Was reading some news, and found this...
- Thread starter Jeslek
- Start date
![[b]](/data/avatars/m/0/144.jpg?1334500048){kind=avatar}
Ardsgaine
New Member
There are always civilian casualties in war. It's unavoidable, especially if one side uses them to shield their soldiers and military installations. The difference between the terrorists and the US (and Israeli) military is that the terrorists deliberately target civilians. The whole philosophy behind terrorism is that there are no innoncents, that every civilian is a legitimate target. That is not the philosophy which drove our campaign in Afghanistan.
Furthermore, the US is not responsible for the people who died in Afghanistan, even if it was US bombs that killed them. Responsibility for all the deaths in a war lie with the aggressor, not the country defending itself from aggression. Any actions taken by the US that are necessary to defend our freedom are morally justified.
Likewise, Israel is not responsible for the incidental deaths of Palestinian civilians when they attempt to defend themselves from terrorist attacks. Israel is surrounded by people and nations that want to destroy them. The Arabs have shown time and again that the only thing that will satisfy them is the complete destruction of Israel. Israel has a right to exist. They are a free, democratic country. Their enemies are blood-thirsty, would-be dictators. By that fact alone they deserve our support.
ris
New Member
not all actions in war are morally justifiable, at what point does the killing of civilians become 'terror bombing' to lower the moralle of the population? as was done by both sides in the second world war. the nazi's started the blitz, the allies finished it. our actions in killing 40,000 civillians with firebombing at dresden are nothing to be proud and are morally reprehensible.
the ordinary poeple of afghanistan are not the agressors, the terrorist cells that form there are. don't forget that al-quaeda moved there from somalia [with the us' sanction] a number of years ago. why should civilians be punished? because the terrorists are there, i don't think they have much say in it.
the notion of israel surrounded by hateful enemies trying to destroy it is in part propoganda. many of the countries in the region are not pro israel but have put much effort into diplomatic means of ending problems over the last 20 years.
the ordinary poeple of afghanistan are not the agressors, the terrorist cells that form there are. don't forget that al-quaeda moved there from somalia [with the us' sanction] a number of years ago. why should civilians be punished? because the terrorists are there, i don't think they have much say in it.
the notion of israel surrounded by hateful enemies trying to destroy it is in part propoganda. many of the countries in the region are not pro israel but have put much effort into diplomatic means of ending problems over the last 20 years.
Ardsgaine
New Member
At the point where it is not necessary to win the war.
Actually, as I recall from my reading, the Germans accidentally bombed a civilian target, and then the British responded by deliberately targeting civilians. <shrug>
It isn't the number of people killed, nor the way in which they died that makes it reprehensible. The moral question is, was the bombing necessary to win the war? I can't say with regard to Dresden, but I would venture to say that the bombings in Afghanistan were necessary.
I will agree whole-heartedly that the members of Al Quaeda should never have left Somalia alive. Your point about the Afghani people, though, is irrelevant. They weren't killed because of any guilt, they were killed because they were standing too close to a military target. That's what happens in a war. It's why wars should never be undertaken lightly and should only be fought in defense of freedom.
Many countries? Then you have a long list you can provide me with, eh? A list of countries that do not actively support terrorist groups, that do not offer cash bounties to the families of suicide bombers, that do not regularly run anti-Jewish propaganda in the state controled media and where leaders who negotiate peace with Israel are not assasinated?
It may very well be the case, Ris, that some portion of the general population of some of the countries over there are tired of being at war with Israel, and would like nothing better than to end the conflict. It's not going to happen, though, until Arafat is dead; Hamas, Hizbollah, Islmaic Jihad, et al, are destroyed; and the governments which support terrorism have been either overthrown or convinced by examples that terror is a losing proposition.
ris
New Member
egypt and israel have signed a peace treaty, jordan has helped in arranging and supporitng peace treaties between both sides and acted as a mediator.
