[vmarks]

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=59780

Fatah Apologizes for Killing an Arab Instead of a Jew
George Khouri, 21, a Christian Israeli-Arab whose family lives in Nazareth and northern Jerusalem, was murdered "by mistake" on Friday night by Palestinian terrorists. He was jogging in the Jerusalem's French Hill neighborhood when a car pulled up alongside him. A passenger inside fired four shots, two of which hit Khouri in the head; he died on the way to the hospital. Khouri's funeral was held today in Jerusalem's Mount Zion Orthodox Cemetery.

The Al-Aqsa Brigades of Arafat's Fatah organization quickly announced that they had committed the murder - but when they learned that the victim was an Arab, the terrorists issued a corrected announcement: "The fighters thought that the jogger was a settler, as this was an area full of settlers. This was a mistake, and a letter of apology has been sent to the family. We will consider George Khouri a 'shahid' [holy martyr]..."

The Yediot Acharonot newspaper reported that Arafat phoned the Khouri family to express his condolences, and promised to make every effort to catch the murderers. This was a curious reaction, however, in light of his attitude towards the murderer of Khouri's own grandfather in similar circumstances. Khouri the elder was one of four Arabs - amidst a total of 14 victims - killed in the famous "refrigerator blast" terrorist attack of July 4, 1975 in downtown Jerusalem. The perpetrator of that attack, Ahmed Jabara, was freed from prison last summer - and Arafat greeted him with kisses.

It was not reported whether Atty. Elias Khouri - son of the 1975 victim and father of Friday night's victim - asked Arafat about the double standard he plans to apply to the murderers of the two.

It was reported, however, that Atty. Elias Khouri is a prominent activist on behalf of the PA. Veteran Beit El resident Yoel Tzur said today that he recalls Khouri representing a group of Arabs "with hatred and zeal" against the new residents of the fledgling Beit El community in 1978:
"At one point, after then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Moshe Landau ordered a temporary freeze on all construction activities in the area, the holiday of Sukkot arrived, and, as is customary among Jews, we put up the little huts - sukkot - for the holiday. I remember that Khouri complained about this to the Court, and Justice Landau was visibly infuriated: 'For 2,000 years Jews have put up sukkot all over the world, even in the face of all sorts of building codes and regulations. And now when the Jews have come home to their Land, you dare to try to stop them from putting up sukkot in their Land?!'"

[christ]

Is your point that it is unmanly to apologise?

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by christ:
Is your point that it is unmanly to apologise?

it's unmanly to do it at all.

[Spliffdaddy]

When I kill the wrong person by mistake, I typically do the right thing and apologize.

[Logic]

So a terrorist organization apologizes for killing innocents. Has Israel done that?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
So a terrorist organization apologizes for killing innocents. Has Israel done that?

You've gotta be kidding. What a horrible statement Logic. What a horrible, horrible thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself for demeaning and trivializing this man's life and you should be ashamed at your efforts to be apologetic for cold blooded murderers.

[sanity assassin]

Hmm, let me see. Imagine if a Jew was standing next to Sheikh Yasin when Israel murdered him, do you think israel would apologise to Yasin's family whilst they apologised to the Jews? Doubtful.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You've gotta be kidding. What a horrible statement Logic. What a horrible, horrible thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself for demeaning and trivializing this man's life and you should be ashamed at your efforts to be apologetic for cold blooded murderers.

Notice the ?

Then try to find something that answers that question.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Logic:
So a terrorist organization apologizes for killing innocents. Has Israel done that?

I'm still waiting for the apology for 9/11. There were a few innocents killed then too.

3,548

[Logic]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I'm still waiting for the apology for 9/11. There were a few innocents killed then too.

3,548

I'm still waiting for the apology for the Iraqi invasion. There were a few innocents killed then too.

8769 to 10680.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Logic:
I'm still waiting for the apology for the Iraqi invasion. There were a few innocents killed then too.

8769 to 10680.

Logic = try to be true to your name for once.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by vmarks:
http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=59780

People make mistakes, is this something new?

[Logic]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Logic = try to be true to your name for once.

Are Iraqi civilians worth less than US civilians?

And drop the attitude.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Logic:
Are Iraqi civilians worth less than US civilians?

And drop the attitude.

Are Iraqi civilians worth less than US civilians?
Are the French, German, Italian civilians in WWII that died from US bombs any less important when they were liberated?

Stop asking stupid questions, and I'll lose the tude.

[christ]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Are Iraqi civilians worth less than US civilians?
Are the French, German, Italian civilians in WWII that died from US bombs any less important when they were liberated?

Stop asking stupid questions, and I'll lose the tude.

