Attacks on Civilians

[sealadaigh]

the unfortunate aspect about this whole things is that the palestinians are fighting a very righteous war but are using very stupid tactics. if they had targeted only the military, economic, and political aspects of israeli society they would have either won long ago or at least be well on their way.

what we have is the palestinians with a mideastern mindset waging battle with israelis with a western/european mindset, the palestinians need too reaalise that this will be won on the streets and colege campuses in america and killing non-combatants isn't going to help them at all. zionists use that against them very effectively.

fortunately, they are beginning to figure that out.

The reality is killing of civilians by Palestinians is substantially smaller in numbers than Israel killing of civilians. ALL one has to do is go to Btselem fatality tables and see this. HERE is something I discovered, Israel has killed over 500 Palestinian children in the past 5 years, Hamas has killed 1 Israeli child in that very same time frame.

So, Frau Sherri, have you come up with some Muslim organization that can tell us how many children have been killed by Muslims, or don't you or your friends care about these children? You keep going on and on about children killed by Israelis like some broken record (of course the death of any child is heartbreaking), but more children are being killed in this world by your Muslim friends. How come you don't spend any time on even one other forum talking about the children which are killed in the Muslim world -- children who are Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and even Muslim children of different sects? I wonder, since Frau Sherri seems to be obsessed with numbers, can she possibly tell us how many Buddhist children have been killed in Thailand by Muslims versus the number of Muslim children killed by Buddhists there? Maybe she can also supply us with the figures of the number of Shiite and Ahmadi Muslim children killed by Sunnis in Pakistan and vice versa.

how many muslims, catholics, or buddhists have been caught up in ponzi schemes, spying on their allies, or selling life giving organs out of the back of vans, hoss. how many mislims, catholics, or buddhists have tried to fix the world series, hoss. maybe you can tell us that.

don't you believe poor people deserve life giving organs and these organs should be assigned to people based upon need, or do you think money buys everything? do you prostrate yourself beore the almighty mammon? how much money is a one way ticket to jesusland going for nowadays, hoss...and can i buy a roll of tickets for the ride.

 

[sealadaigh]

The point may be moot for the occupying Israelis, but is not to most of the known world...Yes, Israel has the Military Power in the ME equation, but I suspect resistance will continue until they exhaust the occupier...It has worked for them thus far, unless a real peace is at least tried...maybe a peace dividend for the area would produce recognition and acceptance.

the unfortunate aspect about this whole things is that the palestinians are fighting a very righteous war but are using very stupid tactics. if they had targeted only the military, economic, and political aspects of israeli society they would have either won long ago or at least be well on their way.

what we have is the palestinians with a mideastern mindset waging battle with israelis with a western/european mindset, the palestinians need too reaalise that this will be won on the streets and colege campuses in america and killing non-combatants isn't going to help them at all. zionists use that against them very effectively.

fortunately, they are beginning to figure that out.

The reality is killing of civilians by Palestinians is substantially smaller in numbers than Israel killing of civilians. ALL one has to do is go to Btselem fatality tables and see this. HERE is something I discovered, Israel has killed over 500 Palestinian children in the past 5 years, Hamas has killed 1 Israeli child in that very same time frame.

B'tselem does a lot of good work, especially when it comes to recording events and accumulating data and statistics. they are great advocates and staunch defenders of human rights. my only objection to them is when they step out of their forte. i think they have aa black and white approach, a simplistic approach to things.

 

[sealadaigh]

I do not support the use of terror and violence against civilians in conflicts either. I acknowledge both Israel and Palestinians engage in it.

i think people really are getting hung up on this term, "civilians".

i bet this whole conversation would be taking a different course if we began talking about "colonialists" and/or "planters" and "native people".

"civilians" are not sacrosanct. i recall an incident where a jewish israeli civilian was attacked and killed by a palestinian mob. the civilian was armed and his name was baruch goldstein.

were the fortune seekers who flooded paha sapa looking for gold and destroying the lakota's buffalo herds, threatening that people's very existence, were they civilians? you bet they were...and they were protected by the U.S. military.

i think you have o take each case and look at it individually.

 

[patrickcaturday]

I just finished reading this thread and it has been a good discussion so far. Non-combatant deaths have always been a part of warfare. I am not excusing it, I am just stating a fact. The barbarity of that only really takes place when non-combatants are willfully targeted. Don't fool yourself both side are guilty of this but what really causes it is the disparity of technology. The only way that the Gazans can strike is to use unaimed rockets, Israel on the other hand has the best weapons that money can provide and yet still seems to kill many non-combatants. It is the same problem that we had with " Shock and Awe. The sole purpose of this tactic was to intimidate the Iraqis into not supporting Saddam. I remember some Israeli General said that the whole purpose of Cast Lead was to get the Gazans to throw out Hamas. I don't like to use the word, however when non-combatants are terrorized for political reasons then that is terrorism. Maybe we need to go back to the 18th and 19th centuries, arm the armies equally and then march them out into open fields and let them have at it.

