[Pera]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Try and understand that the media is not balanced. Not just about Israel and the Palestinians, but about virtually anything. On the other hand, I've been there - me, personally.

True, but you take a side in this situation. Your opinion is simply too biased for me to believe, since it's personal to you.

there is always another side of the coin.

Which is pretty much what I tried to point out.

Sorry if I went off the deep end, there, Pera.

I think we both went off the topic.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sandwich


No matter who Bush would have gone after, there would have been people asking why she didn't go after that threat first.

And about N.K., again, I haven't read up on that issue at all.

Maybe you should before you roll your eyes at me.

It's pretty obvious that a country which has admitted that it is developing nuclear weapons is a far bigger danger than one which denies it for whom you can find no proof whatsoever of nuclear research.

North Korea is definately working on missiles with which it can launch nukes. It already has the range to shoot missles over japan into the sea (something it has actually done for no good reason). Saddam on the other hand has missiles with a range of a 100 miles or so and no proof whatsoever of attempts to make nukes.

Anyone who tells you that NK isn`t the bigger threat is either an idiot or has access to information that hasn't been made public.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Pera

True, but you take a side in this situation. Your opinion is simply too biased for me to believe, since it's personal to you.

Ok, what part of what I said do you consider to be biased so much that it's unbelievable?

[Pera]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Ok, what part of what I said do we consider to be biased so much that it's unbelievable?

"The IDF operates in a manner that risks the lives of its soldiers so as not to cause undue casualties"

"IDF razing a few unoccupied buildings"

"while the Palestinian women and children barely make up a few percentages " <--- Does that mean killing men is not a problem?

I can't tell if those are true or not, but as an Israeli you can't say anything else than that. You wouldn't say anything negative about IDF and Isreali activities even if you could.

But mainly it's your attitude that's biased. I simply don't think you have any right to treat the Palestinians the way (_I have the impression_) you do.  You seem to think you have, and I can't undestand that.

I really don't get it why you keep on taking this so personally. This debate began when I claimed that there is no proof Iraq is supporting terrorism, and when you brought in the Palestinians I tried to point out that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

And now you're telling me that there's always another side of a coin.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Sandwich


I see your point, but you're forgetting something. Did Clinton, after promising to bring justice to those responsible for {fill in the blank here}, get any flak? No. But Bush, actually keeping his word and acting upon his promises, gets flak - and for retaliating to something several orders of magnitude worse/greater than what Clinton dealt with (or didn't deal with, as the case may be).

So what is more screwed? Bush, for acting on something quite serious, or the world, for condemning his for it?

Don't forget that during the Clinton administration CIA operations were at an all-time high against Al-Qaeda. The question isn't how Clinton did not keep his promise, but why Bush was asleep at the switch when so many people had an eye on Bin Laden. (Yes, I'm referring to how the CIA and FBI both had pieces of the puzzle, and why "Homeland Security" [I smell facism in the air...] is another level of beaurocracy, not security)

On the topic of Palestine, it's sadly something that's going to be arround for a long time. Societies have a bad habit of founding new nations where people already live. (Let's look at what happened when the American colonies were founded, hrrrm?) This adds in the complication that Israel is home to both the more recent Israelis and the Palestinians who now after several generations both have legitimate claim to live in their homes.

Effectively, our generation is being screwed over thanks to poor decisions made out of convenience at the end of World War II and during the Cold War.

As an answer to your rhetorical question. Israel has UN sanctions against it, do you want us to invade you because of not upholding a resolution passed against you? It is a "serious issue" just as Iraq is, and the hundreds of other petty dictators in Africa and Asia that have done inhumane acts just as bad if not worse then Saddam.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Pera



"The IDF operates in a manner that risks the lives of its soldiers so as not to cause undue casualties"

By this I mean we went from house to house, searching for our target, not just carpet bombing the whole area. We lost 13 reservists in an ambush in the middle of the Jenin refugee camp because of this modus operandi.

"IDF razing a few unoccupied buildings"

These buildings range from explosives laboratories to the homes of suicide bombers. Since the families of suicide bombers would receive enormous monetary compensation for their sacrifice, which went into glamorizing the house, for one, the preventive medicine is to negate that monetary compensation. They must realize that they cannot blow up civillians without any reaction.

"while the Palestinian women and children barely make up a few percentages " <--- Does that mean killing men is not a problem?

No, it means that while the target of Palestinian attacks is the general Israeli public, the target of Israeli attacks is against the terrorist groups, which are composed primarily of men.

I can't tell if those are true or not, but as an Israeli we can't say anything else than that. We wouldn't say anything negative about IDF and Isreali activities even if we could.

