Palestinian baby killed by Israeli Terrorists
 

http://palestinechronicle.com/images...isc/gaza_4.JPG

More photos of the bombing here:

"Murder in Gaza"
http://palestinechronicle.com/articl...20722222400636

"Gaza Mourns Its Dead"
http://palestinechronicle.com/articl...20723150917733

Could you please define "terrorism"?

Hey, don't bother, I'll go ahead and do it right here.

Okay. So now we know what terrorism is.

So, tell me... who are the terrorists that killed this child?

So by that definition, the military is terrorist. Oh, wait...

I was thinking of the headline: "Dead baby's body exploited for propaganda value", but that's just me.

there is such thing as state terrorism.....and forgive me for daring to show a palestinian civilian casualty. only israeli civilians die by terrorism. maybe that is why 700 israelis and a paltry 1800 palestinians have died?

Here's an honest question... when they specify that number, 1800, does that include the suicide bombers themselves? Does it include the suicide bombers who are unsuccessful and kill only themselves? (A large number blow up at checkpoints because they are instructed to off themselves if they are going to be found out.)

The question came up before, kinda, and didn't get answered, kinda. And it's important, kinda.

We've seen Palestinian civilian casualties before. Nothing new here.

And there is such a thing as state terrorism. You just haven't shown a picture of it yet. What you have here is a civilian casualty of an airstrike on a known terrorist operative. They had attempted to take him out <b>eight</b> times before but had <b>postponed</b> because he was around innocent civilians. This time, their information said that he wasn't with innocent civilians. They struck, they accidentally killed a bunch of kids as well as the target, and it sucked. They apologized for the loss of innocent life.

Show me Hamas' apology for the loss of innocent life and then we can talk.

My $ .02:

By the dictionary definition of terrorism, I'd say both sides are guilty of such. However, we use the word today like a cheap whore...incredibly overused. Not to mention, that photo is just another attempt to whore out innocent civilians to justify some cause...to stir up what little emotion any people have left regarding this situation.

"You're just another victim, kid."--House of Pain

At this point, I find the numbers to be irrelevant. Not that I don't care about innocents being killed, but numbers can be deceptive. One side having more dead doesn't necessarily mean jack shit. There will always be casualties of war, and I can understand that. I don't personally like it though...one dead is one too many.

Israel says that they tried various alternatives before going with this one. I admittedly don't know much about military operations, but I'm naturally skeptical. It's hard to trust either side these days.

Alon Pincas (Israeli Consul General) took a big step IMO by admitting it was a mistake on Donahue. He and a legal representative for the Palestinians went at it Tuesday night. It was interesting, but nowhere near as fun as when Pincas goes up against Hasim Rahman on Hardball.

The best step the Palestinians could take right now is...nothing. I personally think that the attack was a mistake and could lead to further attacks on Israelis. I hope I am wrong.

in perspective
 

to put palestinian deaths in perspective, and to answer your question Undertoad, here is a graph taken from The Guardian (UK paper). it separates suicide bombings from the palestinian and israeli deaths.

http://orion.neiu.edu/~fkjabbar/intifada_deaths.gif

the majority of palestinian deaths occur when israeli soldiers are bored and decide to shoot at innocents walking the streets or those trying to get to a hospital.

one israeli official claimed that palestinian civilians getting killed is rare and that this attack was the exception instead of the rule. he further stated that when was the last time you heard about palestinian civilians getting killed?

He is somewhat right. you DO never hear about palestinian civilian deaths. they die silent, unheralded deaths. several a day in fact, but you will almost never hear about them in the american media. what does the israeli army say about these deaths. always, it is "looking into the matter." and after that, nothing...

as for apologies, i would like to hear a true israeli apology for an innocent palestinian death. i don't want to hear that "we are looking into the matter."

what does an israeli apology look like? "We
regret the loss."

What do they regret? They regret the negative impact the bombing will have on israel's image on the world stage. they don't regret killing civilians.

a true apology, heartfelt, would be to say that your heart goes out to the families of the victims. some sort of compensation would be given to the families. we all heard this here after 9/11, and you could tell people meant it. "we regret the loss" is toilet-paper fodder.

as for truly selecting a good time to attack, any idiot knows that if you drop a 1 ton bomb in a crowded residential apartment building in the middle of the night when people are sleeping, there are going to plenty of palestinian civilian casualties.

but that's ok. no one was supposed to know. no one ever does. however, they made the mistake of killing too many palestinians at once. that is what they truly regret.

Fine. We can do semantics.

Show me Hamas' statement reading "We regret the loss" when referring to the innocent Israelis killed in a suicide bombing.

Re: in perspective
 

This is false. The majority of Palestinian deaths occur when the IDF begins an operation to curb militancy and, in the process of eliminating extremists, kills civilians.

