http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/04mideastcnd.html?hp&ex=1162616400&en=59140c6081ad22a0&ei=5094&partner=homepageJERUSALEM, Nov. 3 - Israeli troops fired at a large crowd of unarmed Palestinian women in the Gaza Strip today as the women approached as mosque to help Palestinian militants holed up inside. Two women were killed and about 10 injured, hospitals said, in a shooting that provoked widespread outrage among Palestinians.

Come on, lets hear how these unarmed women had it coming. Lets hear it!!

dear Broadandbeaver

You will get the human shield and teorrists hiding behind women argument with this one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

G'day Zak - I trust all is well in your part of the world...

Yeah, you might be right. One who can justify the killing a unarmed women can justify anything and people like that need to be locked away.

hello Broad

i am well thank you, i hope all is going well with you.

Well they need to justify the killing somehow...

more worrying though is the appointment of Leiberman as deputy PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Take care
zak

You will get the human shield and teorrists hiding behind women argument with this one.

Well, that's one issue, of course. But another one that's more likely is that the women were ALSO terrorists!! I.e., who else would help a terrorist in hiding if not another terrorist???????????

Baron Max

One who can justify the killing a unarmed women can justify anything and people like that need to be locked away.

Hmm, don't the terrorists regularly kill unarmed women and children?? My guess is that you find some justification in that action, right???? Should the Palestinians who do that be put into prison??

Baron Max

Well, that's one issue, of course. But another one that's more likely is that the women were ALSO terrorists!! I.e., who else would help a terrorist in hiding if not another terrorist???????????

Baron Max

Hi Baron

thank you for your comments....

