Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

� · Jul 11, 2002, 01:41 PM

<a href="http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151042002!Open" target="_blank">http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151042002!Open</a>

Finally something to smack the Palestinian authority around the face with. Atacks on civilians are plain murder.

[ 07-11-2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: � ]

driven · Jul 11, 2002, 01:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by �:
<a href="http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151042002!Open" target="_blank">http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151042002!Open</a>

Finally something to smack the Palestinian authority around the face with. Atacks on civilians are plain murder.<hr /></blockquote>I read an article yesterday where they were it was mentioned that the homicidal maniacs were putting rat poisin inside their bombs so that those who were wounded by shrapnel would bleed to death. (Rat poison stops blood from clotting .... and if that didn't work, the rat poison would infect the persons blood stream and hopefully kill them that way.) It was pretty sick.

daimoni · 01:12 PM

.

� · Jul 11, 2002, 06:19 PM

The point here is that the way how the palestinians "fight" for their state is way beyond what's ethical. I know about the Israeli side of the conflict. However there is a major difference between Jenin (which we all know was a terrorist nest, the inhabitants knew what to expect and had time to flee) and a bar or disco filled with youth in Tel Aviv.
The palestinian authority is a corrupt, lying bunch of crooks that will only get their people into further dismay. Add one and two together and you might also come to the clear opinion that if there was no powerful Israeli army and intelligence, the Israeli's would be massacred by it's opponents.
Because that's one thing the opponents are honoust about, the longed for destruction of the Israeli state and it's inhabitants.

A new palestinian gouvernment, without Yasser Arafat (who should be trialed for mass-murder) , away with the Likud hawks in the Israeli gouvernment (put there by the 2nd intifadah) and continuation of peacetalks. There is room for a Palestinian state in that region, but they wil have to proove they can be peaceful and respect Israeli lifes as well.

And I don't like your attitude..

BRussell · Jul 11, 2002, 06:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by �:
<a href="http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151042002!Open" target="_blank">http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151042002!Open</a>

Finally something to smack the Palestinian authority around the face with. Atacks on civilians are plain murder.<hr /></blockquote>Good to see it. I'd like to see more condemnation of Arab terrorism from groups like Amnesty.

voodoo · Jul 11, 2002, 06:29 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BRussell:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by �:
<a href="http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151042002!Open" target="_blank">http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151042002!Open</a>

Finally something to smack the Palestinian authority around the face with. Atacks on civilians are plain murder.<hr /></blockquote>Good to see it. I'd like to see more condemnation of Arab terrorism from groups like Amnesty.<hr /></blockquote>Sure. Like there wasn't enough condemnation of arab terrorism. I call for more condemnation of Israeli terrorism... (terrorism? yea! it sure terrifies the palistine population)

daimoni · 01:12 PM

.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 11, 2002, 10:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by �:
The point here is that the way how the palestinians "fight" for their state is way beyond what's ethical. I know about the Israeli side of the conflict. However there is a major difference between Jenin (which we all know was a terrorist nest, the inhabitants knew what to expect and had time to flee) and a bar or disco filled with youth in Tel Aviv.
The palestinian authority is a corrupt, lying bunch of crooks that will only get their people into further dismay. Add one and two together and you might also come to the clear opinion that if there was no powerful Israeli army and intelligence, the Israeli's would be massacred by it's opponents.
Because that's one thing the opponents are honoust about, the longed for destruction of the Israeli state and it's inhabitants.

A new palestinian gouvernment, without Yasser Arafat (who should be trialed for mass-murder) , away with the Likud hawks in the Israeli gouvernment (put there by the 2nd intifadah) and continuation of peacetalks. There is room for a Palestinian state in that region, but they wil have to proove they can be peaceful and respect Israeli lifes as well.

And I don't like your attitude..<hr /></blockquote>Well said.

IIt's pretty disgusting at times the way some pretend they can't make out any distinction between:
a. Soldiers showing up in uniform, making their intentions known to all, facing an enemy who has been warned and who has opportunity to fight back, seeking to root out known terrorists and not intentionally trying to inflict damage to civilians.
And:
b. Some coward in disguise, their intentions hidden from all, facing unarmed civilians who have absolutely no warning, wading into a crowded disco full of teenagers, or a church or market, 100% intentionally trying to inflict as much death and mayhem as possible to civilians completely at random.