I would be very interested to see <b>one</b> incident where an Israeli soldier was bored and shot an innocent Palestinian walking the streets - without being provoked. So let's see your sources. I want names.

what does hamas have to regret? their image is tarnished anyway. israel's image, in the eyes of americans, is squeeky clean for the most part. when something like this occurs, of course israel regrets it because it threatens their facade. they, however, do not regret it for the families.

apparently, you haven't gotten my original point or read it well-enough...

Re: Re: in perspective
 

this is from a b'tselem (israeli human rights group) report titled "Trigger Happy." i hope you are satisfied by the source, since i doubt you would have accepted a palestinian one. they have even more examples.

http://www.btselem.org

Senior IDF officials have repeatedly rejected claims that soldiers fire without justification and claim that the IDF refrains from harming innocent persons. This report contradicts these claims: The IDF's open-fire policy throughout this intifada has resulted in extensive harm to Palestinian civilians who were not involved in any activity against Israel. These incidents are not "exceptional" cases, but rather they constitute a large portion of the casualties throughout the Occupied Territories.


Initiated Shooting

Testimonies taken by B’Tselem from both soldiers and Palestinians indicate that contrary to the claims of Brigadier General Naveh and other sources, there are cases in which IDF soldiers initiate the shooting, without any shoots fired from the Palestinian side. A conscript soldier who served in the Gaza Strip stated in his testimony to B’Tselem that:

While I was at the post, there were a number of cases of shooting. I thought that it was an exchange of fire, but afterwards I understood from discussions with other soldiers that it was just soldiers shooting out of boredom. Soldiers at two different positions would coordinate opening fire between them, and afterwards they would say that they were under fire. It is important for me to state that I am not talking about single shots, but very massive shooting. In the beginning, I was sure that they had really fired at our post, but afterwards I understood, as stated, that it was shooting out of boredom. From conversations with my friends who were at posts in other areas, it became clear to me that it occurs in those places as well. My friends, who were at the post in the Strip. Told me that they emptied entire crates of ammunition out of boredom.

Ariel Shatil, a reserve soldier, told Yediot Aharonot daily regarding this topic that “They say ‘The Palestinians are shooting at us and we are responding.’ It’s not true. There was one officer there who said to the soldiers guarding at the lookout: “Too quiet for you? You’re not sure? Fire a couple of rounds.’ Every night they would shoot. We start and they shoot back.”

Palestinian testimony also indicates that there are cases in which soldiers open fire even when there was no prior shooting by Palestinians. B’Tselem fieldworker Nabil Mekherez was shot in the arm by shooting initiated by the IDF while in his home in Khan Yunis on 1 February 2002. Hosni al-Jarami, a resident of the Balata Refugee Camp, in a testimony to B’Tselem, described shooting originating from the IDF post located approximately 500 meters from the camp, at Jabl a-Tor. His neighbor, Saleh Zeidan, was killed from the shooting, which took place on 19 August 2001. Al-Jarami said that:

I would like to state that the soldiers at the military post at Jabl a-Tor tend to shoot blindly at the Balata Refugee Camp, sometimes for even no reason. They shoot when someone shoots at them, but they shoot at the camp even when no one is shooting at them. This shooting takes place often, and usually it is innocent civilians who are killed and injured, and not those who are shooting.

‘Adel ‘Atiya Yusef al-Ar’a, age 48, resident of Khan Yunis, told B’Tselem that on 7 May 2001, IDF soldiers shot a number of tank shells at his home, located approximately 450 meters from the Ganei Tal settlement. As a result, the house was severely damaged. In addition, there is an elementary school near his house, and the pupils ran away terrified. Some of them fainted and were injured during the exit, and ambulances evacuated them from the site. According to al-Ar’a:

I would like to emphasize that this shelling was not preceded by an shooting on the Palestinian side. Sometimes armed people in civilian dress do indeed shoot at the Israeli post from the land located to the north at a distance of about 300 meters, or to the south at a distance of about 300 meters from the main road, and that is enough for the soldiers to respond with shells. Sometimes, it seems to the soldiers that anything that moves constitutes a shooting target, even if it is a dog or other animal.

Your post certainly contains some interesting testimony, and if it is indeed true, then something certainly needs to be done. I, of course, did not imagine that you would be able to dig up a source. So I was wrong about that. However, I definitely would like to see something more than a single person giving their story.

Even taking that into account, I still seriously doubt that you can support your assertion that a majority of Palestinian deaths are caused by this. Again, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Or, perhaps, you're failing to make your point.

I am an American. But I do not place the blame for the conflict solely on the Palestinians. Both sides are responsible.

