BF2S Forums Palestinian terror attacks. Maybe they bring it on themselves?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Centrism would be recognizing both positive and negative on both sides. You excuse Hamas' behavior because the Palestinian people have been treated badly by the Israelis, the Arabs, and the international community at large. But you don't excuse Israel's behavior despite the poor treatment of the Jewish people throughout history...primarily by Europeans.

Its reasonable for Hamas to be attacking the Israelis in response to invasion and daily attacks by the Israelis.

What "daily attacks" would those be? Seems to me that Israel was the one that honored the ceasefire...unlike Hamas. In fact, Israel honored the ceasefire in spite of Hamas violating it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Israels behaviour towards the Palestinians is not a reasonable response to the actions of the Germans 60 years ago, (and after the Zionist project had already begun in Palestine).

So when it comes to the Israelis you're ready to find any excuse.

And when it comes to Hamas targeting civilians, you will find any excuse. The difference being, there are often (not always) plausible explanations for civilian deaths at the hands of the Israelis...explanations other than the IDF targeting civilians. The only explanation for civilian deaths at the hands of Hamas is Hamas' deliberate targeting of civilians. And you seem to think it's perfectly acceptable that they do that.

Do you not realize that if Hamas targeted strictly Israeli government/military personnel/facilities, I would have no beef with them?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PGMs aren't infallible...85% success rates are the norm. Sometimes seekers go stupid. Sometimes the wrong target gets lased or locked. There are far more plausible explanations for the event than deliberate targeting of the UN observers.

Yeah sure, the building was hit four times by accident or due to a technical fault

The building could have very easily hit four times due to errant targeting or a technical glitch. It just depends on if those were in multiple attacks or all in one strike. If it were multiple attacks over multiple days, then there would be some room for discussion of Israeli intent.

Dilbert_X wrote:

How is this any different than any other fratricide or collateral damage situation? It's not.

Attacking a neutral and independent third party whose location is clearly marked and well know to you, whose presence is as much for your protection as for anyone elses, with precision guided weapons is clearly a bit more than 'collateral damage'.

And again, how is that any different than any other fratricide event? Those typically involve clearly marked positions/vehicles whose position is known to a large number of people. It's called "fog of war". Look it up.

Dilbert_X wrote:

But when it comes to the Palestinians you're ready to plain invent stuff completely unsupported by any evidence at all.

Such as?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

They've accomplished nothing except to get themselves labeled as terrorists because they target civilians nearly exclusively.

'Nearly exclusively'? How so? Proof or STFU

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qa … et_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_i … flict_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_i … flict_2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_i … flict_2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_i … flict_2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_i … flict_2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_i … flict_2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_i … flict_2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_i … flict_2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_i … flict_2008

Yes, there are a lot of Palestinian deaths, too. The difference is the targeted nature of the Palestinian militant attacks on settlers and civilians. Those seem to far outweigh the government-associated Israeli deaths.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I guess it's OK that Hamas' basic strategy involved violating the GC and sacrificing Palestinian civilians so they can make Israel look bad

Hamas don't need to lift a finger to make Israel look bad.
Your argument is on a par with saying GWB allowed Bin Laden to take out the two towers so Iraq would look bad.

Of course they don't need to lift a finger. It would take an effort for them to abide by the GC. Can't expect them to do that, now can we?

And my argument is not at all like that. You would see that if you could think in more than one dimension.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I think we've pretty much got an idea of your 'centrism', basically you believe ambrosia flows from the butt of every Israeli.

If not approving of Hamas' stated approval of the targeting of civilians means something as whacked as that in your world, then I guess so.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Here's one for you, did you know Israel is one of the main destinations for trafficked women in the world?
Lots of articles irrelevant to the OP or discussion at hand.

So you can't defend Hamas' barbarism, so you resort to changing the discussion? That shit is abhorrent, but irrelevant to the argument at hand. I have not...NOT ONCE...said the Israelis are blame-free or have not wronged the Palestinians. Re-read the title of the thread.

Bertster7 wrote:

What are you talking about?
Apply what logic? I've outlined how it's completely different. The Israelis screwed the Palestinians over, and so for them to be aggrieved and take it out on the Israelis is understandable. The Jews were screwed over by lots of people, NOT the Palestinians - so it's a totally different scenario.

Can you not see the vast difference.

Acts committed by those involved in the conflict are relevant. Any others are not.