 

[pbel]

I find your comment a prime example of Palestinian mentality. Consider the facts:

The Palestinians attack & kill Israeli's.

Israel retaliates.

And you complain about how many more Palestinians wind up dead than Israeli's.

the unfortunate aspect about this whole things is that the palestinians are fighting a very righteous war but are using very stupid tactics. if they had targeted only the military, economic, and political aspects of israeli society they would have either won long ago or at least be well on their way.

what we have is the palestinians with a mideastern mindset waging battle with israelis with a western/european mindset, the palestinians need too reaalise that this will be won on the streets and colege campuses in america and killing non-combatants isn't going to help them at all. zionists use that against them very effectively.

fortunately, they are beginning to figure that out.

The reality is killing of civilians by Palestinians is substantially smaller in numbers than Israel killing of civilians. ALL one has to do is go to Btselem fatality tables and see this. HERE is something I discovered, Israel has killed over 500 Palestinian children in the past 5 years, Hamas has killed 1 Israeli child in that very same time frame.

Kinda sounds like all occupations...How about the WWll Resistance fighters in France? Were they Terrorists? Occupations are a Tit for Tat affair...it sucks to see babies killed, it's so un-natural, but desperate people who hate each other do desperate things.

It is a tactic of War.

 

[sealadaigh]

I just finished reading this thread and it has been a good discussion so far. Non-combatant deaths have always been a part of warfare. I am not excusing it, I am just stating a fact. The barbarity of that only really takes place when non-combatants are willfully targeted. Don't fool yourself both side are guilty of this but what really causes it is the disparity of technology. The only way that the Gazans can strike is to use unaimed rockets, Israel on the other hand has the best weapons that money can provide and yet still seems to kill many non-combatants. It is the same problem that we had with " Shock and Awe. The sole purpose of this tactic was to intimidate the Iraqis into not supporting Saddam. I remember some Israeli General said that the whole purpose of Cast Lead was to get the Gazans to throw out Hamas. I don't like to use the word, however when non-combatants are terrorized for political reasons then that is terrorism. Maybe we need to go back to the 18th and 19th centuries, arm the armies equally and then march them out into open fields and let them have at it.

i think you have to set the bar highter than that. as an ex-artilleryman i think not targeting civilians is insufficient. i think you cannot be negligent of civilians in a mission directed at a legitimate target and, in fact, you have some obligation to protect them.

on the other side of the coin is human shieldss. there are two kinds o human shields. voluntary and involuntary. i think most of the human shields used by HAMAS were voluntary, where the civilian population willingly surrounded some positions so that, in SOME cases, eliminates their immunity, or at least qualifies it.

you really do have to take these things on a case by case basis but as a very general rule, civilians are to be protected.

 

[patrickcaturday]

I just finished reading this thread and it has been a good discussion so far. Non-combatant deaths have always been a part of warfare. I am not excusing it, I am just stating a fact. The barbarity of that only really takes place when non-combatants are willfully targeted. Don't fool yourself both side are guilty of this but what really causes it is the disparity of technology. The only way that the Gazans can strike is to use unaimed rockets, Israel on the other hand has the best weapons that money can provide and yet still seems to kill many non-combatants. It is the same problem that we had with " Shock and Awe. The sole purpose of this tactic was to intimidate the Iraqis into not supporting Saddam. I remember some Israeli General said that the whole purpose of Cast Lead was to get the Gazans to throw out Hamas. I don't like to use the word, however when non-combatants are terrorized for political reasons then that is terrorism. Maybe we need to go back to the 18th and 19th centuries, arm the armies equally and then march them out into open fields and let them have at it.

i think you have to set the bar highter than that. as an ex-artilleryman i think not targeting civilians is insufficient. i think you cannot be negligent of civilians in a mission directed at a legitimate target and, in fact, you have some obligation to protect them.

on the other side of the coin is human shieldss. there are two kinds o human shields. voluntary and involuntary. i think most of the human shields used by HAMAS were voluntary, where the civilian population willingly surrounded some positions so that, in SOME cases, eliminates their immunity, or at least qualifies it.

you really do have to take these things on a case by case basis but as a very general rule, civilians are to be protected.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I do not think you and I are in disagreement, you are obviously right that all of these things need to be taken on a case by case basis. The main point I was trying to make was that when civilians are deliberately targeted that is barbaric and should be prohibited.

1/2 hour later;
On further reflection I think I understand your concern and you are right thr bar should be set higher !!!

 

[editec]

There has NEVER been a time when people are at war when CIVILIANS were not targeted.