I also strongly disagree that the above child was killed by "Israeli Terrorists". The bombing of that building was a tactical operation against a man that was responsible for the deaths of many innocent Israeli civilians. Israel has a great interest in eliminating those that are attempting to bring about their destruction.

The Hamas/Palestinian extremist argument might make sense if they were only carrying out operations against military targets. However, they're not. We've been over this a thousand times before on the Cellar, and undoubtedly we're about to embark on it again. Let's go ahead and clear this up right now: <b>the death of any innocent civilian is tragic, but the intentional killing of an innocent civilian is reprehensible</b>. Suicide bombings, besides being counterproductive, are reprehensible. An Israeli tank firing shells into a market is reprehensible.

However, Israel does not target innocent civilians. How often do you read about a suicide bomber taking out innocent civilians <b>and</b> an Israeli terrorist? <b>NEVER</b>. Mainly because Palestinian suicide bombers are too busy targetting little girls and their mothers.

I can't even count how many times Israel has killed innocent Palestinian civilians <b>but</b> also taken out a Hamas leader. I don't think it's just by accident that they keep killing these senior Hamas military leaders. No, I would guess that it's because the <b>targets</b> of Israeli attacks are, in an overwhelming majority of cases, Palestinian extremists.

Ah, yes. I see. It's okay to kill a couple of those dirty zionist kikes. Of course, heaven forbid that a Palestinian be killed.

You have to treat the murder of civilians equally, no matter what side they're on. If it's okay for Israeli civilians to be killed then it's okay for Palestinian civilians to be killed too.

My question was specifically NOT answered by your graph dude. The legend at the bottom lists the sources, amidst which you find:

Suicide attacks: Reuters (casualties exclude bombers).

The number that I wanted remains hidden in the green bar: I want to know the number of Palestinians that have died or were killed in suicide bombing attacks or attempts.

As far as your report goes: sorry man, no sale for me.

Simply put, how huge would the international conspiracy have to be... that could keep this fact -- that IDF soldiers are routinely picking off civilians -- completely hidden from CNN, ABC, BBC, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters, and every other major news organization on the planet.

I guess they could all be biased. But don't you think at least the French would have something on it?

You never know really. I'm sure there have been plenty of goings-on all over the world that we have never heard about. Even here in our own country.

For someone that doesn't really believe in conspiracies, I come up with a bunch of 'em. ;)

(LATE EDIT--Didn't like the wording in this post...fixed it.)

Greetings.

State-sponsored terrorism is a 'legitimate' form of terrorism. (an ironical assessment in itself, unfortunately)

In academic terms, defining terrorism as part of political science teaching is near-impossible. The seminal works on this topic usually require upwards of 80 pages to reach barely satisfying definitions. (I am happy to provide the details to anyone curious enough to invest enough time to look them up in specialized academic libraries)

What you see in 'the dictionary' isn't relevant, as certain poli-sci terms are too intricate to understand easily, and are commonly misinterpreted or warped through propagandistic public perception. As an example, neither Vietnam nor the current Afghanistan conflict were 'wars', yet people are happy to use that term.

Feel free to scorn the academic stuffiness of it all; but please spend a few years of your life doing nothing but studying the political background of statecraft before doing so, simply so you know why I say what I say. I wouldn't dream of mocking an architectural engineer for proclaiming that a certain type of architecture is stupid or badly designed, either.

IDF soldiers do often shoot civilians, it's fairly simple. Travel to the region and live with the Palestinians for a while. I know several non-politically-aligned people who have, and the terror the Israelis impose on the Palestinians is palpable, violent, and real. Naturally, the Israelis do it for a very good reason: they are afraid themselves. The very existence of their state is at stake, and they believe that many Arabs would wipe them out at once, if given the chance. Thus, their response is radical and violent. I fully understand why the Israelis act they do; there is no giant conspiracy going on, it's very simple: the Palestinians have no rights, and they are routine oppressed and killed. The graphs shown, my earlier postings, etc., all demonstrate an aspect of that. If you still rely on the NYT and CNN to show you, wake up. Don't you remember the furor a month or so ago when Turner claimed the Israelis were using terrorist methods themselves? He had to instantly retract his claim, even though it was factually correct.

It's a bit like comparing the front pages of the NYT and WP with that of the UK papers during the height of the conflict in Afghanistan. The British papers kept showing dead civilians, dead Afghani children, innocent victims, etc. Compare that to the US media. It's not what you show, it's what you want to show.

If you feel like reading an in-depth article (in German, unfortunately) by the most respected German newsweekly, Der Spiegel, on how the Palestinians are being terrorized and killed, try <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,206718,00.html">this</a>. It's an article on how the US Ambassador to Israel, Dan Kurtzer, is calling on Israel to stop the humanitarian disaster that is befalling the Palestinians. The article's in German, but surely that kind of stuff would receive the same sort of front-page attention in the US that it's receiving in Europe?