How do you liberate a dead person?

If you don't lose the attitude you will lose listeners.

If you were to address the issue instead of posing, it might help your case.

[Logic]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Are Iraqi civilians worth less than US civilians?
Are the French, German, Italian civilians in WWII that died from US bombs any less important when they were liberated?

Stop asking stupid questions, and I'll lose the tude.

I'm sure they were ecstatic the millisecond before the bomb hit their houses. And I'm sure their families celebrate the anniversary of the death of their sons and daughters every year.

[Zimphire]

I am sure he was more sorry he didn't kill the Jew.

[Spliffdaddy]

When are the peaceniks gonna apologize for the countless civilian lives lost under Saddam's rule ?

Or do you not subscribe to the notion that inaction can be as cruel and uncaring as (military, for example) action?

careful, peaceniks...your moral platform doesn't stand any taller than mine.

[christ]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
...Or do you not subscribe to the notion that inaction can be as cruel and uncaring as (military, for example) action?

"can be" does not equate to "is".

In some situations action can be justified, in others it can't, in Iraq, it wasn't. (That is not to say that it couldn't have been, just that nobody in authority bothered - they just spouted lies and meaningless rhetoric to initiate a course of action that apparently had nothing to do with the ostensible reasons)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by christ:
Is your point that it is unmanly to apologise?

His point was, he was apologizing for killing his "brother" instead of the Jew.

If you don't see anything wrong with that, go on.

[christ]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am sure he was more sorry he didn't kill the Jew.

Who he?

Which Jew?

Fatah is not a "he", and they were (according to the quoted article) aiming to kill a "settler".

So, to rephrase your self-serving frenzy-whipping sentiment:

"[You are] sure that Fatah were sorry that they didn't kill a settler"

Well good for you, that is exactly what they were quoted as saying in the article. Yet again the sum of your contribution is nothing.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by christ:
How do you liberate a dead person?

If you don't lose the attitude you will lose listeners.

If you were to address the issue instead of posing, it might help your case.

When you increase your reading comprehension, I'll consider answering your rediculous question based on little understanding of history.

Clue: Nobody listens to the internet but you. What is it saying now?



When you start READing instead of LISTening, I'll even pronounce the words for you if it will help...

[christ]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
His point was, he was apologizing for killing his "brother" instead of the Jew.

If you don't see anything wrong with that, go on.

Thanks zimph, but I'll wait for vmarks to tell me what he meant, as you don't know any better than I do.

By the way, did you note that the dead guy was a Christian?

[Logic]

Originally posted by christ:
Who he?

Which Jew?

Fatah is not a "he", and they were (according to the quoted article) aiming to kill a "settler".

So, to rephrase your self-serving frenzy-whipping sentiment:

"[You are] sure that Fatah were sorry that they didn't kill a settler"

Well good for you, that is exactly what they were quoted as saying in the article. Yet again the sum of your contribution is nothing.

[christ]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
... rediculous ...

Way to score points, flash.

By the way, if you need to use a smiley, you weren't being comprehensible. If it was a joke, it'll be funny without a smiley, and if it wasn't funny, a smiley won't make it so.

Be very careful, there are reading impaired folk out here that do 'listen' to the internet.

(But I wouldn't understand your accent, anyway)

[dialo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
When are the peaceniks gonna apologize for the countless civilian lives lost under Saddam's rule ?

Or do you not subscribe to the notion that inaction can be as cruel and uncaring as (military, for example) action?

careful, peaceniks...your moral platform doesn't stand any taller than mine.

Black & white

[dialo]

Originally posted by Logic:
So a terrorist organization apologizes for killing innocents. Has Israel done that?

So have we gotten an answer on this? I'm curious.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dialo:
So have we gotten an answer on this? I'm curious.

No answer yet.....

[itai195]

Originally posted by Logic:
No answer yet.....

Yup. This is one I remember, but I know they have apologized or expressed regret other times for civilian casualties, however I don't have the time at the moment to search through thousands of Google hits... When have Hamas, Hezbollah, etc expressed regret for killing non-Arab Israeli citizens?

[dialo]

Originally posted by itai195:
Yup.

Good deal. Thanks.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I'm still waiting for the apology for 9/11. There were a few innocents killed then too.

3,548

Here's what you do: go to Saudi Arabia, knock on the palace door.
After that, go to Bin laden's house, knock on the door.
After that, go to the scattered remains of the terrorists involved.
Politely ask them to apologize.


then, ask yourself how this is relevant.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
When are the peaceniks gonna apologize for the countless civilian lives lost under Saddam's rule ?