The day Amnesty International were to start pretending they can't make out any distinction between these two situations either, is the day they can go fook themselves.

Millennium · Jul 12, 2002, 02:02 AM

I'd say that the distinction between military and civilian isn't as important as combatant and noncombatant. It may seem like semantics, but I'd argue that anyone who willingly moves to an Israeli settlement in this day and age is every bit as much a combatant as much as a soldier in Jenin. But likewise, an Israeli soldier on mandatory service and not stationed in the conflict isn't a combatant anymore than his newborn child.

Nevertheless, it's good to see both sides being condemned, because they both deserve condemnation. Neither side holds the high moral ground anymore, but because no high moral ground exists (it does), but they both abandoned it long ago.

Bush was half-right when he said Arafat had to go if there is to be peace in the region. But he was only half-right: Sharon must go too. Neither side wants peace, and there will never be true peace until both sides (or, more to the point, the leaders thereof) want there to be.

And the hell of it is, there are no guarantees that even ousting them both will do the job. There are political factions in both groups who are even worse than the current leaders, and in both groups those factions have been gaining power. So far they're still not much of a threat (not enough popular support), but that could change at any time.

M�lum · Jul 12, 2002, 03:49 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Well said.

IIt's pretty disgusting at times the way some pretend they can't make out any distinction between:
a. Soldiers showing up in uniform, making their intentions known to all, facing an enemy who has been warned and who has opportunity to fight back, seeking to root out known terrorists and not intentionally trying to inflict damage to civilians.
And:
b. Some coward in disguise, their intentions hidden from all, facing unarmed civilians who have absolutely no warning, wading into a crowded disco full of teenagers, or a church or market, 100% intentionally trying to inflict as much death and mayhem as possible to civilians completely at random.

The day Amnesty International were to start pretending they can't make out any distinction between these two situations either, is the day they can go fook themselves.<hr /></blockquote>It's not a question of not beeing able to distinct, that's a false interpretation.

Although I will never stand for any violence, especially against civilians, you don't sem to understand why the Israelis Can and the Palestinians CANNOT fight in uniform. That's a pity, because you should understand why it's like that, this doesn't automatically mean you support the Palestinians.

Why do the Palestinians terrorists kill mostly civilians? Because the military is a more difficult target, they don't have the means to do so, so civilians are the easy target.
Also, in the eyes of Palestinians, Israel has made civilian life miserable for many decennia, so why should the Israelis live in all tranquility?

Again, I pray for both sides of this conflict. Whatever the origins of the problem, it just has to stop. The situation in the Middle East is a disgrace for mankind.

[ 07-12-2002, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: M�lum ]

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 12, 2002, 04:24 AM

I suggest you read the A.I. report again and actually try to fathom what the differences are:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />"Whatever the cause for which people are fighting, there can never be a justification for direct attacks on civilians," said Amnesty International. <hr /></blockquote>That pretty much 86's your whole string of excuses and bullsh;ttings as to why it's somehow 'okay' for the Palestinians to blow innocent people up. "Oh they can't fight any other way because the Israelis did this and blah blah blah and blah blah blah..."

Read it again:
"...there can never be a justification for direct attacks on civilians,"

All I can say is, thank goodness they get it, even if people like you don't. Oh but sure, go ahead. Just TRY and attach a 'Yeah, but..." to the end of that statement. Go for it.

Also, talking specifically about the A.I. condemnations, and not just the prejudice of others, let's get off the bullcrap that there is no level of difference between their criticisms of the two sides. Again, read:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Under international law there is no justification for attacking civilians. Targeting civilians is contrary to fundamental principles of humanity enshrined in international law which should apply in all circumstances at all times. Amnesty International unreservedly condemns attacks on civilians, whatever reason the perpetrators give to their action.