Surely?

The recent UN condemnations of much of Israel's behaviour, including the butchering of civilians, ought to be well-known and well-documented in the US media by now. Right?

Right?

9 dead Palestinian children are collateral damage, and will be treated as such by the US media, as part of the war on terrorism. 1 dead Israeli child, as part of a suicide bombing, is a national tragedy, and will be treated as such by the US media.

Some things sell, others don't.

I didn't respond to the earlier posting by dhamsaic, in which he advocated that the Palestinians ought to self-immolate rather than engage in suicide bombings. Sometimes the detachment and lack of awareness of local situations, and the related responses of uninvolved people is fairly disturbing.

Thus, let me be plain on a basic moral level: it is wrong for any non-state organisation to commit acts of terror against any state. But it is also reprehensible, and on a greater level, for any democratically elected state government to commit acts of terror against any group of people it can dominate at will. The problem is that a state is directly responsible for those under its jurisdiction; to abuse such power is to forfeit any right to claim that justice has been done, and to forfeit any right to just representation. To murder civilians in cold blood is wrong for individual and state alike; in the case of the state, wrongs above and beyond the simple murder have been committed.

Yes, wrong is wrong. But there are reasons why a serial killer will be locked up for longer than a 'simple' murderer. Think about that for a while.

Hamas is a fairly small terrorist organization. Their actions are reprehensible. They do not accurately represent the majority of the Palestinians. Their support increases depending on how radical the Israelis are, it's a vicious circle. The Israeli government does represent the state of Israel, and all Israeli citizens within. Its actions are representative. Its actions are reprehensible. It's that simple.

And by the way: I would be very interested to see one incident where an Israeli soldier was bored and shot an innocent Palestinian walking the streets - without being provoked. So let's see your sources. I want names.(dhamsaic)

Unfortunately, I can easily provide that:

http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/07/59092.php
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/upda...e_archives.htm

The recent event, in which civilians were out in a market, and an Israeli tank fired a warning shot into their midst, killing several, ought to be sufficient for you?

By the way - resorting to cheap racial slang in order to imply that the previous poster may have been racially motivated, or in order to get some sort of emotional reaction out of him, was pretty damn low, dhamsaic. (Ah, yes. I see. It's okay to kill a couple of those dirty zionist kikes.) Your intention may have been that of irony, but it was fairly obvious flamebait.

Do you have to stoop to that, seeing how Israel is about to implement Apartheid-like laws regarding land ownership, etc, limiting it to Jews only?

X.

Most of your post was pretty good. Until you lost it at the end.

Maybe you missed it, but <b>I mentioned this very incident in my last post</b>. Guess what I said about it?

Hey, guess what. Where's the evidence that it was done <b>out of boredom</b>?

He/she already provided me with a source to back up their claim, and I acknowledged it very clearly and explicitly at the beginning of my post.

Heh. Spare me the bullshit. First of all, your "but it was fairly obvious flamebait" directly follows "your intention may have been that of irony". How can you have it both ways?

Then we can get into your assumption that it actually was "obvious flamebait". For it to have been flamebait, it must have been my intention to draw flames. Which it wasn't. I use strong words. If it bothers you, then I recommend you don't read my posts.

I have been over this before with others, and I really have no desire to explain it again. But because I like you, I'll go ahead and do it this one last time.

<b>I employ racial slang to convey the dehumanization that one side feels for another</b>. This killing is made possible because neither side sees the other as human. Israel thinks the Palestinians are a bunch of camel jockeying sand niggers. Palestinians think that the Jews are dirty zionists. Of course, I refer only to the extremists in both camps.

I assume that the readers are intelligent; that I don't need to spell out every single fucking detail for them, that I don't need to always explicitly describe exactly what I am meaning. If you don't pick up on it, that's fine - but you are labeling it out of a gross ignorance on your part. How about you ask me what I mean next time?

