-Sharif on 28 September 2000 and sparked off the Second Palestinian Intifada

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by yehudi
We know Sharon became prime minister of israel after that. Is it a failure of the israeli democratic system ?
No, it is a failure on your part to comprehend that in Israel, leaders are elected based on the choice of the electorate. It is something called democracy.

In Israel, there are dozens of political parties competing for seats in Parliament. Likud received an incredible 40% vote, making it by far the most popular party in Israel, because it represents Israeli mainstream thought.

Likud has managed to quickly put together a coalition composed in some of the other most popular parties to form a majority block in Parliament.

This is something you apparently neither you, nor the extreme Leftist opinion writer for the Globe comprehend, because it's based on a political system known as democracy, which you seem to oppose.

I still find it shocking that someone whose responsibility was proved in a massacre can become the leader of Israel. Democracy sometimes leads to ugly things. That's no news anyway...
Actually, it was proven that Ariel Sharon had nothing to do directly with one set of Arabs massacring another set of Arabs in Sabra and Shatila.

However, as IDF commander, he took administrative responsibility as any leader who says that the buck stops here.

Sharon, known as one of Israel's greatest leaders of all time, was elected by a landslide after the Palestinians proved beyond any doubt that they would only respond with massacres of the Jewish population in return for peaceful gestures by Israel's former Leftist government.

When Israelis saw the failure of Oslo exploded by Palestinian suicide bombers day after day, they knew that a man like Ariel Sharon was needed to replace the inept Leftist Labor government.

Many political observers have hypothesized that it was the Palestinians who effectively voted for Sharon.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by NewsGuy


abu afak,

Very interesting posts. Should be mandatory reading in all Arab schools. Of course in reality, it will be swept under the magic carpet and denied vehemently forever by most Arabs.

Thanks, there's lots more... much of it to be found on websites like 'Cedarlands' I used... run by the Million Maronite Christian expatriots forced to flee their country (and city.. Beirut, once known as the 'Paris of the Middle East'. ...now forever changed)

[andak01]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Trust me, Andak, I'm not a Clintonite in any way.

Which rhetoric are you referring to? Do you dispute the facts I mentioned or is it that you just don't like the facts?

I don't even want to get into this one. It's sad to me that when Israelis and Palestinians talk about innocent deaths, it is almost always simply a pretext for killing more people either through terrorism or through a policy of assassination that claims many innocent lives accidently. Nobody really mourns the deaths on either side. Always the cry for revenge goes up before the bodies are cold.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by andak01
I don't even want to get into this one. It's sad to me that when Israelis and Palestinians talk about innocent deaths, it is almost always simply a pretext for killing more people either through terrorism or through a policy of assassination that claims many innocent lives accidently. Nobody really mourns the deaths on either side. Always the cry for revenge goes up before the bodies are cold.
As far as I can tell, he doesn't like the facts.

[jewbyc]

Its very ironic that when a Muslim kills a Jew its the Jew's fault and when a Jew kills the Muslims in self defense it the Jew's fault . Now when a Muslim kills a Muslim its the Jew's fault . At what point does the rest of the world blame the Muslims.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by jewbyc
Its very ironic that when a Muslim kills a Jew its the Jew's fault and when a Jew kills the Muslims in self defense it the Jew's fault . Now when a Muslim kills a Muslim its the Jew's fault . At what point does the rest of the world blame the Muslims.
Don't hold your breath. Taking responsibility for their crimes is not their strong suit and there gettin' away with murder.

[andak01]

Originally posted by jewbyc
Its very ironic that when a Muslim kills a Jew its the Jew's fault and when a Jew kills the Muslims in self defense it the Jew's fault . Now when a Muslim kills a Muslim its the Jew's fault . At what point does the rest of the world blame the Muslims.

When a Muslim kills a Jew, it's on purpose. When a Jew kills a Muslim, it's always an accident. The accidents caused by precision weapons outnumber the intentional deaths caused by homemade bombs. Strange but true.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
When a Muslim kills a Jew, it's on purpose. When a Jew kills a Muslim, it's always an accident. The accidents caused by precision weapons outnumber the intentional deaths caused by homemade bombs. Strange but true.

Correction andak..

When a Muslim/Palestinian Kills a non-combatant Jew, it IS on purpose.
It was, in fact, their target.. always has been.
(ie Hotels, bus-stops, Pizza Parlors, Bat-Mitzvahs etc.)