"Civilians should never be the focus of attacks, not in the name of security and not in the name of liberty. **(They could also add in, not in the name of all the excuses for it M�lum and co. think they have)** We call on the leadership of all Palestinian armed groups to cease attacking civilians, immediately and unconditionally," Amnesty International stressed. <hr /></blockquote>As for Israel:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Amnesty International also calls on Israel to ensure that all its actions against armed groups and individuals suspected of involvement in attacks against civilians comply with international human rights and humanitarian law standards. Amnesty International calls on the international community to assist the Palestinian Authority to improve the effectiveness of its criminal justice system and its compliance with international human rights standards, in particular by offering international experts to advise on and monitor investigations into attacks against civilians and legal proceedings against those alleged to be responsible. <hr /></blockquote>Again, they get it right. Notice how, try and distort it as you may, it doesn't read " calls on Israel to stop suicide bombing innocent civilians" rather it�s calling for armed groups and terrorist suspects to be treated humanely.

You can argue all you want about their treatment of terrorist suspects and what have you, but even at the very WORST it's at least directed against someone who actually has something to do with the conflict. Any attempt to paint that with the same brush as just blowing up a bunch of innocent people at random who may or may not have ever in their lives had anything to do with anything, is just plain intellectually bankrupt.

Amnesty International gets this, and my hats off to them for it. It's time some of you others pretending you don't cut some of the crap and give it a rest with the endless list of excuses for things that THERE ARE NO EXCUSES FOR.

[ 07-12-2002, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

M�lum · Jul 12, 2002, 06:49 AM

Maybe my english is not good enough, but I Do get it and Do condem it and have NO sympathy whatsover for the people who do these things. But I TRY to see things from their perspective and you just don't want too.

Understanding the problem is solving the problem.

nonhuman · Jul 12, 2002, 11:58 AM

Killing is killing. Soldiers don't want to die any more than civilians. Yeah, civilians generally aren't in a situation where they have a reasonable expectation of being killed, but that doesn't mean it's any worse to kill them than soldiers.

BRussell · Jul 12, 2002, 12:27 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
I'd say that the distinction between military and civilian isn't as important as combatant and noncombatant. It may seem like semantics, but I'd argue that anyone who willingly moves to an Israeli settlement in this day and age is every bit as much a combatant as much as a soldier in Jenin.<hr /></blockquote>Settlers are combatants? No.

It's when you start defining "combatants" like that that you start justifying attacks on civilians. That's exactly the justification that the terrorists use for suicide bombings against kids in discos and accountants in the WTC.

And most of the attacks have not been on settlers, they have been within Israel proper. But I suppose that depends on how you define Israel. Hamas thinks all Israelis are "settlers," and therefore subject to attack based on your logic.

BRussell · Jul 12, 2002, 12:34 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by voodoo:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BRussell:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by �:
<a href="http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151042002!Open" target="_blank">http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151042002!Open</a>

Finally something to smack the Palestinian authority around the face with. Atacks on civilians are plain murder.<hr /></blockquote>Good to see it. I'd like to see more condemnation of Arab terrorism from groups like Amnesty.<hr /></blockquote>Sure. Like there wasn't enough condemnation of arab terrorism. I call for more condemnation of Israeli terrorism... (terrorism? yea! it sure terrifies the palistine population)<hr /></blockquote>So, you think there should be a limit on condemnation of terrorism? Or only Arab terrorism? Yeah, you're right, maybe we should stop condemning it now. We don't want to hurt their feelings. We've been pretty hard on them.

Your using the same definition of terrorism that Hamas et al. use to justify their suicide bombings of civilians. Congratulations.

And I thought your European media did condemn Israel all the time? But now you want even more?

daimoni · 01:12 PM

.

daimoni · 01:13 PM

.

Millennium · Jul 12, 2002, 01:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BRussell:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
I'd say that the distinction between military and civilian isn't as important as combatant and noncombatant. It may seem like semantics, but I'd argue that anyone who willingly moves to an Israeli settlement in this day and age is every bit as much a combatant as much as a soldier in Jenin.<hr /></blockquote>Settlers are combatants? No.

It's when you start defining "combatants" like that that you start justifying attacks on civilians. That's exactly the justification that the terrorists use for suicide bombings against kids in discos and accountants in the WTC.<hr /></blockquote>The settlements are a weapon actively used by the Israeli government, established in Palestinian lands (defining these as the lands established in a long and well-documented series of treaties) for the express purpose of driving Palestinians out. It may be nonviolent (most of the time), but it is a tool of the conflict all the same. To voluntarily move into one is to become a part of that weapon, and when you do that, you forfiet any noncombatant status you may have had.