Or do you not subscribe to the notion that inaction can be as cruel and uncaring as (military, for example) action?

careful, peaceniks...your moral platform doesn't stand any taller than mine.

What about all those civilians lost under regimes that the US did support? What about all those political prisoners murder by dictators supported by the United States? What about all those dictators who are far more powerfull than sadam that don't do anything about?

Sadam was a bad guy, but I think its naive to think that we went there to liberate them. There are far better places that could have used the troops than Iraq.


But back to the story.

The problem I have with this is that both sides are so stupid. Israel knows that by doing this, it is only going to cause more people to become bombers. This doesn't help their cause at all, it just makes them look worse and gives people another reason to hate them. The terrorists are stupid because they have to realize that blowing up civilians is going to get them nothing. These continued attacks are just going to cause more and more innocent palestinian civilians to die and more to become angry. Both sides need to straightened out.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Logic:
So a terrorist organization apologizes for killing innocents. Has Israel done that?

For KILLING one of there own they apologize they don't apologize for killing INNOCENT jews. Shouldn't they do that too?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by typoon:
For KILLING one of there own they apologize they don't apologize for killing INNOCENT jews. Shouldn't they do that too?

Of course not. BUT SHHH! lets sweep that under the rug.

Looky here, he apologized for killing one of his own!

He is such a just man.

[Logic]

Originally posted by typoon:
For KILLING one of there own they apologize they don't apologize for killing INNOCENT jews. Shouldn't they do that too?

Of course they should. What kind of question is that.

[christ]

Originally posted by typoon:
For KILLING one of there own they apologize they don't apologize for killing INNOCENT jews. Shouldn't they do that too?

No - they shouldn't kill them, then there would be nothing to apologise for.

But that wasn't the point of the thread, I don't think.

My guess is that vmarks (who is currently suspiciously absent from this bomb and run thread) meant that terrorists are trying to kill people, it seems a bit trite that they apologise if they kill someone that is not an intended target.

I think that that misses the point, however. The terrorists do have a following, among folk that sympathise with them and their aims. It is not in the terrorists interest to alienate this core audience, so if they do something that may have this effect, they apologise. Similarly, Israel, when it does something which its core audience may find distasteful, apologises.

When both sides do the same, or similar, things, why is the 'double standard' only pointed out when one side does it?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by christ:
No - they shouldn't kill them, then there would be nothing to apologise for.

But that wasn't the point of the thread, I don't think.

My guess is that vmarks (who is currently suspiciously absent from this bomb and run thread)

suspiciously? I spent a significant amount of time in airports today. Not everything is a conspiracy.

meant that terrorists are trying to kill people, it seems a bit trite that they apologise if they kill someone that is not an intended target.

I think that that misses the point, however. The terrorists do have a following, among folk that sympathise with them and their aims. It is not in the terrorists interest to alienate this core audience, so if they do something that may have this effect, they apologise. Similarly, Israel, when it does something which its core audience may find distasteful, apologises.

When both sides do the same, or similar, things, why is the 'double standard' only pointed out when one side does it?

Did you notice that Arafat's terrorists were responsible for the killing of the gentleman's father, and in that case he praised the killers? And in this case, he apologized for killing the son?

Don't try and place a moral equivalency on Israel where there is none.

[christ]

Originally posted by vmarks:
suspiciously? I spent a significant amount of time in airports today. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Sorry - bad phraseology (deliberate, but in hindsight wrong)

Did you notice that Arafat's terrorists were responsible for the killing of the gentleman's father, and in that case he praised the killers? And in this case, he apologized for killing the son?

No, I didn't (and having reread the article, I still don't). Are Fatah "Arafat's terrorists"? I don't remember the 'refrigerator blast', but it does seem from the cutting that the bomber in that case hit 10 intended targets, and I have no idea of the perpetrators relationship with Fatah or Arafat. I also have no real idea of the current relationship between Arafat and Fatah.

It also seems that you appear to be condemning a man today because his actions were different before, even though they were wrong then, but seem right (or at least a bit better) now. Can he never change? Is it your view that he is beyond redemption, and cannot change? Is it not possible that he may seek peace? Is it possible that Fatah are beyond his control? Is Bush to be condemned for the actions of any or all of his soldiers?

Don't try and place a moral equivalency on Israel where there is none.

Again, not intentional - I see no morality in the actions of either side in this conflict. Although it appears that even an act of apology can no longer be taken for what it is any more.

[pooka]

"Ah am very sorrah that I pull'd up along side your son t'day and shot him twice in the face. I tought he wuz sumbodah else. Mah bad. Don beh mad. K? Thanx."