i think i will read up on this to see what the circumstances were. how do we know they were terrorists??? for a start. just becuase they were palestinians in the GAza strip does not automatically make them a terrorist..

~~~~~~~~~~~
Take care
zak

how do we know they were terrorists??? for a start. just becuase they were palestinians in the GAza strip does not automatically make them a terrorist..

I read the article, Zak! It said specifically that they were Palestinian militants holed up in the mosque. I can only read what it said ...it's not my place to question it.

Baron Max

oK Then fine...

not like you not to questin anything baron
your slipping my friend

Sorry to inject myself into the debate, but:


ISRAELI troops shot and killed two Palestinian women acting as human shields between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen hiding in a Gaza mosque today, witnesses said, before the gunmen escaped.

The dramatic events came on the third day of an Israeli assault on the Gaza town of Beit Hanoun, the largest operation it has conducted in the Gaza Strip in months, designed to put a stop to militants firing homemade rockets into Israel.

But maybe they were just water rockets. You know, those little plastic rockets that you used to buy in the dollar store.


About 60 gunmen holed themselves up in the al-Nasir mosque yesterday. Today, about 50 veiled women, answering an appeal on local radio, marched on the mosque, acting as a cover against the Israeli troops to allow the gunmen to flee.

So...well. Yeah, they were just there by accident. I give.


Television footage showed Israeli forces opening fire and two of the women were killed. At least 10 were wounded.

The Israeli army said it had fired at armed Palestinians and said it was investigating whether it had also shot the women. A spokeswoman said the army had footage showing armed men mingling among the women, which the army described as human shields.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20698726-1702,00.html

Sure; no militants there. Dead on, Zak.

Hmm, don't the terrorists regularly kill unarmed women and children?? My guess is that you find some justification in that action, right???? Should the Palestinians who do that be put into prison??

Baron Max

Maybe I should have written "KIWI JUSTIFY THIS" in bigger type. :D

I find no justification in the killing of any innocent people. Be they Jew, Muslim or Barons. The punishment for killing innocent people should be death not prison.

I don't care if these women were standing there with Hitler himself behind them - You don't shoot unarmed women! It's cowardly. It does not help your position and it makes you look like the bully most of the world [not the USA of course] thinks you are.

I find no justification in the killing of any innocent people.

Oh, that's fine ....for YOU. But are you so stupid as to think that others can't or don't justify it? Terrorists do it all the fuckin' time ...and brag about it on Internet sites. They cut off people's heads and justify it and Muslims all over the world cheer it!

Anyone can justify anything ......and they don't need your approval for it.

Baron Max

there is nothing to justify
IDF is the most moral army in the world (hehe let's see the responses to this one), and if IDF soldiers killed women then the situation warranted it. it's not like some trigger-happy 22 year old just "felt like it".


the article from NYtimes (one of the most critical of Israel, btw) tells about the events in nice simplistic terms -- "Israeli soldiers killed unarmed women near a mosque". but you know, the devil is in the details.

These women were absolutely not innocent, they were interfering with the capture of terrorists.

Is the Gaza strip under Israeli jurisdiction?

If they want it to be.

And hasn't Israel been occupying Gaza since the last four months?

http://www.nimn.org/articles/whats_new/000552.php


Israel closed the entry and exit points into the Gaza Strip, home to 1.5 million Palestinians, on 25 June and has conducted frequent raids and bombings that have killed 262 people and wounded 1,200. The crisis in Gaza has been largely ignored by the rest of the world, which has been absorbed by the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

"Women in Gaza tell me they are eating only one meal a day, bread with tomatoes or cheap vegetables," said Kirstie Campbell of the UN's World Food Programme, which is feeding 235,000 people. She added that in June, since when the crisis has worsened, some 70 per cent of people in Gaza could not meet their family's food needs. "People are raiding garbage dumps," she said.

Not only do Palestinians in Gaza get little to eat but what food they have is eaten cold because of the lack of electricity and money to pay for fuel. The Gaza power plant was destroyed by an Israeli air strike in June. In one month alone 4 per cent of Gaza's agricultural land was destroyed by Israeli bulldozers.

The total closure imposed by Israel, supplemented by deadly raids, has led to the collapse of the Gazan economy. The 35,000 fishermen cannot fish because Israeli gunboats will fire on them if they go more than a few hundred yards from the shore. At the same time the international boycott of the Hamas government means that there is no foreign aid to pay Palestinian government employees. The government used to have a monthly budget of $180-200m, half of which went to pay 165,000 public sector workers. But it now has only $25m a month.

Aid agencies are frustrated by their inability to persuade the world that the humanitarian crisis is far worse in Gaza than it is in Lebanon. The WFP says: "In contrast to Lebanon, where humanitarian food aid needs have been essentially met, the growing number of poor in Gaza are living on the bare minimum."