So it's OK that Hamas targets civilians?

If Hamas would target Israeli military/government personnel/facilities as the rule rather than the exception, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Can you not see the vast difference?

Berster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Centrism is looking at both sides objectively. You and those like you are just as guilty of NOT doing that as we in the US are.

First off that's not what centrism is:

centrism

noun
a political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of left and right by taking a moderate position or course of action

Taking a moderate position between the extremes of left and right. The US is one extreme, the ME is another, Europe's position is not only the middle ground, but is also moderate and so satisfies every criteria for being centrist.

Oh FFS, I wasn't looking at a fucking Webster's or Oxford Unabridged when I wrote the damn post. You know exactly what I meant.

Europe's position IS NOT the middle ground, if this board is any indication of Europe's position. Excusing Palestinian attacks against civilians is hardly centrist...it's much more closely aligned to the ME position.

Berster7 wrote:

Secondly, that's not the case at all - I'm very familiar with the history surrounding all of this and prior to that I was a supporter of the Israelis, it's only after I've actually learnt about this conflict that I've found out what a bunch of despicable cunts they are and have been to the Palestinians ever since the Jewish agency became active in Palestine.

Well...how very centrist of you.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I don't know...have you used the term "freedom fighter" to describe them before?

I only describe people who target legitimate military and security targets as freedom fighters and I'm damn sure the mainstream European media wouldn't have used such partisan language to describe them.

But many here have. If not you, then good on you.

Can you think of any specific instances of people saying that on these forums because I doubt that many here would actually call any militant who has killed civilians a freedom fighter? They may have agreed with the Palestinian cause but that doesn't mean you automatically condone the actions of every extremist in the name of said cause.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But many here have. If not you, then good on you.

Can you think of any specific instances of people saying that on these forums because I doubt that many here would actually call any militant who has killed civilians a freedom fighter? They may have agreed with the Palestinian cause but that doesn't mean you automatically condone the actions of every extremist in the name of said cause.

Yes, or else I wouldn't have said it.

Could you post them then? I'm not an advocate of trolling but seen as you remember the specific instances...

Like I say, I'd be surprised if anyone whose opinion is worth considering would claim such a thing.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

The centrist possition on the Nazis would be to describe them as despicable cunts, same as the Maoists and Pol Pots regieme.

Whether the centrist position turns out to be that the group in question are complete fuckers is purely dependent upon the evidence and the crimes committed by the group in question. The centrist view is to accept the overwhelming bulk of evidence on the subject. ie. to look at human rights groups reports, the international court of justice, all the UN deliberation on the topic and unless you have compelling reason to believe that they are all just making it all up, assume that they are right. We'll ignore the opinions of Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel etc. as they are obviously completely biased.

As the US media repeatedly presents the Israel/Palestine issue in terms differing wildly from that of the bulk of the independent watchgroups and international descisions then it's fair to claim tha the US media is more biased than that of Europe, which by any even remotely sensible definition, is hugely pro-Israel itself.

The reasons are reasonably straightforward. The US tax payers are funding Israel, if they knew what was going on there they'd be able to influence the governemnt into stopping it's arms shipments to Israel and stop politicians giving Israel diplomatic cover. It doesn't matter as much what the European populace think because there's less that they can do about it.

Human rights groups reports are hardly objective or non-biased. They are always biased to report something as a human rights violation, whether it truly is or not. And selective support of the UN is intellectually dishonest at best. Many here use the UN's position on something when it suits them, then complain that the UN is useless and should be disbanded in their next breath. One or the other, please.

Again, it is one thing to feel for the plight of the Palestinian people. It is quite another to side with Hamas. I fully support the Palestinian people...I do not support Hamas in any shape, form, or fashion.

Complain about Israeli expansion into the OTs. Complain about Israel not adhering to UN resolutions. But the second you condone Hamas' actions, you have stopped being centrist. The second you complain about Israeli collateral damage against civilians while prosecuting a militant target then accept Hamas' attacks against OT settlements (ie, specifically targeted against civilians) as the cost of Israeli expansion, you've stopped being centrist. When you look at the "bulk of evidence" from the sources you mentioned, yet fail to look at evidence contrary to it or take into account the treatment of the Palestinian people by their Arab brothers and continue to blame Israel exclusively for their plight...you stop being centrist. Don't sit there and claim some kind of moral high ground because you side consistently against Israel, regardless of the circumstances. If you were truly centrists, as some of you have claimed, you would not default to the position that you do (Israel is wrong, "despicable cunts", etc.).