Your intentions are irrelevant, the outcome is all that matters; the way to hell is paved with good intentions. If I picked up a gun right now and murdered a pedophile serial killer, it would be *wrong*. My intention would be right - namely to prevent further horror, but the outcome would still not be morally right.
I am happy to admit my mistake. It wasn't flamebait, it was a troll. Trolls are intended to cause strong responses, sometimes badly-worded ones, focusing on your writing style and phrasing, rather than content. If I was was going to follow this up with 'besides, someone without any decent education wouldn't know jack shit about this anyway, so go back to your perl hacking and shut your fucking mouth you stupid one-eyed fag :-)', for instance, that'd be a troll.
I don't really believe any of the ' ' statements above, they include a smilie, and they have a humorous intention. But they'd detract from my argument; they'd be an obvious troll.
I understand that; the way you phrased it implied that the previous poster may have - to some extent - shared that opinion. (Ah yes. I see. It's okay ...). If that wasn't your intention, let's just forget about it and move on. I do hope you understand how that phrasing was easily misunderstood, however.
No, it's a fairly straightforward grammatical and orthographical interpretation, contextually sound. I understand that you were referring to the immediate quotation of what does hamas have to regret? (by umairfoo), but your phrasing is easy to attribute, opinion-wise, to the poster you were replying to.
Maybe less and less people will care about what you mean when your message is clad in a torrent of sound and fury, fucks here, kikes there, niggers everywhere, supposed humour, lack of perspective, and apparently one-sided indifference to human plight and suffering.
This was straight in response to your own posting, however. I'm not going to sit here and label my conversational partners grossly ignorant, or too fucking stupid to understand what I'm saying. In the end, there's little point to ad hominem attacks.
Regarding 'bored' soldiers; you know fairly well that it is close to impossible to get an Israeli soldier to admit that he killed anyone out of boredom, about the same way that it'd be difficult to get any, say, US soldier to admit that he raped any Vietnamese village girls 'because he was horny.' I provided the shelling example at the end of two links that outlined a variety of apparently senseless killings of civilians at the hands of IDF soldiers. Many of them may have had sense - maybe a kid was throwing a stone or a molotov cocktail, maybe a civilian was carrying a gun, maybe they were breaching curfew laws. But if you trail through all of the given examples, there will be at least a couple that don't seem to follow any logical pattern, or implementing reasonable laws. Take some time to do so, and you will (hopefully) see for yourself.

Peace,

X.

The evidence that I provided is only a fraction of what is out there. It comes from a report written by B'Tselem, an Israeli group. And even they are not as comprehensive in documenting the crimes against humanity routinely conducted by the Israeli army. The fact that this evidence surprises you speaks volumes about your exposure to media other than american or possibly israeli. Truth is still truth whether one wishes to see it or not. It is your choice.

Again from the B'Tselem website:

Senior IDF officials have repeatedly rejected claims that soldiers fire without justification and claim that the IDF refrains from harming innocent persons. This report contradicts these claims: The IDF's open-fire policy throughout this intifada has resulted in extensive harm to Palestinian civilians who were not involved in any activity against Israel. These incidents are not "exceptional" cases, but rather they constitute a large portion of the casualties throughout the Occupied Territories.


As with all criticism of Israel, the argument ends with the criticizer being labeled an Anti-Semite, which is what dhamsaic has virtually called me. Criticize Israel, automatically you are an anti-semite.

you continue to misunderstand what I mean by saying Israel does not have true regret. Let me spell it out for you.

When I said Hamas has nothing to regret, it has nothing to regret in terms of its IMAGE being harmed, since it is considered a terrorist group anyway. It also does not regret killing civilians, though it should.


When Israel says it has regret, it has regret for its IMAGE being harmed. It DOES NOT have regret for the civilians killed, just as Hamas doesn't.


Never once in any of my posts have I said that killing Israeli civilians is right.

BUT I refuse to call Israel's actions "defensive measures." Under your definition of terrorism, Israel is guilty as charged for using violence as a means to intimidate palestinian society.

X., you're an intelligent person but admit it, this is about as weak as it gets. Your proof of Israeli soldier criminalism is that a fraction of US soldiers were criminal 35 years ago?

Be reasonable. The fact of the matter is that, where military might gets inserted, shit happens. The most highly-trained fighters in the world mistake marital celebrations as anti-aircraft fire. It's the fog of war, and probably inevitable.

Let's see what happens if YOU drive a steel box into a town where every person wants to see you dead, two months after your buddies got offed in a similar situation and where everyone in the town believes that killing themselves to kill you would earn them 72 virgins in eternal life. If you were bright about it, you'd have an itchy trigger finger too.

This is a much more reasonable pattern to assume than that, with the whole world watching, some of the best-trained soldiers in the world indiscriminately kill innocents. Especially when the Palestinians invent new deaths all the time to show the world -- including about 500 invented deaths in Jenin and a fake funeral complete with a carried corpse that came to life at the end of the parade route.

I think the F16 was overkill (no pun intended), but at the same time, we're here talking about what happens when they go in with tanks. And the whole fight is about the terms that ended the last big war. If nobody in the entire world respects those terms, there will have to be another big war to bring about new terms.

We have similar groups in the US documenting US atrocities, but we don't give them as much creedence because we understand the context better.
Or we could just listen to you! Because apparently you have special insight based on special news sources that only you have found, presenting you with obviously correct facts that the rest of the world doesn't see because they insist on being blind to them, or becuase they have obvious bias that only you can determine. For instance:
This remarkable understanding...! You could actually see into the brains of the Israelis and know that when they said they were sorry, they just didn't MEAN it. Was it the quiver in Alon Pinkas's voice that gave him away?