Some of you apparently have been misinformed about that fact.

Another cherished myth that ya'll learned from movies are something, I suppose.

In most wars, more civilians die that soldiers.

If not from direct assaults by the military (which IS quite commonly done in history, I note) then they die because their means of survival are stolen, confiscated or destroyed.

 

[Coyote]

(2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

That's awesome. Israel isn't occupying any Palestinian land, so all Israeli civilians are protected. Glad you agree.

Wrong.

ALL civilians are protected.

I agree. Israeli civilians can't be targeted. They're protected. Despite Tinny's claim.

Israeli civilians ARE occupying Palestinian territory. However they are still civilians and protected as are Palestinian civilians.

 

[Coyote]

I just finished reading this thread and it has been a good discussion so far. Non-combatant deaths have always been a part of warfare. I am not excusing it, I am just stating a fact. The barbarity of that only really takes place when non-combatants are willfully targeted. Don't fool yourself both side are guilty of this but what really causes it is the disparity of technology. The only way that the Gazans can strike is to use unaimed rockets, Israel on the other hand has the best weapons that money can provide and yet still seems to kill many non-combatants. It is the same problem that we had with " Shock and Awe. The sole purpose of this tactic was to intimidate the Iraqis into not supporting Saddam. I remember some Israeli General said that the whole purpose of Cast Lead was to get the Gazans to throw out Hamas. I don't like to use the word, however when non-combatants are terrorized for political reasons then that is terrorism. Maybe we need to go back to the 18th and 19th centuries, arm the armies equally and then march them out into open fields and let them have at it.

i think you have to set the bar highter than that. as an ex-artilleryman i think not targeting civilians is insufficient. i think you cannot be negligent of civilians in a mission directed at a legitimate target and, in fact, you have some obligation to protect them.

on the other side of the coin is human shieldss. there are two kinds o human shields. voluntary and involuntary. i think most of the human shields used by HAMAS were voluntary, where the civilian population willingly surrounded some positions so that, in SOME cases, eliminates their immunity, or at least qualifies it.

you really do have to take these things on a case by case basis but as a very general rule, civilians are to be protected.

I agree - when targeting is careless of civilians, then it is no different than deliberately targeting them.

Human shields though....you make excellent points, I had not thought of it in that way before - good post! Wish I could give you rep

 

[pbel]

Wrong.

ALL civilians are protected.

I agree. Israeli civilians can't be targeted. They're protected. Despite Tinny's claim.

Israeli civilians ARE occupying Palestinian territory. However they are still civilians and protected as are Palestinian civilians.

Settlers are an extension of Military Power...I mean, can we parachute a million setlers in a foreign enemies camps and call them civilian Settlers who happen to be armed to the teeth with IDF back-up?

No they are Mercenary Soldiers!

 

[Coyote]

I agree. Israeli civilians can't be targeted. They're protected. Despite Tinny's claim.

Israeli civilians ARE occupying Palestinian territory. However they are still civilians and protected as are Palestinian civilians.

Settlers are an extension of Military Power...I mean, can we parachute a million setlers in a foreign enemies camps and call them civilian Settlers who happen to be armed to the teeth with IDF back-up?

No they are Mercenary Soldiers!

Not according to international law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Wrong.

ALL civilians are protected.

I agree. Israeli civilians can't be targeted. They're protected. Despite Tinny's claim.

Israeli civilians ARE occupying Palestinian territory. However they are still civilians and protected as are Palestinian civilians.

The confusing part is that "civilians" is not the definitive term. The proper term is "protected persons." Most civilians are protected persons. Some are not. Just saying civilians does not define their protected status and can be misleading.

The nationals of an occupying power are excluded.

 

[Hossfly]

I just finished reading this thread and it has been a good discussion so far. Non-combatant deaths have always been a part of warfare. I am not excusing it, I am just stating a fact. The barbarity of that only really takes place when non-combatants are willfully targeted. Don't fool yourself both side are guilty of this but what really causes it is the disparity of technology. The only way that the Gazans can strike is to use unaimed rockets, Israel on the other hand has the best weapons that money can provide and yet still seems to kill many non-combatants. It is the same problem that we had with " Shock and Awe. The sole purpose of this tactic was to intimidate the Iraqis into not supporting Saddam. I remember some Israeli General said that the whole purpose of Cast Lead was to get the Gazans to throw out Hamas. I don't like to use the word, however when non-combatants are terrorized for political reasons then that is terrorism. Maybe we need to go back to the 18th and 19th centuries, arm the armies equally and then march them out into open fields and let them have at it.

i think you have to set the bar highter than that. as an ex-artilleryman i think not targeting civilians is insufficient. i think you cannot be negligent of civilians in a mission directed at a legitimate target and, in fact, you have some obligation to protect them.

on the other side of the coin is human shieldss. there are two kinds o human shields. voluntary and involuntary. i think most of the human shields used by HAMAS were voluntary, where the civilian population willingly surrounded some positions so that, in SOME cases, eliminates their immunity, or at least qualifies it.

you really do have to take these things on a case by case basis but as a very general rule, civilians are to be protected.