When Hamas attacks civilians--with the full intent of attacking civilians as the primary effort--they do exactly what the OP says.

Then why is okay to condone Israel when they kill UN observers? Is it because they have uniforms on and claim it to be an accident afterwards?

It's like I say, civilian deaths from laser guided Israeli rockets always get passed off as accidents but crude Palestinian rockets apparently seek out and hit civilians with full intent.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Can you think of any specific instances of people saying that on these forums because I doubt that many here would actually call any militant who has killed civilians a freedom fighter? They may have agreed with the Palestinian cause but that doesn't mean you automatically condone the actions of every extremist in the name of said cause.

Yes, or else I wouldn't have said it.

Could you post them then? I'm not an advocate of trolling but seen as you remember the specific instances...

Like I say, I'd be surprised if anyone whose opinion is worth considering would claim such a thing.

Your brother, for one: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=938357#p938357
JahManRed: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=459891#p459891

That's just doing a quick forum search on "Palestinian freedom fighter" then doing page searches on "freedom fighter". I'm sure there's more in other context, but I'm not going to search every thread on here. I'm fairly certain there are others who have used the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" argument from the perspective of "the other man".

Chrisimo wrote:

Braddock wrote:

It's like I say, civilian deaths from laser guided Israeli rockets always get passed off as accidents but crude Palestinian rockets apparently seek out and hit civilians with full intent.

But isn't that the purpose of terrorism? To hit the civilian population? And isn't that the form of war the palastenians have chosen (because they don't have the way to fight a conventional war)?

It is terrorism and unfortunately for the Palestinian cause it is the technique that the major players such as Hamas are favouring these days. Freedom fighting would be targeting military and security targets, terrorism is targeting innocent civilians in order to cause fear and terror.

My point however was an attempt to point out that the Israeli military get a free pass on any civilian deaths they cause as long as they maintain that they didn't set out with the intent of causing these deaths and that it was collateral damage...at the end of the day though the end result is the same, it makes no difference if it was caused by military or terrorist actions.

Braddock wrote:

My point however was an attempt to point out that the Israeli military get a free pass on any civilian deaths they cause as long as they maintain that they didn't set out with the intent of causing these deaths and that it was collateral damage...at the end of the day though the end result is the same, it makes no difference if it was caused by military or terrorist actions.

I think that most Europeans are more on the Palestinian side than the Israeli one. You here a lot of criticism of Israel at least in Germany. And in a lot of examples it is the Palestinians who get a free pass here. And how do you counter that? Of course, by taking the exact opposite positions, so that ideally, both meet in the middle eventually. But I am sure of this: It is the Palestinians who can bring about the peace. The Israelis can do nothing short of leaving Israel to end that conflict (at least at the moment), because a lot of palestinans simply won't accept them.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

The centrist possition on the Nazis would be to describe them as despicable cunts, same as the Maoists and Pol Pots regieme.

Whether the centrist position turns out to be that the group in question are complete fuckers is purely dependent upon the evidence and the crimes committed by the group in question. The centrist view is to accept the overwhelming bulk of evidence on the subject. ie. to look at human rights groups reports, the international court of justice, all the UN deliberation on the topic and unless you have compelling reason to believe that they are all just making it all up, assume that they are right. We'll ignore the opinions of Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel etc. as they are obviously completely biased.

As the US media repeatedly presents the Israel/Palestine issue in terms differing wildly from that of the bulk of the independent watchgroups and international descisions then it's fair to claim tha the US media is more biased than that of Europe, which by any even remotely sensible definition, is hugely pro-Israel itself.

The reasons are reasonably straightforward. The US tax payers are funding Israel, if they knew what was going on there they'd be able to influence the governemnt into stopping it's arms shipments to Israel and stop politicians giving Israel diplomatic cover. It doesn't matter as much what the European populace think because there's less that they can do about it.

Human rights groups reports are hardly objective or non-biased. They are always biased to report something as a human rights violation, whether it truly is or not. And selective support of the UN is intellectually dishonest at best. Many here use the UN's position on something when it suits them, then complain that the UN is useless and should be disbanded in their next breath. One or the other, please.

Again, it is one thing to feel for the plight of the Palestinian people. It is quite another to side with Hamas. I fully support the Palestinian people...I do not support Hamas in any shape, form, or fashion.