So let's sum up. Hamas doesn't have to apologize, because the rest of the world knows they're terrorists; it's kinda obvious. Israel are a bunch of terrorists and the rest of the world DOESN'T know that... maybe because they DO apologize? Meanwhile, the UN, which roughly represents the rest of the world, declares that Israel is racist and criminalistic and doesn't make the same statement about Hamas. And the shame of it is that the US citizenry doesn't know about that declaration.

And ketchup is a vegetable. I got it now.

Yeah. Like when some guy tries to rape a woman but she beats the hell out of him and stops him. I guess he should go free 'cause he only <b>intended</b> to rape her, he didn't actually do it. And since only the outcome matters, we should probably put her in jail for assault. Her intention to defend herself is irrelevant - in the end, she caused physical harm to another human being.

I submit that intentions <b>are</b> relevant, especially in an online forum where communication is hindered because you can't hear tone of voice or see facial expressions and body language. Communication is much more than just words.

But my intentions are irrelevant. The outcome is all that matters. He wasn't taken by it, so it's okay. The outcome is all that matters.

Trolls are actually posts that are designed to attract predictable responses. My post wasn't designed to do that.

Remember: if my intentions are irrelevant, then it cannot be a troll.

Sigh.

What I was saying with those words was "I understand now! The Palestinian extremist viewpoint is simple to grasp once you put it that way!"

Again, this would probably be blatantly apparent if we were having this conversation in person. I was not intentionally attributing the racist slang to umairfoo <b>in any way</b>. That's not what I meant to say and I don't feel that it reads like that. I can certainly understand that some people may read into it like that, but only because it was written and not spoken. My bad for not taking that into account before writing.

And for those people, there is the ignore feature. I recommend you try it, or seek help from your administrator if you need assistance in implementing it.

If you cannot or will not accept that I am pro-peace and anti-civilian killing <b>on both sides</b>, then there is not much I can do to help you. I have been over it probably a hundred times, and I'm getting quite tired of explaining it.

Neither am I, and no there isn't. Finally, a commonality.

Are you reading all of my posts or do you just jump into a conversation without having been through the previous ones? How many times now have I said that the firing of the tank into the market was inexcusable? How many times have I stated that, during the Jenin incursion, the intentional killing of innocents was reprehensible? Have you read these, or do you simply ignore them?

I am incapable of spending any more time or energy replying to your posts. You are constantly re-stating things that I have soundly refuted (such as the allegation that I am one-sided with Israel and that I do not see some blatantly illegal murders of innocent Palestinians by individuals within the IDF). I'm not going to do it anymore. If you want to talk about something, cool. If you want to discuss building an over the top computer, I'm game. If you want to talk Israeli-Palestinian relations, great. If it gets to the point where I feel I'm repeating myself or you aren't even bothering to read what I'm writing, I'll drop it right there. No hard feelings. I just won't bother replying. I'm just letting you know in advance.

Later.

I don't care that it's an Israeli group! It could be a Palestinian group, a Russian group, a bunch of researchers from Antarctica. <b>I don't care</b>. What is important to me is that the information is reliable, period. And it just so happens that it's more reliable if it comes from more than one source. <b>I believe you that those accounts are true</b> - I am just <b>interested</b> in hearing more.

Again, my request is <b>more accounts</b> that <b>over 50% of Palestinian civilian deaths</b> are <b>caused</b> by <b>boredom</b> on the part of Israeli soldiers. That was your assertion. Back it up! One guy saying Israeli soldiers fired without justification, even <b>most of the time</b>, does not mean that boredom was the motivating factor.

Two part reply.

1) No, I haven't. See explanation in final response to Xugamad. Sorry about the poor choice of words and lack of previous explanation.

2) I agree that this is absolutely re-fucking-diculous. If someone says something minorly critical of Israel, you have a bunch of fucking retarded Israelis jumping on you for being a Nazi. I know, because I've openly criticized Israel in the past and <b>I have been accused of being a Nazi</b>. Go figure.

Then it has something to regret. I guess that was just poor word choice on your part.

Right! We agree! <b>But not in this case</b>. The intention was very clearly not "to intimidate Palestinian society". It was to eliminate a terrorist.

The event that I can continually refer to is the firing of the tank into the market. It could very easily be argued that it was done to intimidate Palestinians. But when there is an obvious and legitimate target to an attack, I refuse to call it terrorism.

To umairfoo, and others who may be somewhat frustrated with this 'discussion': It has become obvious that even overwhelming factual (nay, statistical :) ) evidence doesn't really help; at best, it results in people assuming a 'I'm taking my toys and going home; screw you guys!' stance. At worst, it results in ad hominem attacks and insults.