Oh? I could say that I wish we had carpet-bombed the places where the terrorist hideouts are, so that I didn't have to risk my life. They don't seem to care that much about the lives of their own women and children, considering that they locate their terrorist activities among them - why should we care?

But I don't - I realize the importance of being morally in the right, so to speak - shame the world doesn't seem to put as much a value on it as we do.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Ace
This adds in the complication that Israel is home to both the more recent Israelis and the Palestinians who now after several generations both have legitimate claim to live in their homes.

"...more recent Israelis..."?? Got mixed up there, methinks.

Originally posted by Ace
As an answer to your rhetorical question. Israel has UN sanctions against it, do we want us to invade we because of not upholding a resolution passed against you? It is a "serious issue" just as Iraq is, and the hundreds of other petty dictators in Africa and Asia that have done inhumane acts just as bad if not worse then Saddam.

Read this article, it's quite informative on the subject of this wonderfully catch-all phrase, "UN Resolution". http://www.cicweb.ca/settingrecordstraight/UN/index.shtml

[Stryke 9]

Actually, there's a good deal of hard evidence that the Israelis bulldozed occupied buildings, opened fire on crowds of unarmed Palestinian civilians, and all the rest. But that's neither here nor there, and in war even the "facts" are mutable.

But there's no evidence at all that Saddam supports terrorism, beyond providing a sort of life-insurance policy for Palestinian suicide bombers, which is far from inducement to take up that career in and of itself. There's some circumstantial evidence that the Kurds are all over that As-Qaeda action, or at least used to be as a way of dealing with Saddam, but they're ostensibly our friends (in that they don't complain too much when we **** them over for no readily apparent reason), so that's whitewashed over.

There's little evidence that the MDWs exist. She probably has them, but lack of evidence is not hard evidence, and in fact there was a degree of evidence that the MDWs had been neutralized- those empty warheads that the news media started screeching about as "proof"? Those were the sorts of things the inspectors were supposed to find, they were evidence against the US case. Not only are there worse violators, but there are better ways of dealing with a suspected violator than becoming some kind of mutant cowboy vigilante.

Saddam has nothing to do with al-Qaeda or terrorism, poses an unlikely threat at best, and there is nobody being "brought to justice". The two affairs are utterly independent- this is simply a case of Bush realizing election time's comin' up, and that wascally Bin Laden is nowhere to be found, soo... "Hey! Look here, guys! He's just as good!"

And of course now that Iraqi army is shocking the world by actually resisting being shot at (horrors!), that's turning out to not be such a hot idea either. Still enough to get Bush reelected, but probably not enough to give his the carte blanche she was so obviously hoping for.



And Sandwich: I bet if we fitted those Palestinian militant groups with tanks, bombs, guns and helicopters, so that a direct conflict with the IDF wouldn't be outright suicide, you'd see a lot fewer civilian casualties. Simple fact of war, dude- people don't stand in front of your guns and dance around just because it's "fair" in the superior force's book.

Also, historical justification is, bar none, the lamest excuse for war ever made. It's the same reason Saddam invaded Kuwait, Hitler Poland, Stalin and Kruzchev damn near everything...

[Pera]

Originally posted by Sandwich
But I don't - I realize the importance of being morally in the right, so to speak - shame the world doesn't seem to put as much a value on it as we do.

Whatever. Good luck trying to cure a disease by treating the symptoms.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Actually, there's a good deal of hard evidence that the Israelis bulldozed occupied buildings, opened fire on crowds of unarmed Palestinian civilians, and all the rest. But that's neither here nor there, and in war even the "facts" are mutable.

Let's see this evidence.

Originally posted by Stryke 9
But there's no evidence at all that Saddam supports terrorism, beyond providing a sort of life-insurance policy for Palestinian suicide bombers, which is far from inducement to take up that career in and of itself.

This "life-insurance policy" (does anyone else find that mildly ironic?) as we call it is plenty of incentive to the families - these suicide bombers, who could otherwise work to help support their families, remove themselves from the work pool, leaving behind a family to fend for themselves. So naturally if they had enough money to keep them in good shape it'd be just that much easier.

I'm not saying that this is the primary reason, but it is a factor.

Originally posted by Stryke 9
And Sandwich: I bet if we fitted those Palestinian militant groups with tanks, bombs, guns and helicopters, so that a direct conflict with the IDF wouldn't be outright suicide, you'd see a lot fewer civilian casualties. Simple fact of war, dude- people don't stand in front of your guns and dance around just because it's "fair" in the superior force's book.