If I could be king for a day, I think I'd take the whole region and give it to the Scientologist. That'd learn all of you.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by pooka:
"Ah am very sorrah that I pull'd up along side your son t'day and shot him twice in the face. I tought he wuz sumbodah else. Mah bad. Don beh mad. K? Thanx."

Indeed.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by christ:

No, I didn't (and having reread the article, I still don't). Are Fatah "Arafat's terrorists"?

Some education is in order.

Arafat is the leader of Fatah, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Bridage, Tanzim. All terrorist organizations who have claimed responsibility for bombings, qassam missle launches, kidnapping Israelis and killing them, among their other bad acts. He is in direct control of these organizations. Yes, Fatah are Arafat's terrorists.

I don't remember the 'refrigerator blast', but it does seem from the cutting that the bomber in that case hit 10 intended targets, and I have no idea of the perpetrators relationship with Fatah or Arafat. I also have no real idea of the current relationship between Arafat and Fatah.

The article makes clear that when Mr. Khouri's father was killed, Arafat praised the terrorists who did so. The terrorists who did so were Fatah.

When Arafat and his Fatah killed Mr. Khouri's son, Arafat condemned them, but only because it was an Arab instead of a Jew.

It also seems that you appear to be condemning a man today because his actions were different before, even though they were wrong then, but seem right (or at least a bit better) now. Can he never change? Is it your view that he is beyond redemption, and cannot change? Is it not possible that he may seek peace? Is it possible that Fatah are beyond his control? Is Bush to be condemned for the actions of any or all of his soldiers?

Arafat has not changed. He is still the two-faced monster he has always been. How was anything associated with this killing 'right' ? "We meant to kill a Jew and got an Arab instead. Sorry" still means that the goal was to kill an innocent bystander.

It is not possible that Fatah is beyond Arafat's control.

[christ]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Some education is in order.

For which I thank you

How was anything associated with this killing 'right' ?

Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that anything associated with this killing was 'right', it was my intention to note that making an apology is perhaps better than not doing so although, with consideration, I think that I was wrong there too. (I thought that was going to be the subject of this thread, and that there would be discussion about this point, but that turned out not to be the case)

Arafat has not changed. He is still the two-faced monster he has always been ... It is not possible that Fatah is beyond Arafat's control.

I admire your certitude. This self-assurance is what has got the USA to where it is today.



Now, while you are in 'educating chris" mode, could you explain:

...an Arab instead of a Jew...

I would have said "a Christian instead of a Jew". I thought that Jews were followers of Judaism, and that Arabs were natives of Arabia, so Arabs could be Jews. Is this incorrect? Is "Jew" now taken to mean an ethnic group (as opposed to Arabs, or caucasians, or Europeans, or whatever)? I have noted increasing references to secular Jews, and that concept makes my head hurt. As you may have gathered I was brought up as a Gentile, but as I don't practise any religion I don't consider myself Christian - I'm not sure that we have 'secular Christians'. Does a secular Jew still count as a Jew? I am confused by the term 'Jewish-American', as there doesn't seem to be a complimentary 'Christian-American' or 'agnostic-American', while there obviously is 'African-American', which seems to be based on skin colour rather than country of origin.

I would have thought that Fatah were looking to kill 'settlers' (at least that is what the article quotes them as saying), and if Israel were to settle occupied or disputed territory with Christian settlers, then they would be targets too. Am I misunderstanding this too?

(and before you jump down my throat, this is intended as a serious question, not as an invitation to a bonfire)

[gadster]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
When are the peaceniks gonna apologize for the countless civilian lives lost under Saddam's rule ?

Or do you not subscribe to the notion that inaction can be as cruel and uncaring as (military, for example) action?

careful, peaceniks...your moral platform doesn't stand any taller than mine.

Lookee here, knucklehead. Have you got any idea how Saddam Hussein came to take power in Iraq? Answer me that, then spout off about moral platforms. Peaceniks, indeed. What does that make you? A warnick? The hypocrisy is astounding.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
Lookee here, knucklehead. Have you got any idea how Saddam Hussein came to take power in Iraq? Answer me that, then spout off about moral platforms. Peaceniks, indeed. What does that make you? A warnick? The hypocrisy is astounding.

er...I'm not all that astounded. I've been here long enough to accept it as SOP.

Its always interesting that they blame deaths on "peaceniks", saying that by pursuing peace they cause untold suffering..... But at the same time they absolve hawks who fire directly into civilian areas of "collateral damage".

so, to them, the persons with the weapons who fire them at people and kill them are the peacemakers, and the people who push for a cessation of hostilities are the source of all needless death.

Hmmm....kinda reminds me of:

WAR IS PEACE