It is possible for foreign journalists to visit Gaza but it is a laborious process passing through the main Israeli checkpoint at Erez and then walking down a long concrete tunnel. The kidnapping of two Fox television employees by criminals—though they were later released—has also dissuaded several TV companies from covering the crisis.

The total closure imposed by Israel dates from the seizure of Cpl Gilad Shalit by Palestinian militants on 25 June. Between then and the end of August, Israeli security forces killed 226 Palestinians, 54 of them minors, in the Gaza Strip, according to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem. Of these it says that 114 were taking no part in any hostilities.

So why is this shooting news? Its hardly a big deal, just another day in Gaza.

And hasn't Israel been occupying Gaza since the last four months?

That article said nothing about Israel "occuping" Gaza, only that it closed off the checkpoints/access points. That ain't the same as occupying, is it?

Baron Max

So why is this shooting news? Its hardly a big deal, just another day in Gaza.

It was a slow day in the newsrooms, that's all.

Baron Max

That article said nothing about Israel "occuping" Gaza, only that it closed off the checkpoints/access points. That ain't the same as occupying, is it?

Baron Max

My bad. It was another article I read on the same site.

http://www.nimn.org/articles/whats_new/000551.php


Gaza has been reoccupied. The world must know this and Israelis must know it, too. It is in its worst condition, ever. Since the abduction of Gilad Shalit, and more so since the outbreak of the Lebanon war, the Israel Defense Forces has been rampaging through Gaza—there's no other word to describe it—killing and demolishing, bombing and shelling, indiscriminately.

"Israeli troops fired at a large crowd of unarmed Palestinian women in the Gaza Strip today as the women approached a mosque to help Palestinian militants holed up inside."

You aid the enemy, you become an enemy. These women deserved to die. You do not get to assist an enemy and get away with it.

You aid the enemy, you become an enemy. These women deserved to die. You do not get to assist an enemy and get away with it.

I agree! But what I can't figure out is why so few of them were killed??? The Israelis should have been able to mow them down like stalks of wheat! It's a damned good thing for those women that I wasn't there with a loaded weapon!!!

Baron Max

"Israeli troops fired at a large crowd of unarmed Palestinian women in the Gaza Strip today as the women approached a mosque to help Palestinian militants holed up inside."

You aid the enemy, you become an enemy. These women deserved to die. You do not get to assist an enemy and get away with it.

Does not the definition of enemy depend on the side of the border you stand on?

Does not the definition of enemy depend on the side of the border you stand on?

No, of course not!!! An enemy could be one inside your own country doing sabotage or terrorist acts, etc. Geez, Sam, use your head!

Baron Max

No, of course not!!! An enemy could be one inside your own country doing sabotage or terrorist acts, etc. Geez, Sam, use your head!

Baron Max

Doesn't have to be a physical border Baron, don't be so literal. ;)

Doesn't have to be a physical border Baron, don't be so literal. ;)

Well, shit, Sam ....in that case an "enemy" could be someone in the house next door to you, for god's sake!

Say what the fuck you mean, Sam, and don't try to hide your meanings like Senator Kerry!!

Baron Max

Well, shit, Sam ....in that case an "enemy" could be someone in the house next door to you, for god's sake!

Say what the fuck you mean, Sam, and don't try to hide your meanings like Senator Kerry!!

Baron Max

I thought you came here to see how and why people think differently from you?

If you demand everyone be the same what is the point of the whole exercise?:p

I thought you came here to see how and why people think differently from you?

But the "how" and the "why" isn't being explained ...it's only being written in some weird ways as to be nothing but accusations, not explanations!

Baron Max

But the "how" and the "why" isn't being explained ...it's only being written in some weird ways as to be nothing but accusations, not explanations!

Baron Max

You have to do some of the work yourself Baron.

People are going to present their ideas in their own fashion and I did give you a hint when you asked, did I not? ;)

SamCDKey:

Being unarmed matters not. You aid the enemy, you become an enemy. Do not interfere if you do not want to participate in the war effort and be subsequently targetted. They knew what they were doing when they went to help these men and every single one of them deserved to die, just as much as Israeli women helping the Israeli troops would have.

Does not the definition of enemy depend on the side of the border you stand on?

Of course. Otherwise there would be no war; the Enemy would simply defeat himself. From the perspective of an Israeli soldier, Prince James's justification is sound. From the perspective of a Palestinian, you should understand the perspective of the enemy and the consequent risks involved with putting yourself in the crossfire.

SamCDKey:

Being unarmed matters not. You aid the enemy, you become an enemy. Do not interfere if you do not want to participate in the war effort and be subsequently targetted. They knew what they were doing when they went to help these men and every single one of them deserved to die, just as much as Israeli women helping the Israeli troops would have.

What if the Palestinians fired at Israeli women (helping Israeli soldiers in Israel) from their position in the Gaza strip? Do you consider that as combat?

