Summary of Israeli Casualties from Terrorism

[nino_savatte]

Oooh, I wonder .

Go on then, put your money where your mouth is and have a go at explaining it. Better still, why not post up examples of were I have used this sort of language. You won't find any.

 

[Spymaster]

Go on then, put your money where your mouth is and have a go at explaining it. Better still, why not post up examples of were I have used this sort of language.

Nino, you expect me to pander to your ego as well as your mania?

a) Why make this about you, when it's quite clear that I'm remarking on the general feeling on these boards?

b) it is perfectly obvious to anyone with a working brain, functioning eyesight and no agenda, that the treatment meted out to pro-Zionist posters is substantially different to those that "tow the line". This is also what the poster Fullyplumped was referring to on this thread.

 

[Grandma Death]

b) it is perfectly obvious to anyone with a working brain, functioning eyesight and no agenda, that the treatment meted out to pro-Zionist posters is substantially different to those that "tow the line". This is also what the poster Fullyplumped was referring to on this thread.

I think you are mistaking hostility to Rach as evidence of some sort of 'bullying culture' on the ME forum.

 

[rachamim18]

Rose: I have some more replying to do on your previous post, etc. but wish to point out a couple of things with regard to your latest post;

"The definitions Rachamim offered are PROPOSED definitions at the UN.": Not at all. I would imagine you merely gather your information via the net and are referring to the 2005 move by the Sec. General to impose a standardised definition as opposed to the multitude now serving as OFFICIAL definitions. That 2005 move does not negate the acceptability , BY THE UN< of the aofrem mentioned (by me) definitions. All listed are considered official because they may be used on official UN documentation.

As I probably also said, the only issue is among so called non-aligned nations, primarily Arab and their lackeys as to wording because THEY wish to make a point that "National Resistance" should not be considered to eb terrorism NO MATTER THE METHODOLOGY. This of course is ridiculous and not at all acceptable to any rational person and this is what prevents a UNIVERSAL DEFINTION.

There is a distinct difference between universal definitions and accepted and official definitions. I suggest you leanr that difference and take it to heart. Of course in the end, as always, the choice is yours. Given your actions regarding the other thread involving the PA, I do not expect you to assume a rational line in this area either. Your loss.

"The 12 of existing 13 UN Conventions on Terrorism" do not define terrorism.": Who said they did? I said they defined acts and they do. However the UN does have official definitions. Play games all day long but in the end nothing changes. I admire tecanity but have seen where it can certainly be a fault and not a positive attribute.


"Copy old school books.": I believe I made it clear that none of what I posted came from any books. In Officer College we take a full semester of International Law, and a full semester course load just on terrorism and its pplications via International Law. I would imagine, although it is not a certainty, that this would offer me just a td bit more insight into the matter than a person skimming the net and maintaining that the PA never had a Security Ministry BUT had a Constitution... That brouhaha right there shows one that you are not thinking clearly . Is it any real suprise then to imagine you just might be off on this subject as well?

Taking any amount of courses on any subject is not going to guarantee a real understanding on any subject but it does offer one a distinct advantage. If you weant to really denigrate me pull one of your much talked about sources that states there is no ACCEPTED DEFINITION AT THE UN, or NO OFFICIAL DEFINITION. Actually, knowing the UN as I do I should not ask for that because I could easily see the UN saying one thing on one page and saying another on the very next page.

The bottonm lineis that the UN DOES have official and accepted definitions and this is a given seeing as how they must in order to compose any Convention. You cannot address a subject without defining just what that subject is.

Then you make the audacious claim that the L. of Nations Definition is not acceptable. Tell me, when did YOU decide this? Perhaps you ought to make some sort of campaign to let the rest of the International Community in on the secret.



"Dr. von Herik": No offence but she is a noone. Is she smployed by the UN, like...say...SCHMID? IS she employed in the UN in the Terrorism Section? LIKE SCHMID? IS it getting a bit clearer to you yet? S-C-M-I-D? You know, that non-entity who authored the Academic Consensus as well as the Reolution Language Definitions? See, I tried to be gentle and approach it with kidgloves but you just fail to assimilate the infromation. Let us see...S-C-H-M-I-D 1988?