I agree - when targeting is careless of civilians, then it is no different than deliberately targeting them.

Human shields though....you make excellent points, I had not thought of it in that way before - good post! Wish I could give you rep

Maybe I dreamed this but I seem to remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam held televised press conferences in his palace with many British, American and other foreign national civilians in attendence. While he explained his agenda, split screen shots of strategic locations were shown with foreign nationals held as human shields as well as volunteer do-gooder human shields. Afterwards, on American news shows, panels of military and civilian experts gave their opinions and analysis. I can remember the amazement of the civilians when everyone was asked how this would affect any strategey if we attacked Baghdad and the generals were all in agreement that those civilians would be honored for dying for their countries. That's the nature of war.
Don't anyone ask for any links. Get yer Googler busy. My words.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is no occupied Palestinian territory.

Jesus wept....as the OP has already pointed out, even Israel refers to the OT as OT.

One thing everyone can agree on is that Gaza WAS occupied, and that the West Bank still is.

Israel didn't seize any land from Palestine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only God knows what could have been had the Palestinians and Arab states chosen a non-violent means of achieving their goal to have a legitimate state.

Palestinian resistance within Israel was non-violent for a very long time - certainly from 1973 until the First Intifidah, which itself promoted the use of non-lethal force, such as stone throwing and not bombs or shooting.

The problem is that political resistance seemed to be interpreted by Israel as a sign of resignation and exploited.

I do not support the use of terror or violence against civilians in any conflict, but I do think that the First Intifadah succeeded in at least drawing global attention back to a conflict that had disappeared from our TV screens for a decade at that point.

The last suicide bombing was 7 years ago, but if you read this board you would think it was yesterday. AND of course, the supporters of Israels killings of Palestinians do not mention those over 1500 Palestinian children killed and over 8000 Palestinians killed, the majority of whom were civilians.

The wall works. They should have built it sooner.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What makes me sick is this double standard that says It is OK for Israel to target civilians, but terrorism for Palestinians to do it. HYPOCRISY defines that!

It's obvious the Israelis do no such thing.
And the "Palestinians" do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wrong.

ALL civilians are protected.

I agree. Israeli civilians can't be targeted. They're protected. Despite Tinny's claim.

Israeli civilians ARE occupying Palestinian territory. However they are still civilians and protected as are Palestinian civilians.

There has never been a Palestine, how can Palestinian territory be occupied?

 

[Saigon]

There has never been a Palestine, how can Palestinian territory be occupied?

So the word 'Palestine' did not appear on western maps for 600 years?

What was the British Mandate territory called, by the way?

Seriously, Todd, you are about as many IQ points short of discussing this subject as Hamas is of peaceful leaders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I just finished reading this thread and it has been a good discussion so far. Non-combatant deaths have always been a part of warfare. I am not excusing it, I am just stating a fact. The barbarity of that only really takes place when non-combatants are willfully targeted. Don't fool yourself both side are guilty of this but what really causes it is the disparity of technology. The only way that the Gazans can strike is to use unaimed rockets, Israel on the other hand has the best weapons that money can provide and yet still seems to kill many non-combatants. It is the same problem that we had with " Shock and Awe. The sole purpose of this tactic was to intimidate the Iraqis into not supporting Saddam. I remember some Israeli General said that the whole purpose of Cast Lead was to get the Gazans to throw out Hamas. I don't like to use the word, however when non-combatants are terrorized for political reasons then that is terrorism. Maybe we need to go back to the 18th and 19th centuries, arm the armies equally and then march them out into open fields and let them have at it.

i think you have to set the bar highter than that. as an ex-artilleryman i think not targeting civilians is insufficient. i think you cannot be negligent of civilians in a mission directed at a legitimate target and, in fact, you have some obligation to protect them.

on the other side of the coin is human shieldss. there are two kinds o human shields. voluntary and involuntary. i think most of the human shields used by HAMAS were voluntary, where the civilian population willingly surrounded some positions so that, in SOME cases, eliminates their immunity, or at least qualifies it.

you really do have to take these things on a case by case basis but as a very general rule, civilians are to be protected.

I agree - when targeting is careless of civilians, then it is no different than deliberately targeting them.

Human shields though....you make excellent points, I had not thought of it in that way before - good post! Wish I could give you rep

Like when Israel drops a bomb on an apartment building because a militant lived there. Twenty some civilians were killed, many injured.

Israels response: We did not target those civilians.