Similarly, let us put forth a hypothetical situation in which a chemical weapons plant is found in Iraq. But Saddam Hussein puts out a call for people to move in and build a town surrounding it, so that any attacks on the plant would cause massive civilian casualties. Given Saddam's high approval ratings (and let's assume that the people aren't merely supporting him in fear for their lives), one could expect a fair number of people to move. In effect, the people moving around the plant become willing human shields. Can you really call them noncombatants? I don't think so.

Let us contrast this to the World Trade Center. First off, it is within the terrirory of the nation which brought about its creation, and that territory is not in dispute. No one in any other land was displaced by the building, or the people who worked there. While it would be foolish to say that no crimes were ever committed there by the people who worked there, the perpetrators were acting alone, not attempting to further any cause the WTC may have had, but only to further themselves. Further, the WTC was, if I am not mistaken, privately-owned, rather than a government building, and therefore it was not even really a tool of the US government. Very different from an Israeli settlement, or our hypothetical chemical-weapons town.

It's a very fine line to walk, of course. But any school of thought can be abused, and this is no different. That's the point of oversight, accountability, and clear standards. Sadly, the US government hasn't done very well with this in recent times either.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 12, 2002, 02:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by daimoni:
Your English is just fine, M�lum. CrashHD is just a complete and utter wanker. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> [/QB]<hr /></blockquote>and you're a dipsh;t from Bezerkly (no wonder) who thinks he has an understanding of the conflict based on looking at the pictures in a newspaper you can't even read. (How freakin� retarded is that anyway?)

Sure, kids in discos, people minding their own business in a church or a market are 'combatants'.

Keep telling yourself that while you look at your pictures and live your spoiled little existence well out of harm's way.

Maybe while you�re looking at your pictures one day, someone will happen by and discharge a bomb laden with nails, and turn you into a bloody stain all over the wall. But hey, let�s �understand� what the guy was mad about, that�s the most important thing, right? That you or anyone else nearby probably never lifted a finger to harm the person and have nothing do to with whatever little �war� he�s fighting shouldn�t even be considered, right? Oh wait, I know. Because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time you�re automagically a �combatant�!

By the logic you people put out, then every nut who ever went on a serial-killing spree is justified. If you're mad at someone and you can't go and kill the actual individuals you feel wronged you, just go and blow up ANYONE who you have opportunity to get near who even resembles the people you're mad at, and anyone else who happens to be nearby. The whole world, and the agencies that need to be tracking down and bringing to justice such scumbags, should just 'understand' the anger of psychos and therefore 'solve the problem'.

Where do idiots who think like this come from? Well.. Bezerkly for one place...

[ 07-12-2002, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: CRASH HARDDRIVE ]

daimoni · 01:13 PM

.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 12, 2002, 02:39 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by daimoni:
Uh, yes, and maybe someday I'll drop-kick you back to ass-klown heaven?

<hr /></blockquote>No, because you're mad at me, you'll just go and blow up a preschool. That's about the level of 'combatant' you'd take on.

"Did ya see 'em? I saw a picture in some newspaper, and some of those kids were drawing crayon pics of Uzis! Non-combatants my ass!"

<blockquote>quote:<hr />One of the dudes in the photo was a dead ringer for David Koresh. Heh. Heh. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Wow, talk about mentally impaired.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Half my relatives are Jewish. And I wuv them all. blah blah blah...<hr /></blockquote>"Oh no, I'm not a silly bastard who judges people by what they look like in some newspaper, why some of my best friends are...."

rampant · Jul 12, 2002, 02:47 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by �:
<a href="http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151042002!Open" target="_blank">http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/MDE151042002!Open</a>

Finally something to smack the Palestinian authority around the face with. Atacks on civilians are plain murder.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, attacks on civilians are plain murder. If on Arafat knew that.

rampant · Jul 12, 2002, 02:47 PM

Oh: Bombing of Dresden.

daimoni · 01:13 PM

.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 12, 2002, 03:15 PM

Shaaadup daimoni.

TNproud2b · Jul 12, 2002, 03:29 PM

scorecard:

CRASH: 3

Malum, et al: 0

play ball.

daimoni · 01:13 PM

.