Just skimming her piece I would gamble that it relattes to the push for a UNIVERSAL DEFINITION, as I mentioned just before.

As for an anvadced army, I am an Infantryman-Paratrooper and the only computer I use at all is/was a hand held advanced calculator when sniping. As an officer I did not use one at all except via a sub in a Checkpoint using data entry and com. You might have better luck asking an Artilleryman or someone in Armour.

I obviously know how to use a PC because I am in this forum. However, I do not normally use computers for research and on this prticular subject do not need to research anything unless you or someone else maintains something revolutionary has happened with this subject matter within the last 13 months. If not, I have it down pat. It was my job which you seem not to realise. That does not make me infalible but I am self assured that I did my job well, and indeed my superiors have said as much. Given that, I think it is safe to say that I do not need to research it anymore at all.

 

[CyberRose]

Rose: I have some more replying to do on your previous post, etc. but wish to point out a couple of things with regard to your latest post

No links, no evidence, try again

 

[Grandma Death]

No links, no evidence, try again

Now you've lost the argument by asking for links CR

 

[rachamim18]

Rose:On this you ought to listen to Grandma. I am not here to have a contest. If you do not car enough about truth to verify what I have stated then I say to each their own. AS I did in the other thread I will simply let you pretend you have proved something.

 

[Grandma Death]

Rose:On this you ought to listen to Grandma. I am not here to have a contest. If you do not car enough about truth to verify what I have stated then I say to each their own. AS I did in the other thread I will simply let you pretend you have proved something.

So now you are refusing to point blank provide any evidence Rach-do you realise how absurd you're beginning to sound?

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino, you expect me to pander to your ego as well as your mania?

a) Why make this about you, when it's quite clear that I'm remarking on the general feeling on these boards?

b) it is perfectly obvious to anyone with a working brain, functioning eyesight and no agenda, that the treatment meted out to pro-Zionist posters is substantially different to those that "tow the line". This is also what the poster Fullyplumped was referring to on this thread.

You're behaving like a bit of tool - non? Are you related to phildwyer by any chance?

It's ironic how you use the words "ego" and "mania" when you refer to me. Have you ever taken a good long, look at yourself? Probably not.

 

[CyberRose]

Rose:On this you ought to listen to Grandma. I am not here to have a contest. If you do not car enough about truth to verify what I have stated then I say to each their own. AS I did in the other thread I will simply let you pretend you have proved something.

I've backed up everything I've said with evidence and links, if you can't find any evidence to back up what you say, it suggests that what you've said is wrong

 

[ViolentPanda]

...... but only if they're Zionists.

Anyone conforming to the standard lefty "Zionist are scumbags" line, is free to post whatever they like, as long as they can support their assertions with a link or two from Btzelem or some other equally neutral source.

Wrong.
For instance, look up the poster "cemertyone" 's posts on this forum, and count how many times I ripped him a new arsehole even though he was a "lefty anti-Zionist" who often posted links to fairly "neutral" sources such as national newspaper websites.
It's about context, try to remember that.

 

[Spymaster]

Wrong.
For instance, look up the poster "cemertyone" 's posts on this forum, and count how many times I ripped him a new arsehole even though he was a "lefty anti-Zionist" who often posted links to fairly "neutral" sources such as national newspaper websites.
It's about context, try to remember that.

Yes, but you are a more reasonable individual than the majority of the posters who form the bulk of what I refer to as "lefty anti-zionist".

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

No Arabs have died from terroism and that should be the measuring stick, not car accidents.

Fact is, most Arab deaths attributed to Israel are in fact deaths at the hands of other Arabs. Look at the Intifadeh I which was the only one where Israel really kept statistics on that manner of death. 1100 killed by their fellow Arabs and that is only noting cases where Israel had third party corroboration. Imagine how many others there were?

As I have recently noted, guns are a huge fact of Arab life in every Arab region on Earth. The first law signed by the then new president of Lebanon? A law banning gun fire in celebrations. Why? Celebrants noting that president's election victory had been firing their guns in the air and in 2 separate incidents the evening before had caused the deaths of 2 little girls!