as was said earlier, both sides have done bad things. sharon himself has been idicted for murdering civillians. israel targets the free press in palestine and has killed journaists from both palestine and other countries. this is not a black and white problem, there are bad acts on both sides that should be condemned.
what i find distressing is there was a peace accord that had brought an end to the fighting a few years ago. it seems such a shame that both sides have gone back so far, so quickly.
as was said earlier, both sides have done bad things. sharon himself has been idicted for murdering civillians. israel targets the free press in palestine and has killed journaists from both palestine and other countries. this is not a black and white problem, there are bad acts on both sides that should be condemned.
what i find distressing is there was a peace accord that had brought an end to the fighting a few years ago. it seems such a shame that both sides have gone back so far, so quickly.
Jeslek
Banned
Evidence was uncovered by a third party indicated no such massacre. In fact, many of the Palestian "burials" are no burial at all! It is just a show.
So you sit there and watch innocent people die.
This is true. When Israel, United States, Britain, and I believe the UN offered the Palestinians a country of their own they utterly rejected it.
Wouldn't you if there is daily suicide bombings aimed at YOUR brothers, sisters, and moms? The Palestians are just fucked in the head.
Yeah, fucking dipshits that throw rocks at soldiers with automatic weapons. Fucking stupid. And Israel DID give an advance warning it is going to attack Jenin, yet few people were evacuated. Dipshits. If I knew an army is going to attack my town, I will RUN. I will NOT throw rocks at them, or suicide bomb their children.
Israel requested the United States' help, and we have always been kind to the Jews even though it seems the rest of the world are against them. I support Israel.
Freedom like the Taliban? Yeah right. That is a sure sign of intelligence there. They want POWER, not FREEDOM.
ris
New Member
jenin is a refugee camp, where are the civillians going to go? most of the camps are under curfew and movement restricted. many did leave before the offiensive but some felt they had no choice.
some israli snipers used palestinian civilians [including children] as human shields, palestinians were forced to walk in front of patrols to act as shields.
the conflict is dirty on both sides, nothing is ever black and white.
some israli snipers used palestinian civilians [including children] as human shields, palestinians were forced to walk in front of patrols to act as shields.
the conflict is dirty on both sides, nothing is ever black and white.
Originally posted by Ardsgaine
You mean the freedom they had under the Taliban? Get real. (my turn...)
I was talking about the freedom of the Al-Qaeda, and all those terrorists groups.
BTW, LastLegionary, there's already the warning of new terrorists attacks in the US. You should run.
ris
New Member
sunday times magazine article, june23, 2002. page 41.
the figures for the jenin incursion are 52 palestinian dead, half of which are believed to be armed combatants. 23 israli soldiers were killed, most of them reservists.
there are reports of red crescent paramedics being shot by israli troops.
the figures for the jenin incursion are 52 palestinian dead, half of which are believed to be armed combatants. 23 israli soldiers were killed, most of them reservists.
there are reports of red crescent paramedics being shot by israli troops.
Ardsgaine
New Member
So we've gone from 'many' to Jordan and Egypt, and I wouldn't even count Egypt. Yes, they signed a peace treaty, but the man who signed it was promptly assasinated. While his successor has resisted any impulse to attack Israel, that might be better explained by the fact that Israel has kicked Egypt's butt three times in the past 55 years-- each time in self-defense. Still, the state run media of Egypt regularly carries anti-Jewish propaganda. Is that a sign of peaceful intent?
By who? Why was he not convicted?
You're going to have to offer proof for this. Not that it matters a hell of a lot. You're trying to compare isolated incidents of unsanctionedl mayhem to a systematic campaign of mass murder. It's a ludicrous comparison.
No, that's ridiculous. It is a black and white problem. The arabs are terrorists and would-be tyrants. Israel is a free nation. You don't compare the faults of an essentially free country that's under attack by blood-thirsty barbarians with the faults of their enemies. To do so is to engage in moral equivalency.
Britain has certainly committed her share of sins, but when Hitler was busy preparing his invasion forces that was not a time for the US to wring its hands over the treatment of native peoples in Britain's colonies. Why? Because you don't sell out a free country to a bunch of blood-thirsty savages.