Agreed - since they have taken the path of violence, there's not much they can really do against a standing army (though they have managed to blow apart 3-4 of our tanks with ~100kg of explosives buried underground). They have no other violent alternative - not that blowing themselves and us up is getting them what they claim to be fighting for, though.

Originally posted by Pera
Good luck trying to cure a disease by treating the symptoms.

Yes, well I wish the cause of the disease would up and leave, but Arafat seems to be in this for better or for worse, despite what he's leading his people through.

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by Sandwich
not that blowing themselves and us up is getting them what they claim to be fighting for, though.

Not like turning Jenin into a pile of rubble has noticeably reduced the attacks either. Total war isn't about solving problems, it's about two groups that hate each other playing Hatfields and McCoys.

Hell, if anyone really wanted this settled they wouldn't have welshed on the Oslo accord- the fact that both sides did almost instantly speaks louder than any blowhard speech expressing fine sentiments about peace

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Yes, well I wish the cause of the disease would up and leave, but Arafat seems to be in this for better or for worse, despite what he's leading his people through.

Kick out Sharon while you`re at it. Considering he's the direct cause of the latest round of problems. Things looked like they were going to get better until the prick went up onto a sacred Islamic site dispite warnings that it would cause unrest.

And how did you reward this troublemaker for kicking off a fresh round of violence and hatred? You elected him ruler of your country.

Before claiming that the palastinians are the sole cause of your problems it might be an idea to start closer to home.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Sandwich


"...more recent Israelis..."?? Got mixed up there, methinks.



Read this article, it's quite informative on the subject of this wonderfully catch-all phrase, "UN Resolution". http://www.cicweb.ca/settingrecordstraight/UN/index.shtml

More recent Israelis, as in those of European descent who moved to Israel at the end of World War II.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Not like turning Jenin into a pile of rubble has noticeably reduced the attacks either. Total war isn't about solving problems, it's about two groups that hate each other playing Hatfields and McCoys.

Not like we actually turned it into a pile of rubble, either. That was an area smaller than a city block, IIRC.

And I don't know where you get your stats, but it did immensly reduce the number of attacks.



Notice the blue bars - those represent the terrorist attacks inside the West Bank, aka Judea and Samaria. That's where Jenin and Ramallah are located. Notice how there is a drastic reduction in incidents from Mar 2002 on, which is the month I was in Jenin.

Originally posted by karajorma


Kick out Sharon while you`re at it. Considering he's the direct cause of the latest round of problems. Things looked like they were going to get better until the prick went up onto a sacred Islamic site dispite warnings that it would cause unrest.

Oh, please. The Temple Mount is sacred to all 3 major religons, first of all. Second, Jews have been going up there for decades. Attempting to somehow blame the current round of violence on Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount is nothing more than proof of either ignorance or gullibility, perhaps both. Just don't.

Originally posted by Ace
More recent Israelis, as in those of European descent who moved to Israel at the end of World War II.

As opposed to the Jews that have been in the area for thousands of years, right?

[Mr. Vega]

I take it they have metal detectors in the malls?

The most effective way to stop terrorism is to target its source: hatred.

[Stryke 9]

Vega: Yeah, that's a great idea. Go do it.


I believe I've said all I need to about expressing nice sentiments about war and killing, when that does exactly ****.




Sandwich: if ya look at the aerial pictures taken after the bulldozing, what you've got there is either

1. two-man tents instead of houses
2. Quite a bit bigger than a city block

And- well, I guess it worked, then. Though evidently the only really dramatic change was in the West Bank, while Jenin is in Gaza... odd.



And at any rate, while Sharon did technically have a right of access to the Temple Mount, when he went there it was clearly intended as a belligerent act- never mind that it wasn't going to the Mount itself that caused the uproar, it was the fact that he used the Arab entrance to it, if my memory serves me right.

[J.F.K.]

Originally posted by Ace
Don't forget that during the Clinton administration CIA operations were at an all-time high against Al-Qaeda. The question isn't how Clinton did not keep his promise, but why Bush was asleep at the switch when so many people had an eye on Bin Laden. (Yes, I'm referring to how the CIA and FBI both had pieces of the puzzle, and why "Homeland Security" [I smell facism in the air...] is another level of beaurocracy, not security)

It's always the CIA's fault. The American Presidential Administration has been saved many a time by the CIA's scapegoating.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Oh, please. The Temple Mount is sacred to all 3 major religons, first of all. Second, Jews have been going up there for decades. Attempting to somehow blame the current round of violence on Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount is nothing more than proof of either ignorance or gullibility, perhaps both. Just don't.