When a "Palestinian" dies there is no autopsy, EVER. This is due to both religion AND culture. While it is possible SOMETIMES to ascertain the type of round, they NEVER can tell you the grain count. We use VERY specific rounds, all 5s and 7s NATO, but with a custom count so it would be quite easy to at least ascertain the provenance of the round. As stated, they do not even do that!

In a place absolutely innundated with CCTY and people including foreign Activists noone can ever produce a shred of proof. If you EVER visit those areas you will find that every Activist (almost every,although it seems like all) carry cameras and quite a number carry video cams. No pics? No film? Nope. Instead you get garbage like the "movie" shot by an elderly "Palestinian" woman who claims 4 "Settlers" from the center of the so calle d"WB" beat her in the face with baseball bats!

No marks even after being batted in the face! No film of the supposed attack! No film of them leaving OR returning to the "Settlement." Only film of 4 men with shirts over their faces, showing stomachs. Problem of course is that all "Settlers" in that part of the so called "WB" are ultra religious! None would be without skullcap (Keepah), fringes (Tzittzit), or showing any part of their body outside of forearms and upper neck!!! Had she claimed it was in Ariel or in the Metro Consolidation Envelope (E. Jerusalem) she might have had people (inside Israel that is) take her seriously.

Sadly police are forced to arrest people and investigate something they know to be false.

Or it is a film like the 14 year old Arab giel in Ni'ilin who films a "Palestinian" protestor, cuffed on the ground, "being shot in the foot with a rubber bullet." His injuries? A "swollen toe!" Ordnance that is lethal within 25 feet causes a swollen toe? A film that miraculously only shows a rifle aimed down range, not at the ground, and does not show the soldier even firing let alone firing down!!!

Sadly the IDF is forced to investigate charges they know to be false.

This is what passes for information in the Arab World and tools that propogate it.


Then, when talking of Arab deaths, in those cases that ARE actually caused by Israelis, how many took place in armed confrontations iniated by Arabs? We are talking about, literally, the most densely populated area on the planet. Is it any wonder that a highly trained force confronting armed terrorists violating International AND local laws would inflict greater casualties than a relatively untrained rabble who has no reghard for their neighbours' and families' safety? Were the IDF to NOT inflict a greater number one should ask why not. Israel would be remiss.

If you choose to fire 120 mm rockets from bushes outside your neighbour's home, it is a safe assumption to think Israel will neutralise that exact launch site. This is not a question one asks a genius. It is very basic common sense. The thing is that the Arabs count on it and want it. They believe in martyrdom, many wish for it. Others have no feelings of guilt for making people take it regardless because in their warped and pitiful minds the Arab victims will be going to their just reward.

I do find it really sad that you don't seem to value Arab lives as much as you do Israeli. Sad, very sad.

It's appalling that Israeli lives are lost in this conflict.

It's appalling that Arab lives are lost in this conflict.

Full stop.

 

[Spymaster]

I do find it really sad that you don't seem to value Arab lives as much as you do Israeli.

It may be "sad" but it's perfectly understandable, no?

Do you think his opponents value Israeli lives as much as those of Arabs?

If you were at war, fighting for what you believe to be a just cause, would you value the lives of your adversaries as much as your own? Would you value the lives of people who wish you and your family dead, at all?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It may be "sad" but it's perfectly understandable, no?

Do you think his opponents value Israeli lives as much as those of Arabs?

If you were at war, fighting for what you believe to be a just cause, would you value the lives of your adversaries as much as your own? Would you value the lives of people who wish you and your family dead, at all?

All of which misses the point that unless someone is coming at you with a gun in their hand, or you have world-conqueringly good human and signals intel (which, btw, no-one does. Intelligence by it's very nature is fallible; 50% rumour, 50% Chinese whispers), you don't know which of those people want you dead.

If you're a soldier in a legally-mandated military force faced with that, you're obligated to exercise circumspection and caution, to not treat everyone as an enemy.

BTW, never trust a soldier who claims to be fighting for a cause. Fanatics aren't over-concerned about "collateral damage" caused while achieving their aims.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

It may be "sad" but it's perfectly understandable, no?