Of course. Otherwise there would be no war; the Enemy would simply defeat himself. From the perspective of an Israeli soldier, Prince James's justification is sound. From the perspective of a Palestinian, you should understand the perspective of the enemy and the consequent risks involved with putting yourself in the crossfire.

What do you think the Palestinian women should have done?

it's called acting in concert. like the other post's asking would you shoot a 12 year old pointing a gun at you? if you wouldnt you could be sure soon enough you will be facing an army of 12yo's. simple but devious.

it's called acting in concert. like the other post's asking would you shoot a 12 year old pointing a gun at you? if you wouldnt you could be sure soon enough you will be facing an army of 12yo's. simple but devious.

And this analogy is relevant here because...?

James:


You aid the enemy, you become an enemy. These women deserved to die. You do not get to assist an enemy and get away with it.

Oh? So those Italian families who helped stranded Allied soldiers during WWII deserved to die at the hands of the Nazis? What about the women in the munitions factories? Or who grew crops to feed their soldiers?

Either way, what the fuck is Israel doing in the Gaza Strip? I thought that 'kind Israel' had evacuated, and allowed Palestine some semblance of autonomy. Now everyone can see why I was skeptical about the Israeli 'withdrawal'.

What do you think the Palestinian women should have done?

A plea was broadcasted by the local Palestinian radio, to brave Palestinian women , to come to the mosque to help their warriors against the enemy Israel , acting as a shield .....
If you react to such a plea , then you know you risk your life - they could have stayed at home - but choose to go .....
It was sad ofcourse .....but their own choice :(

The only funny thing about the whole story , was the transmision in TV , where you could see some of the millitants fleeing afterwards - they were dressed up as women - is was hilariously funny to see, because it was clearly men , badly dressed up as women ..... :p

Thus sayeth the Beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6115950.stm

"Friday's dramatic action around a mosque followed a tense stand-off between Israeli forces and up to 15 militants who had taken refuge inside

Hamas radio then appealed to local women in the town to intervene."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6108988.stm

"EDITORIAL IN PALESTINIAN AL-QUDS

What is happening in the Gaza Strip can be described without any exaggeration as a limited war in which Israel is using tanks, war planes, artillery and infantry. The scope of destruction and injuries is great... The international community is required to make a serious move because the tragedy that has been going on for so long cannot continue indefinitely."


"ISRAEL'S JERUSALEM POST

This might be the largest operation in the Strip, with a brigade-size force, since disengagement, but no one is under the illusion that this is what will end the Qassam threat once and for all ... Those in the government and the military who were also involved in last year's disengagement are determined not to allow the IDF back into Gaza for anything more than a few days. A reoccupation would be a final public admission that the withdrawal was a colossal mistake."

What does the Haaretz say? :)

SamCDKey:


What if the Palestinians fired at Israeli women (helping Israeli soldiers in Israel) from their position in the Gaza strip? Do you consider that as combat?

Yes. Legitimate combat. One cannot participate in a war effort and expect to be spared. You aid the enemy you become the enemy.

BBC didn't quote from them, but a few different things:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/783577.html

"Earlier Saturday, four Hamas militants and a civilian were killed in a series of incidents in the Gaza Strip, bringing to 37 the Palestinian death toll in the Strip since the start of an Israel Defense Forces operation in northern Gaza on Wednesday.

The stepped-up IDF offensive is aimed at halting Palestinian rocket fire on border communities in southern Israel."

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/783644.html

"Peace organizations are preparing to protest the plight of Palestinians in Gaza during a memorial rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening to mark the 11th anniversary of the assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin."

...and a bunch of stuff I don't understand here: http://www.haaretz.co.il/
(I can read the Hebrew alphabet like I can read the Greek alphabet, but it would take me forever to look up all the words...)

The stepped-up IDF offensive is aimed at halting Palestinian rocket fire on border communities in southern Israel.

Should Palestinians be permitted to fire rockets into Israel any time they wish?

Baron Max

Should Palestinians be permitted to fire rockets into Israel any time they wish?

Baron Max

How far does self defence go?

BBC didn't quote from them, but a few different things:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/783577.html

"Earlier Saturday, four Hamas militants and a civilian were killed in a series of incidents in the Gaza Strip, bringing to 37 the Palestinian death toll in the Strip since the start of an Israel Defense Forces operation in northern Gaza on Wednesday.

The stepped-up IDF offensive is aimed at halting Palestinian rocket fire on border communities in southern Israel."

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/783644.html

"Peace organizations are preparing to protest the plight of Palestinians in Gaza during a memorial rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening to mark the 11th anniversary of the assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin."