Apparently, the approach of US mainstream media has succeeded: not to intentionally distort the reality of the middle east conflict, but to provide a view that fits in with the 'accepted' reality profile propagated by mainstream culture.

Watching CNN five hours a day isn't going to change your perspective. Seeing a democratic country reverting to fascist-racist methodology in its struggle for supremacy, however, might.

Besides, attempting to show people another side of the argument when it rapidly becomes obvious that they hold .. certain 'truths' to be .. inviolable, well.. there's <a href="http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.php/463c5922/arguing.jpg">this</a>.

<img src="http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.php/463c5922/arguing.jpg">

Oh yes, once again the "I have special knowledge and insight that you do not" approach.

Let's see, I assumed of you that you were an intelligent, thoughtful sort, and you assumed of me that I need nothing less than an entire change in perspective. On that basis, I'm sure that arguing on the Internet DOES seem fruitless to you. Everybody else on it seems so dumb, right? It must be really hard to maintain that monopoly on truth.

Meanwhile in the real world, even the fucking Guardian isn't claiming that IDF are pegging random civilians out of boredom. In the midst of endless posturing and chest-pounding and propaganda from both sides, an unimpeachable source for an outrageous statement is kinda important. Come up lame on that request, and this is one place you're gonna get called out. Fact-check your ass on the Cellar, or someone else will fact-check it for you, and that goes for everyone.

X, while I respect your knowledge and passion, if you think you have all the facts, you are sadly mistaken. (So is any one else that thinks that way for that matter.) Based upon your history of posts on this matter, it is my belief that you know no more than any other intelligent well-read person on this issue. I think your studies give you a different perspective, as I feel the same way about my own studies. I'm not sure what your intent was in posting the above paragraph, but it seems to me that you are trying to take some sort of "high road" against people "ignorant of the facts"...as if people that don't agree with you are stupid on the issue. Feel free to clarify.

Who has it succeeded on? Some people? Sure...but not all. Just because people don't see it a particular way does not make them any less intelligent or more PC. Mainstream? I'd say many of the people here are some of the most independent thinkers you are going to find anywhere. How many people in the "mainstream" advocate self-immolation or colonizing the entire region for shits and grins?

Pot. Kettle. Black. Good thing I got my boots on...the shit is getting deep in here.

An (admittedly impossible) solution
 

Ultimately, both sides are wrong in this particular conflict. You can argue that both sides have been provoked. You can argue that both sides are justified in their "defense" of their homelands. And both sides would be right. The IDF has done some really nasty stuff. Conversely, the Palestinians have done lots of nasty things too.
Neither side, if you (well, I) take a step back from extraordinarily emotionally charged argument, is innocent. They are both guilty as hell of commiting horrors against the other side's populations.

Therefore, the only solution I see is for both sides to back down, swallow their pride, admit that they've done wrong, and move on.
Yeah, right.
I might be a little too simplistic in my views of how the world works. But, I will be glad if someone can show me a better way that satisfies all sides (rather than my way which satisfies none, at least, in an "honor" kind of way).

Here you go, all you jagoffs.

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

"The usual fatality count quoted in news articles presents an inaccurate and distorted picture of the al-Aqsa conflict, exaggerating Israel’s responsibility for the death of noncombatant civilians. For example, our database shows a total of 561 Israelis killed, compared to around 1499 Palestinians, up to 30 June 2002 – numbers in general agreement with media reports (see Graph 1.1).

"But such numbers distort the true picture: They lump combatants in with noncombatants, suicide bombers with innocent civilians, and <b>report Palestinian “collaborators” murdered by their own compatriots as if they had been killed by Israel.</b> Correcting for such distortions, we can arrive at a figure of <b>579 Palestinian noncombatants killed by Israel, compared to 433 Israeli noncombatants killed by Palestinians.</b>" (emphasis mine)

There. That's the number I was looking for. Was that so hard? Hell, it's even pro-Palestinian, sorta.

What I want to know is why these gents with their vast intelligence and enlightened and correct perspective could only get me the distorted number... twice.

I'm not going to get (re-)involved in this discussion - for aforementioned reasons - but it's interesting to note that the numbers given are considered to be 'distorted', whereas the numbers you show are considered to be 100% truthful.

Whose numbers are right? I'm not going to claim that the numbers found by us (from different sources) are any more correct than yours.

All I will do is to point out that the ICT is an Israeli organization formed solely to combat terrorism. That is their only purpose. If you browse through the articles published by them, you will find that their articles aren't 'balanced' at all: they serve the purpose of being a propaganda group. There is of course nothing wrong with that - but the slant of their articles should at least be well know.