Do you think his opponents value Israeli lives as much as those of Arabs?

If you were at war, fighting for what you believe to be a just cause, would you value the lives of your adversaries as much as your own? Would you value the lives of people who wish you and your family dead, at all?

Ostensibly, as a British person, a citizen of nation engaged in warfare, I am at war with people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And yes, I do value Iraqi and Afghan lives. As much as I value Palestinian lives. As much as I value Israeli lives.

We're all human ffs!

I can't understand the mindset that some lives are worth more than others.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

...Would you value the lives of people who wish you and your family dead, at all?

Y'see this is where you have a choice. You can wish people dead on the basis that you believe they wish you dead. Or you can hope that maybe by not wishing other people dead yourself, then other people won't want to kill you and your family.

You can't choose what other people believe, only what you yourself believe.

The more and more people wish each other dead, you're going to have people acting on that and you end up with tit-for-tat violence.

The fewer people wish each other dead, others won't feel threatened and go round trying to kill other people.

 

[Spymaster]

I can't understand the mindset that some lives are worth more than others.

The lives of your parents aren't worth more to you than the lives of mine?

 

[ViolentPanda]

The lives of your parents aren't worth more to you than the lives of mine?

On a purely emotional level they might be, but if you remove the emotional factor, how can one life have more value than another?

 

[Spymaster]

On a purely emotional level they might be, but if you remove the emotional factor, how can one life have more value than another?

My question contained the phrase "to you".

My parents are more valuable to me, than yours are to me and not just emotionally.

 

[Spymaster]

Y'see this is where you have a choice. You can wish people dead on the basis that you believe they wish you dead. Or you can hope that maybe by not wishing other people dead yourself, then other people won't want to kill you and your family.

You can't choose what other people believe, only what you yourself believe.

The more and more people wish each other dead, you're going to have people acting on that and you end up with tit-for-tat violence.

The fewer people wish each other dead, others won't feel threatened and go round trying to kill other people.

Again Ann this is all well and good, very noble and all that but we're back to Granny's Panglossian world aren't we?

You say that you can only choose what you believe, but surely your beliefs are informed by what you know that others believe about you?

The situation in the middle east is totally polarised. Certain Arabs want to kill all the jews and destroy the state of Israel. Whilst these people exist Israel is going to have to defend itself. What can they do? Get out of the settlements? withdraw to the '67 lines? That won't change a thing, a few months later the attacks will probably start again only this time from closer, then what?

Only the Islamic extremists can stop it afaics cos Israel ain't going nowhere. That would mean a cessation of all terrorist actions and the implementation of a 2 state solution (imo) and that ain't gonna happen.

Meantime the hating continues and each side (very understandably) values their teams' lives more highly than they do the others.

 

[Grandma Death]

Only the Islamic extremists can stop it afaics cos Israel ain't going nowhere. .

I have to say ^^^^^ this is one of the most naive posts I have ever read.

 

[Spymaster]

I have to say ^^^^^ this is one of the most naive posts I have ever read.

Why?

Come on. None of your meaningless one liners.

Why is that a naive post? Do you know whar naive means?

 

[derf]

All those threads about some Palestinian being shot with a rubber bullet, but something like this: no interest.

Hats off to the balanced, objective readers of U75.

Cos the fucking conflict is equally unbalanced.

US supplied forces killing kids with stones trying to make the point that they don't need a fucking Israeli bulldozer knocking down their home.

I don't like terrorism but the Palestinians are fighting for the land that Israel invaded so that seems more like war to me.

 

[nino_savatte]

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/israel0502-05.htm#P234_38516

 

[Grandma Death]

Why?

Come on. None of your meaningless one liners.

Why is that a naive post? Do you know whar naive means?

Of course I know what it means-I wouldnt have posted it if I didnt.

Its naive because you are shifting the onus of peace on to the 'terrorists'.

 

[ViolentPanda]

My question contained the phrase "to you".

My parents are more valuable to me, than yours are to me and not just emotionally.