When an Israeli/Jew kills an innocent Muslim, it's often because he lives with or next door to a Palestinian Militant who was a legitimate target and who was using his own people as human shields.

Your post, as usual, is disingenuos and an attempt to decieve.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Skewing_the_Death_Tolls.asp


Or even fuller:

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=440

Or complete

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
[B]Correction andak..
When an Israeli/Jew kills an innocent Muslim, it's often because he lives with or next door to a Palestinian Militant who was a legitimate target and who was using his own people as human shields.

So, when a one ton bomb is dropped in an urban neighborhood, it's only because of the human shields that innocent people are killed? Thanks for that correction. I see that some of the international observers are human shields too.

[abu afak]

That 'one ton bomb' was an unusually large ordinance and perhaps one could say too large for the Job... I won't argue that one incident as representative... as you try to make it.
But of course you ignore the main point of who's TARGETING Civilians and doing so intentionally.... No military value in Pizza Parlors, Weddings, Passovers, Buses etc, ... regardless of ordinance size.


One really can't have a fair discussion with andak about what is basically a fact .. and what is fair discussion of the situation without his usual attempt at:
1. It didn't happen
2. If it did happen it has nothing to do with Islam
3. If it did happen... you do it too.

Palestinians Target Civilians, Isrealis try and get the People Responsible for these incidents and do occasionally also hit civilians.

There is no moral equivalence. Never has been.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by abu afak
1. It didn't happen
2. If it did happen it has nothing to do with Islam
3. If it did happen... you do it too.
Hey, this would make a great "signature" under "you know who's" name.

Added later: Oh hell, I'm going to make it my signature!

[andak01]

Originally posted by abu afak
[B]That 'one ton bomb' was an unusually large ordinance and perhaps one could say too large for the Job... I won't argue that one incident as representative... as you try to make it.
But of course you ignore the main point of who's TARGETING Civilians and doing so intentionally.... No military value in Pizza Parlors, Weddings, Passovers, Buses etc, ... regardless of ordinance size.

No. I said it. Terrorists target civilians. The IDF doesn't. They just have lots and lots of accidents. But all of those are caused by human shields. Now I understand perfectly.

I would be willing to entertain the thought of human shields if you can admit that too much force is being administered and that said force is causing civilian casualties. The problem with defining all Palestinians as eventual terrorists is that a similar argument is used to define all Israelis as eventual IDF soldiers. That is the justification for terrorism (preemptive terrorism).


One really can't have a fair discussion with andak about what is basically a fact .. and what is fair discussion of the situation without his usual attempt at:
1. It didn't happen
Well, if it didn't happen, then that would be a perfectly valid argument and the truth would not be served by saying it did. Examples of that are:

- Nuclear Weapons in Iraq
- Links from Al Qaida to Saddam
- Links from Al Qaida to Iran


2. If it did happen it has nothing to do with Islam

The biggest portion of stories reported actually do happen. That's as true whether the reporters are Fox or Al Jezeera. It's just too easy to disprove out and out lies. The rest is spin.

If it DOESN'T have anything to do with Islam, then you shouldn't state that.

3. If it did happen... you do it too.

Tell me why this isn't a valid argument if you do in fact do it too? If I say that every Jew puts a half a pound of feces into the environment a day, does it bear mentioning that this is part of the human digestive process, or should we run the headline "Jews destroy environment". Yet, I am seeing topics here like "Muslims Rape Women", "Muslims Beat their Wives", "Muslims Murder People". They certainly do. And I do believe that women were raped and beaten and people were murdered prior to the 7th century CE.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by andak01
The problem with defining all Palestinians as eventual terrorists is that a similar argument is used to define all Israelis as eventual IDF soldiers. That is the justification for terrorism (preemptive terrorism).Indeed, it's one of the side effects of defining 'the crowd" as "all terrorists, kill 'hem all".

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
(..) The crowd, not just the leaders, is guilty. "Terrorists and those who support them..."

As the frenzy of human sacrifice and blood lust reaches a peak, Israeli helicopter gun-ships swoop down from the skies. The call of the Israeli Apache has begun.

When a crowd of several thousand people ‘celebrates’ the death of a ‘hero’, whose life has been dedicated to murder and mayhem, there are no innocents. They are giving support to the next suicide bomber.

