Palestinian baby killed by Israeli Terrorists

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Undertoad
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.)

[Xugumad]

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.

Originally posted by Xugumad
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?

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.

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?

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?

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by dhamsaic

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?

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.

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.

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 employ racial slang to convey the dehumanization that one side feels for another

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.

If you don't pick up on it, that's fine - but you are labeling it out of a gross ignorance on your part.

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.

How about you ask me what I mean next time?

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.

[umairfoo]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
However, I definitely would like to see something more than a single person giving their story.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Undertoad]

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.'

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

Your intentions are irrelevant, the outcome is all that matters

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally posted by umairfoo
It comes from a report written by B'Tselem, an Israeli group.

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.

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.

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.

It also does not regret killing civilians, though it should.

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

Under your definition of terrorism, Israel is guilty as charged for using violence as a means to intimidate palestinian society.

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.

[Xugumad]

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">

[Undertoad]

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.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Xugumad
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.

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.

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.

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?

Besides, attempting to show people another side of the argument when it rapidly becomes obvious that they hold .. certain 'truths' to be .. inviolable, well...

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

[headsplice]

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).

[Undertoad]

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.

[Xugumad]

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

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. [/b]

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