Its Board of Directors is formed from the former head of the Mossad, who is also a former memeber of Sayaret Matkal, an elite assassination unit of the IDF. Possibly one of the top assassins in the world, both in the field and as a co-ordinator.

Its executive, Boaz Ganor, was a top aide to Binjamin Netanyahu - the well-known creator of peace and harmony in the middle east - assisting him in counter-terrorist matters.

If you read some of the articles on that site, you will find that they are all uniquely focused against Palestine, from the angle of anti-terrorism. They have no interest whatsoever in publishing a 'fair' report on the situation; they remain a propaganda group, forming public opinion. (example link: http://www.ict.org.il/institute/ganor.cfm ) In one of those articles, Ganor advocates 'pro-active military initiatives', amongst other things, arguing that "above all, aggressive Israeli action is of primary importance ..."

Maybe that will give you some insight into their motivations, and as to who the aggressors are: it's well-accepted policy. The very site you are citing provides plenty of proof to that.

Feel free to publish a similar analysis weakening the basis of the statistics we have posted in the past.

As background information, especially on Sayaret Matkal, read:
http://www.konformist.com/botm/volume04/botm1100.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1984/STJ.htm

There ya go! I think it's absolutely correct that you criticize my source. I agree that it's a shitty source and I wasn't about to quote any of the other stats they had on that page - they were clearly trying to construct a very specific case.

The thing is, your number (minus a few weeks of time, I think) is contained within that source. There ARE 3 times the number of Palestinians dead. But this is the first source I've seen that tries to separate out the numbers of combatants vs. non-combatants. Does the Reuters number include the bombers themselves? Or the Palestinians strung up in the town square by their fellow men? I think it does. And if so, it's telling the wrong story.

Of course, Reuters is part of that mainstream media perspective you hate... what a tangle! Tell me, does Mr. Chomsky have any better information?

A key element of the Palestinian strategy is to conceal combatants within the civilian population, and then to indiscriminantly attack noncombatant civilians. Then when an attempt is made to counter attack, they cry "genocide". The distinction between combatants and non combatants is made only when it is useful for propaganda purposes.

Nobody who has thought about it thinks Israel is "squeeky clean". But compared to the terrorist groups, they're paragons of morality -- which says a LOT more about the terrorist groups than about Israel.

I imagine you're right that the Israeli's don't really regret killing the civilians, not even the children -- if I were the Israeli on the street, my thought would be along the lines of "Good, a few more who won't grow up to be suicide bombers". But that's just speculation. And it is pretty clear that UNLIKE the terrorist groups, Israel does not go out trying to kill noncombatants.

I was talking to a few ex militray guys about this, Bristish Intel core to be exact. These are the guys who deal with the IRA, they're not exactly nice when it comes to terrorists but guess what? They thought it was disgusting, why? Becase they used a one ton bomb on a civilian building to kill one man. Even the IRA don't sink that low. To call the killing of innocent civvies "Great success" is just fucking disgusting. The simplr fact is this - if Britan wants to knock off a individual leader the send in a specially trained team of guys who do it and don't kill anyone else, highly trained, motivated individuals specially trained for such operations. Isreal has these people too but they choose intead of slaughter innocents instead. There will be blood on the streets of Tel Aviv and no sympathy here. Sharon has engineered this quagmire - there now is no way out of it, there is no functioning palastinian leadership, there isn't even anyone to negoiate with who has any power and nothing will change until Isreal realises that commiting some of the worst systamatic persecution since the holocaust is not going to achieve anything except the ire of the developed world.

woohoo i got published about this:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...497352354.html

So that would make this situation exactly like every other?

I assume this is yours, jag?

The "Jew-hatred" Yossi Klein Halevi claims is "beginning to penetrate respectable institutions including universities" (Opinion, 22/7) is merely growing indignation at the increasingly barbaric and morally bankrupt actions of Israel in its treatment of the Palestinian people and its response to terrorism. These callous tactics were witnessed again this week in the slaughter of civilians by the Israeli air force in bombing civilian buildings, in a mission to kill one Hamas leader. Such crude tactics and use of excessive force will rightly earn the distaste of the developed world.

Found it by looking for your first name.

Can't be...it's all spelled correctly. The cocksure self-righteous attitude is familiar , though. :-)

yea, thats mine.

Should write more often, all but one have been published and its kinda fun really. Amazing the difference when i'm not writing on the fly.

The ICT study I mentioned was further detailed by Tech Central Station on Tuesday, and the author does a little analysis to figure out whether it was biased. His conclusion: yes, it was slightly biased, in favor of Palestinians by rating all unknowns as "non-combatants".

TCS article

Bias check: TCS are a bunch of war-mongering geeks and the guy even indulges in slanting the numbers a certain way mid-article. But the numbers themselves stand up so far... because even when stated by biased people, facts are facts.