Complain about Israeli expansion into the OTs. Complain about Israel not adhering to UN resolutions. But the second you condone Hamas' actions, you have stopped being centrist. The second you complain about Israeli collateral damage against civilians while prosecuting a militant target then accept Hamas' attacks against OT settlements (ie, specifically targeted against civilians) as the cost of Israeli expansion, you've stopped being centrist. When you look at the "bulk of evidence" from the sources you mentioned, yet fail to look at evidence contrary to it or take into account the treatment of the Palestinian people by their Arab brothers and continue to blame Israel exclusively for their plight...you stop being centrist. Don't sit there and claim some kind of moral high ground because you side consistently against Israel, regardless of the circumstances. If you were truly centrists, as some of you have claimed, you would not default to the position that you do (Israel is wrong, "despicable cunts", etc.).

When Hamas attacks civilians--with the full intent of attacking civilians as the primary effort--they do exactly what the OP says.

Human rights groups repeatedly slam the actions of Hamas etc. They point out the crimes of both sides. They are therefore centrist as they complain about the abuses that both sides commit. If we are going to ignore the information coming from the UN, the ICJ, human rights groups, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, Isreal as sources of information, then we know nothing about the conflict and can't therefore criticize Hamas either.

You regularly use UN resolutions to justify the war in Iraq, so either you disagree with the UN and the resolutions against Iraq are meaningless or you agree with the UN and the mass votes agaisnt Israel show the opinion of the majority of the worlds populace.

The truth is that those who are against Isreali actions condem the Palestinian attacks on civillians, accepting the findings of human rights groups, and other international bodies. Those who support Israeli actions ignore the evidence that these groups provide, instead accepting the usually evidence free statments made by Israel. When Isreal carries out an assassination (itself a war crime) there is no trial beforehand, no evidence is presented before or after showing the targets guilt. Little care is taken to minimise civillian casualties. Most of the people assassinated are unarmed at the time of their deaths. Often people are assassinated despite the fact that their arrest would be quite a trivial matter. Anyone killed without trial and not currently engaging in a military action must be considered a civillian, making their deaths a purposeful attack on a civillian.

I, as most of the people against Israels actions, don't criticize just Isreal, but both sides. The pro-Israel people tend to criticize the Palestinian groups but roll out the apologetics over the murders, reckless endangerment of civillian lives, collective punishments, torture, kidnapping, property destruction, annexation, etc. comitted by Israel. You'll struggle to find anyone (possibly Rammunation) who doesn't state that firing rockets at cities is a terrible crime. The only actual discussion that goes on is over Israels crimes.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

But isn't that the purpose of terrorism? To hit the civilian population? And isn't that the form of war the palastenians have chosen (because they don't have the way to fight a conventional war)?

It is terrorism and unfortunately for the Palestinian cause it is the technique that the major players such as Hamas are favouring these days. Freedom fighting would be targeting military and security targets, terrorism is targeting innocent civilians in order to cause fear and terror.

My point however was an attempt to point out that the Israeli military get a free pass on any civilian deaths they cause as long as they maintain that they didn't set out with the intent of causing these deaths and that it was collateral damage...at the end of the day though the end result is the same, it makes no difference if it was caused by military or terrorist actions.

Yes, ultimately ANY civilian death is horrible. But one must be pragmatic: there will be civilian deaths in warfare. Period. So, once you have accepted that (as distasteful as it is), and have deemed warfare the only option (which apparently Hamas and Israel have done), then one must look at the proximate cause of those civilian deaths. Were they caused inadvertently (ie, collateral damage) or were they caused purposefully (ie, civilians were the intended target)?

You continue to argue that the only fight Hamas can wage is unconventional, due to the aid received by Israel and Israel's actions confining Palestinians to certain areas. Hamas has no other choice, as they can't force Israel to change its policies.

One could equally argue that the only fight Israel can wage (due to Hamas' actions and embedding of militant infrastructure in civilian areas in violation of the GC) is a high-CD fight. Israel has no other choice, as they can't force Hamas to change its policies.

However, the way I see it, Hamas DOES have a choice when it comes to embedding their militant infrastructure in civilian areas--they can choose to simply not do it. Israel DOES have a choice when it comes to building settlements in the OTs--they can simply not do it. But the difference is that even if Israel were to stop building new settlements and start pulling existing residents out of the OTs, Hamas would still launch rockets out of Gaza into non-OT civilian areas (such as Ashkelon). If Hamas were to stop their terrorist attacks, I'm fairly certain that Israel wouldn't be launching any attacks into Gaza to take out militant infrastructure or rocket launch sites.