It wasn't Israel that broke the peace. Arafat only negotiates peace in order to gain advantages in war. The goal of his war is the complete destruction of Israel. No peace settlement will stop the war short of that goal.
ris
New Member
sharon was found indirectly responsible for a massacre of 2000 palestinian refugees by right-wing milita in 1983, by an israli tribunal. that's from a bbc website i found this morning link
the press and media stuff comes from the international press institute and is onthe same link, near the bottom.
peace treaties have brought stability and ends to fighting in the area in the past, i believe it can do still, but it will take movement from both sides to reach such a situation. palestine has the farthest to go.
jordan and egypt have both backed the bush speech and plan, which is a good thing.
it is not black and white, not all arabs are blood thirsty terrorists, most of them are honest, regular people like you and i. there is a fundamentalist minority that are guilty for this. i am positive that most of the palestinians just want to live and work and live next to and with their jewish neighbours. there are groups who want just that, peace at any cost.
i am not comparing faults to expinge the terrorists of blame, i am trying to offer a perspective that is wider than black and white.
arafat has called for an end to the bombings but i'm not convinced he has any sway over the terrorists anymore. if anything, that is why he should step down.
the press and media stuff comes from the international press institute and is onthe same link, near the bottom.
peace treaties have brought stability and ends to fighting in the area in the past, i believe it can do still, but it will take movement from both sides to reach such a situation. palestine has the farthest to go.
jordan and egypt have both backed the bush speech and plan, which is a good thing.
it is not black and white, not all arabs are blood thirsty terrorists, most of them are honest, regular people like you and i. there is a fundamentalist minority that are guilty for this. i am positive that most of the palestinians just want to live and work and live next to and with their jewish neighbours. there are groups who want just that, peace at any cost.
i am not comparing faults to expinge the terrorists of blame, i am trying to offer a perspective that is wider than black and white.
arafat has called for an end to the bombings but i'm not convinced he has any sway over the terrorists anymore. if anything, that is why he should step down.
Ardsgaine
New Member
Right. Whereas the initial claims by the Palestinians were that thousands of civilians had been massacred. Now we're supposed to believe that of the 52 people actually killed, half were unarmed... honest. No thanks.
Riiight... there are also reports that the earth is flat, that UFOs are landing in midwestern cornfields and that Elvis is alive and well and living on Mars.
Just as an aside, Ris, do you actually believe in democracy and freedom and all that stuff? If so, can you point to an Arab nation with a democratic government that does a half-ass job of protecting individual rights, with freedom of religion and freedom of the press? Do you think that Arafat would create such a country for the Palestinians? Do you think the Palestinians would be better off living under yet another Arab dictatorship than they are under Israel? Do you think that the past 55 years of killing Jews has made them better off? It's not that I think the Arabs are genetically incapable of establishing a democracy-- that would be silly-- but it's not the prevailing philosophy over there, is it? Quite the opposite.
ris
New Member
the report of the red crescent paramedic being shot is in the times too. it didn't report elvis, but then i don't get the weekly world news. it was a report specifically on jenin and i would take much of it as being accurate, it is written from both sides.
it is their freedom to choose how they live, they voted in their government, which is therefore democratic. it is not our position to enforce our democracy and ways of life on them. it doesn't matter whether or not they would be better off, it would be their choice.
i do believe in freedom of press, palestine is guilty, as are many other countries in that region and across the world, of restricting the press.
i'd rather you didn't make smart remarks about whether i believe in democracy and freedom merely because i hold a contrary view.
it is their freedom to choose how they live, they voted in their government, which is therefore democratic. it is not our position to enforce our democracy and ways of life on them. it doesn't matter whether or not they would be better off, it would be their choice.
i do believe in freedom of press, palestine is guilty, as are many other countries in that region and across the world, of restricting the press.
i'd rather you didn't make smart remarks about whether i believe in democracy and freedom merely because i hold a contrary view.