1) Sharon goes to Temple Mount in a way that inflames the Palestinians. If Jews have been going up there for years and having no effect why were there such complaints about this particular visit?

2) Palestinian tensions rise

3) Israeli troops shoot dead an unarmed 13 year old boy on the way to a car rally. That pretty much ends the peace process.

Maybe it's because I listen to the liberal media but considering the fact that Israels press was voted 97th in the world in terms of how much freedom their press has I wouldn`t put much stock in what you see on TV or read in the papers in Israel either.

Sharon didn`t go to Temple Mount to deliver a message of peace or any of that crap. He went there to prove that he was a hardliner and that was done at a time when the Middle East definately didn`t need yet another hardliner.

As Pera said Sharon is trying to treat a disease by treating the symptoms. Under Sharon support for Hamas and other hardline palestinian groups has increased until virtually every palestinian supports them. Considering that before Sharon came to power most of them didn`t it's pretty obvious that Sharon has done nothing but fan the flames.
 You can`t get rid of terrorism by simply flattening buildings. Even in Iraq the US are trying very hard to "win hearts and minds" Sharon doesn`t care about that sort of thing. He thinks you can win by simply upping the level of violence. That's idiotic and as someone who has been there you really should know that it doesn`t work.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Mr. Vega
I take it they have metal detectors in the malls?

The most effective way to stop terrorism is to target its source: hatred.

Yes, metal detectors at every entrance, armed guards, etc. When I visit in the US and just walk into a mall w/o being checked for bombs or weaponry, I feel really really unsafe for some reason.

And about the source being hatred... while I agree 100%, I'm not going to get into that - again.

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Sandwich: if ya look at the aerial pictures taken after the bulldozing, what you've got there is either

1. two-man tents instead of houses
2. Quite a bit bigger than a city block

Ok, let's use precise terms here. The area that was wiped out and flattened was approximately 100x100 meters:



M'kay? Call it smaller than a city block, call it bigger than one - it really doesn't matter: 100x100 meters. And if someone would like to claim that other news sources reported differently, then I'd respond by asking for an aerial picture of the city-wide devestation the IDF wrought upon Jenin, not just some reporters ground-based opinion.

Originally posted by Stryke 9
And- well, I guess it worked, then. Though evidently the only really dramatic change was in the West Bank, while Jenin is in Gaza... odd.

No, don't know where you got that, maybe I mistyped something. Jenin is in Samaria, which - along with Judea, is also known as the West Bank ("west" referring to the orientation of the area from the river Jordan - don't ask me why, though, since it occupies the eastern core of Israel).

Originally posted by Stryke 9
And at any rate, while Sharon did technically have a right of access to the Temple Mount, when he went there it was clearly intended as a belligerent act- never mind that it wasn't going to the Mount itself that caused the uproar, it was the fact that he used the Arab entrance to it, if my memory serves me right.

Not even CNN reported that. Look at the article Karajorma linked to:

[q]Sharon, leader of the hard-line opposition party Likud, said he had gone to the site with a message of peace.

"I believe that we can live together with the Palestinians," Sharon said. "I came here to the holiest place of the Jewish people in order to see what happens here and really to have the feeling of how we need to move forward. There was no provocation here."

But Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi said Sharon had gone to the site because he fears former Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu will wrest control of the right-wing party from him. The visit, Ashrawi said, was "a very cynical and willful manipulation of an extremely volatile situation."[/q]

At the worst, you have: "...because he fears former Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu will wrest control of the right-wing party from him." What does that have to do with the price of tea in either China or Islamic holy sites?

And I didn't hear that aspect of which entrance he used, although IIRC there might only be one entrance to the Mount... I may be completely wrong about that, though.

Originally posted by karajorma
1) Sharon goes to Temple Mount in a way that inflames the Palestinians. If Jews have been going up there for years and having no effect why were there such complaints about this particular visit?

You tell me. I call it an excuse, and a childish one, at that.

Originally posted by karajorma
3) Israeli troops shoot dead an unarmed 13 year old boy on the way to a car rally. That pretty much ends the peace process.

Link? Proof? If you're talking about the famous Mohammed al-Dura, here's a few links that may interest you. The first one, while quite stocked with emotional "pity us / hate them" propoganda on the side of the Jews, does present some hard evidence. And the second, well... read for yourself.

http://masada2000.org/al-dura.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31363

Originally posted by karajorma
Maybe it's because I listen to the liberal media but considering the fact that Israels press was voted 97th in the world in terms of how much freedom their press has I wouldn`t put much stock in what you see on TV or read in the papers in Israel either.