Israeli Apaches strafe the crowd with machine-gun fire, and shoot several rockets into the center of the crowd (...) (source (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=58218#post58218) )

Once the israelis start doing that, they will simply legitimize the terrorists who say "any jew is an IDF soldier and a war target", "any crowd at zionist demonstration can be bombed, because they support colonization".

So don't do that, nor only for the arab victims, but also for the others that would die.



.

[Mediocrates]

But that already did that years ago. Don't you read the newspapers? Do you know the difference between future and past tense in English?

[jewbyc]

Originally posted by andak01
When a Muslim kills a Jew, it's on purpose. When a Jew kills a Muslim, it's always an accident. The accidents caused by precision weapons outnumber the intentional deaths caused by homemade bombs. Strange but true. Hello!! stop killing Jews and there will be peace until then Israel will defend it self anyway it sees fit.

[Mil]

Posted by Andak:


No. I said it. Terrorists target civilians. The IDF doesn't.


Actually given the existing statistics 22% of Israeli death are military compared to 56% confirmed full combatant deaths for Palestinians. This does not include unconfirmed combatants, stone-throwers and other all together which make up around 67%. This means that around 70% of all Israelis killed are civilians compared to about 35% for Palestinians. Looking at the age and gender distribution for the death of Palestinians vs. Israelis it really becomes apparent of who targets who. For example there are more women killed on the Israeli side both numerically and percent wise. Women make up 8% of the overall death toll on the Pal side - including suicide bombers - compared to 31% of the overall death toll in Israel. In real numbers it comes to 219 Israelis compared to 96 Palestinian women killed. The latter number also includes Palestinian women killed by Palestinians themselves and suicide bombers. The overall Israeli women death toll stands at 5 making the overall civilian number at 214 vs. Palestinian 69.



They just have lots and lots of accidents. But all of those are caused by human shields. Now I understand perfectly.

See above. The link is: http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=440


I would be willing to entertain the thought of human shields if you can admit that too much force is being administered and that said force is causing civilian casualties. The problem with defining all Palestinians as eventual terrorists is that a similar argument is used to define all Israelis as eventual IDF soldiers. That is the justification for terrorism (preemptive terrorism).


See above on who targets who.



Well, if it didn't happen, then that would be a perfectly valid argument and the truth would not be served by saying it did. Examples of that are:

- Nuclear Weapons in Iraq
- Links from Al Qaida to Saddam
- Links from Al Qaida to Iran


Apparently you don't know if the above is false either. Unless the local immam does.

[andak01]

Almost 1900 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the “al-Aqsa Intifada”, compared to almost 700 Israelis. Numbers like these are used to create an image of lopsided slaughter, with Israel cast as the villain.

More meaningful figures show that Israel is responsible for some 733 Palestinian noncombatant deaths, while Palestinians have killed 546 Israeli noncombatants.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
Almost 1900 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the “al-Aqsa Intifada”, compared to almost 700 Israelis. Numbers like these are used to create an image of lopsided slaughter, with Israel cast as the villain.

More meaningful figures show that Israel is responsible for some 733 Palestinian noncombatant deaths, while Palestinians have killed 546 Israeli noncombatants.

There wouldn't be any Palestinians killed if Palestinians did not commit mass murder attacks on Israeli civilians.

Poll after poll shows the majority of Palestinians support terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.

It would be more accurate to say that the noncombatant deaths on both sides are the responsibility of the terrorist-supporting Palestinians.

[Mil]

Almost 1900 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the “al-Aqsa Intifada”, compared to almost 700 Israelis. Numbers like these are used to create an image of lopsided slaughter, with Israel cast as the villain.


Yep.


More meaningful figures show that Israel is responsible for some 733 Palestinian noncombatant deaths,


Nope. 733 including unconfirmed combatant death which makes up around 25% of the overall total or around 500. Plus the number also includes Palestinians killed by Palestinians which amounts to around 250 of the overall 1900 or around 12% of the total making the total 733 comparatively small.


while Palestinians have killed 546 Israeli noncombatants.


As I said the age and gender distribution of victims is very uniform on the Israeli side compared to DISTINCT age and gender distribution on the Palestinian side. Statistics don't lie.

[Mediocrates]

Look up Don Radlauer's report on ICT.org.il

It's the only quantitative study I've seen. Quite illuminating. I believe andak you've been around long enough to remember that Don Radlauer himself has been here to this forum to explain some of the data.