Okay FEOS, you seem to be quite knowledgeable on military matters so let me ask you if you were head of Hamas and no longer wanted to pursue the unconventional tactics we have discussed what would you do? Where would you base your weaponry, where would you sequest your troops, where would you launch your attacks on military and security targets from? Bearing in mind the state of the art nature of Israel's military and the high level of sophistication in their surveillance agencies.

Also I'll refer you to the situation in Northern Ireland where IRA operatives were embedded in civilian areas and conducting various attacks from there. The British thankfully never fired hellfire rockets or dropped bombs on apartment blocks or housing estates and we today have peace and power sharing in the region.

Human rights groups reports are hardly objective or non-biased. They are always biased to report something as a human rights violation, whether it truly is or not.

Wow. So human rights groups are the enemy now?
And anyone who reports factually is biased - but only when they are criticising Israel?

The building could have very easily hit four times due to errant targeting or a technical glitch. It just depends on if those were in multiple attacks or all in one strike. If it were multiple attacks over multiple days, then there would be some room for discussion of Israeli intent.

'BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- The U.N. observers killed when an Israeli bomb hit their bunker in Lebanon Tuesday called an Israeli military liaison about 10 times in the six hours before they died to warn that aerial attacks were getting close to their position, a U.N. officer said.

After each call, the Israeli officer promised to have the bombing stopped, an officer at the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) base in Noqoura said.

Finally, an Israeli bomb exploded directly on the U.N. post near Khiyam, killing four U.N. observers from Austria, Finland, Canada and China, the U.N. officer said.'
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast … observers/
'Jane Lute, the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping, told the Security Council that the post, which is three miles (5km) from an Israeli artillery position, came under close fire 21 times on Tuesday, suffering 12 hits within 100 metres and four direct hits. Contact was lost with the four peacekeepers inside at 7.17pm Ms Lute said that she and Mark Malloch Brown, the Deputy Secretary-General, called Israel’s mission to the UN in New York “reiterating these protests and calling for an abatement of the shelling”.

She said that Unifil secured safe passage for two armoured personnel carriers, which arrived at 9.30pm and found the shelter collapsed and severe damage to the rest of the position. Despite the agreement, she said, Israel attacked the carriers.

Dermot Ahern, the Irish Foreign Minister, said that Israeli troops fired on the Egyptian UN soldiers sent to dig out the bodies. “(It) raises questions about whether this was an accident,” he said. '
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 693450.ece
From the notoriously anti-semitic Time Newspaper

Fog of war eh?

That shit is abhorrent, but irrelevant to the argument at hand.

B-b-b-b-b-b-ut surely those women 'brought it on themselves'?
Or did they get themselves into bonded prostitution just to 'make the Israelis look bad'?

This discussion has been about the difference in intent that caused civilian deaths. Israel does not (generally) intend to cause Palestinian civilian deaths--if they could kill the militants without harming a single innocent civilian, they would. Hamas fully intends to cause Israeli civilian deaths. Period.

Bullshit.
The Israelis don't give a flying fuck about civilians.
If they did the Prime Minister of Israel wouldn't see killing 14 civilians, including a 2 month old baby, while in the course of summarily executing a suspected militant as an event worth celebrating.
'In Israel, an early celebration of the killing of Sheik Shehada quickly turned into an exercise in political damage control. Mr. Sharon initially called the airstrike ''one of our major successes.'''

The Israelis intend to kill Palestinians, civilian or not, and as many as possible. If they can do it under the cloak of targeting militants that makes it much easier to sell to the outside world.

Hamas, like Hezbollah, have come into existence solely as a result of Israeli actions.

Hamas, like Hezbollah, have a better ratio of military vs civilian kills than the IDF.
And neither target children in the way the IDF do.

This alone blows your argument out of the sky.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-08-15 06:18:27)

Chrisimo wrote:

How about stopping the 'war' for some years?

Making it easier for Israelis to steal more land and build more settlements? Having said that, their actions in Gaza are pointless - they have Gaza back.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-15 06:10:03)

Just saw this on the news...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7563313.stm

...but of course it's only the Palestinians who target civilians, isn't it?