And there, in your second sentence, is encapsulated the main reason why the Israel/Palestine issue is contentious; an adherence to kin (and also in Israel to "clan" and ethnicity) that subsumes any idea of a common good.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The situation in the middle east is totally polarised. Certain Arabs want to kill all the jews and destroy the state of Israel.

If it's a question of "certain Arabs", then the situation is hardly "totally polarised", is it?

Whilst these people exist Israel is going to have to defend itself. What can they do? Get out of the settlements? withdraw to the '67 lines? That won't change a thing, a few months later the attacks will probably start again only this time from closer, then what?

Mmm, so because you see withdrawal as a counsel of despair that will provoke attacks, you'd rather nothing was done, which will, of course, perpetuate the violence.
Well thought-out, that man.

Only the Islamic extremists can stop it afaics cos Israel ain't going nowhere. That would mean a cessation of all terrorist actions and the implementation of a 2 state solution (imo) and that ain't gonna happen.

"Islamic extremists"? You've been reading too many of JHE's posts.
FATAH were/are a mostly secular organisation. HAMAS (a creation, lest you've forgotten, of the state of Israel's intelligence services, a creation to draw support from the secular rationalist FATAH to a religiously-based militant Palestinian organisation) are religious. Guess who's been responsible for the most "terrorist" violence?

Meantime the hating continues and each side (very understandably) values their teams' lives more highly than they do the others.

It's far easier to hate blindly than to try to understand. Especially when there are political and economic interests that feed such hate.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

The lives of your parents aren't worth more to you than the lives of mine?

Unfortunately, that's a poor choice, I haven't seen my parents for decades, don't give a shit about either of them.

Even if I did give a shit about them, what are you suggesting I think?

(a) That maybe someone should kill your folks instead of mine?

(b) Or maybe if someone kills my folks, then someone should kill yours in retaliation?

I can't conceive of any circumstances in which I'd support (a) and as for (b) would that bring your parents back? Nope. Would it spark more tit-for-tat killing? Probably.

All of it illogical.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Again Ann this is all well and good, very noble and all that but we're back to Granny's Panglossian world aren't we?

You say that you can only choose what you believe, but surely your beliefs are informed by what you know that others believe about you?

The situation in the middle east is totally polarised.

Agreed on all points, well except the bit about Granny's Panglossian world, because I can't be arsed Googling Panglossian. And except with a tiny amendment.

I agree people's beliefs are informed by what *they believe* they know about what others belief about them

I agree the situation in the Middle East is polarised.

Certain Arabs want to kill all the jews and destroy the state of Israel. Whilst these people exist Israel is going to have to defend itself. What can they do? Get out of the settlements? withdraw to the '67 lines? That won't change a thing, a few months later the attacks will probably start again only this time from closer, then what?

Alternatively:

Certain extremist Jews want to kill all the Palestinians and acquire all the Palestinian occupied territories. Whilst these extremist Jews exist Palestinians are going to have to defend themselves. What can they do? Leave their homes they've always occupied, leave the refugee camps they moved to when their land was 'acquired' between 1948 and 1967? Give up and hand over all their land to the extremist Jewish settlers?

Nothing will change, the extremist Jewish settlers will continue encroaching on Palestinian land, either individually through illegal settlements or through state-sponsored land grabs for the separation barrier, and so a few months later the attacks will probably start again only this time from closer, then what?

Only the Islamic extremists can stop it afaics cos Israel ain't going nowhere. That would mean a cessation of all terrorist actions and the implementation of a 2 state solution (imo) and that ain't gonna happen.

Alternatively:

Only the Jewish extremists can stop it afaics cos Palestinians ain't going nowhere. That would mean a cessation of all state-sponsored terrorist actions and the implementation of a 2 state solution (imo) and that has to happen if the Israelis actually want the peace they profess they do.

Meantime the hating continues and each side (very understandably) values their teams' lives more highly than they do the others.

Meantime, people could stop hating and realise that just as their parents have children, have brothers and sisters and loved ones, the people on the 'other side' also have family and loved ones.



NB: I'm just mirroring your argument here. If you'd written the version I've given, I've have probably written something similar to yours back to you. Either way, all the killing is futile and isn't going to solve the underlying problem of illegal settlements and land grabs contrary to international law.