Really? I'd like to see that vote, please. Before I do, though, I do know there is a lot of security-related scoops that the press aren't given the go-ahead to release at the time - for obvious security reasons. Just like now the US has that 4-hour delay on all reports leaving Iraq (or at least they had, as of the start of Op. Shock & Awe).

Originally posted by karajorma
Sharon didn`t go to Temple Mount to deliver a message of peace or any of that crap. He went there to prove that he was a hardliner and that was done at a time when the Middle East definately didn`t need yet another hardliner.

See my response above - not even CNN said that.

Originally posted by karajorma
You can`t get rid of terrorism by simply flattening buildings. Even in Iraq the US are trying very hard to "win hearts and minds" Sharon doesn`t care about that sort of thing. He thinks you can win by simply upping the level of violence. That's idiotic and as someone who has been there you really should know that it doesn`t work.

Not even by "simply flattening buildings" that happen to be explosives laboratories? Huh - could've fooled me.

But hey, I'm all for imitating what the US is doing in Iraq - that's actually a great idea. Remove the dude in power through military force and install a governing body friendly to yourself. That's an "ideal" situation - except for the fact that if we did that, the world would clamp down on us - hard. They disapproved of the US's actions strongly enough as it is. Isael would get mashed by international pressure - including, most likely, pressure from the US themselves.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Sandwich
You tell me. I call it an excuse, and a childish one, at that.

I don`t think so. Everyone knows that Sharon going to Temple Mount would cause problems. Even the CNN report seems to agree with that. If it wouldn`t have made Sharon look like a hardliner I doubt he would have done it.

Originally posted by Sandwich
Link? Proof? If you're talking about the famous Mohammed al-Dura, here's a few links that may interest you. The first one, while quite stocked with emotional "pity us / hate them" propoganda on the side of the Jews, does present some hard evidence. And the second, well... read for yourself.

http://masada2000.org/al-dura.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31363

Now that is interesting. I`ll have to read that in more detail later.

Originally posted by Sandwich
Really? I'd like to see that vote, please. Before I do, though, I do know there is a lot of security-related scoops that the press aren't given the go-ahead to release at the time - for obvious security reasons. Just like now the US has that 4-hour delay on all reports leaving Iraq (or at least they had, as of the start of Op. Shock & Awe).

Nope that wasn`t the problem. As you say security related issues can`t be released. Heres the quote

The attitude of Israel (92nd) towards press freedom is ambivalent. Despite strong pressure on state-owned TV and radio, the government respects the local media's freedom of expression. However, in the West Bank and Gaza, Reporters Without Borders has recorded a large number of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees press freedom and which Israel has signed. Since the start of the Israeli army's incursions into Palestinian towns and cities in March 2002, very many journalists have been roughed up, threatened, arrested, banned from moving around, targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported.

The report comes from a worldwide survey by Reporters Sans Frontiers and you can read about it in more detail onthis page

Originally posted by Sandwich
Not even by "simply flattening buildings" that happen to be explosives laboratories? Huh - could've fooled me.

 

Nope. Not even then. Flatten all the buildings you want you`ll never have peace, you`ll just make people hate you more.
 If you feel the need to flatten buildings go ahead but that can`t be all you do. At the moment that is the sole responce of the Israeli government and it's plain to see that it doesn`t work. Instead look at Northern Ireland where two sides who hate each other have been made to sit down and talk. That's what you need to do and when Israel was doing that it did make things better. Flattening buildings alone has no effect.

Originally posted by Sandwich
But hey, I'm all for imitating what the US is doing in Iraq - that's actually a great idea. Remove the dude in power through military force and install a governing body friendly to yourself. That's an "ideal" situation - except for the fact that if we did that, the world would clamp down on us - hard. They disapproved of the US's actions strongly enough as it is. Isael would get mashed by international pressure - including, most likely, pressure from the US themselves.

 

It wouldn`t work. The difference is that Saddams own people hate him. He rules through fear and terror. The same thing was going on in Afghanistan with the Taliban. A dictator who rules through fear can easily be deposed in that manner.

Arafat on the other hand isn`t percieved that way by the public. If you depose him and set up a government by election you`ll simply get someone even more hardline than he is. If you simply install someone you like You'll soon find that the Palestinians don`t respect them and view them as your puppets. Most likely anyone you put in place would be assassinated before the end of the year.

The problem is that Israel view this as a problem that can be solved by force and it isn`t. Yes you need to use force to keep the terrorists at bay but you can`t solve this problem through military channels alone. While you continue to think you can you`ll never have peace.