...and a bunch of stuff I don't understand here: http://www.haaretz.co.il/
(I can read the Hebrew alphabet like I can read the Greek alphabet, but it would take me forever to look up all the words...)

How many Israeli air strikes have there been in the Gaza strip since the lockdown?

The reader comments on the Haaretz page are very interetsting

SamCDKey:



Yes. Legitimate combat. One cannot participate in a war effort and expect to be spared. You aid the enemy you become the enemy.

Aiming at non-combatants is not honorable combat regardless of who does it.

Unfortunately, it has become de riguer in war these days. No Bushido code of conduct.

How far does self defence go?

as far as it could, i guess. you tell me what needs to be done in order to stop the launching of the qassam rockets (aim for a reasonable solution).

Aiming at non-combatants is not honorable combat regardless of who does it.

Unfortunately, it has become de riguer in war these days. No Bushido code of conduct.

The japanese bushido code died a long time ago - just look at the japanese killing of innocent civilians in China during world war 2 ......
Today there is NO honour or chivalry left in any war , that I have seen ....

You better get used to homo aggressus - the good old new mankind ...:eek:

as far as it could, i guess. you tell me what needs to be done in order to stop the launching of the qassam rockets (aim for a reasonable solution).

Reading some of the articles on the Palestinian state of mind, I would have to say, Nothing.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=707640&contrassID=2




A suicide bombing "makes the [Palestinian] camp happy," Nichole Argo, a doctoral candidate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of the study on bombers, told the Daily Star of Lebanon this month, quoting her research interviewees.

"I believe[d] the operation would hurt the enemy," said a 19-year-old would-be bomber interviewed by Argo. "Also, [a] successful mission greatly influences society. It raises the morale of the people; they are happy, they feel strong."

Another prominent explanation is the concept of bombing as a means of Palestinian self-defense, a theme picked up by Hamas last week after an Islamic Jihad suicide bomber attacked a felafel and shawarma stand in Tel Aviv, killing nine people and wounding dozens, three of them critically, including a 16-year-old American tourist.

"Curiously," the Star wrote, "many of her interviewees acknowledged that their actions often hurt Palestinians by bringing Israeli reprisal. Still, they claim it is worth it, for emotional effects as much as strategy.

According to Argo, "What the bombers say is, 'I did it to deter [the Israelis]. They need to feel our pain. If they feel our pain, they won't hurt us again.'"

But of course we will. And we will hurt them precisely because the bomber bombed. And it will be our pretext for any number of additional measures for which large numbers of Palestinians will suffer. And the world will let us, because the world, having been attacked in Bali and Moscow and in Iraqi mosques, and in Madrid and London and Lower Manhattan, no longer has patience for Palestinian bombers, no longer has patience for Palestinian leaders who condone them, and, in the end, no longer has patience for the Palestinian cause.
Suicide bombing is no longer just a cult activity. It is no longer merely a failure. It has become a failure on a monumental scale, the very symbol of the culture of failure that keeps a state of Palestine an idea and not a reality.

Palestinians said early in the intifada that it was suicide bombing that put their cause back on the world map. That may well have been true at the time. What is clear now, however, is that it is suicide bombing that has kept Palestine off the world map. It has, at the same time, markedly shrunk the map of the Palestinian West Bank, by providing the rationale and the defense for the route of the fence that makes the Green Line 1967 border a fading memory.

The political culture of the Palestinians, steeped in naqba [catastrophe], haunted by 1967, furious with intra-Palestinian corruption and misrule, has become a culture of failure which prizes the grand gesture of spectacular futility, whether it is pushing the detonator switch, or refusing to recognize Israel - even as you (Hamas) prepare to petition the Israeli High Court of Justice to allow Hamas legislators to keep their Israeli-issued personal documents.

After all, if partial success, like Oslo or Camp David, is viewed as failure and grounds for armed revolt, why not fail all the way?

After all, if the world has let the Palestinians down, time after time after uncaring, deceitful time, why should Palestinians believe that something as ephemeral as statehood would change that?

The culture of failure has never been more alive and well, thriving as it does on self-pity and the righteous misery of living on the bad end of a double standard.

There is a theory, to which many Palestinians subscribe, which holds that Hamas didn't really want to win the January election, and wouldn't mind - in fact, would profit immensely in popular support - if it were forced from office by world pressure. They could then re-assume the role of fighting opposition, altruistic social welfare agency, and critic of the foibles of the holders of power.

If that's their aim, and failure's their game, their master stroke may have come this week. The new Palestinian interior minister, Said Siyam of Hamas, named Jamal Abu Samhadana, the head of the Popular Resistance Committees, as director general of the police forces in the Interior Ministry.

Not only is the PRC responsible for many of the Qassam attacks and some of the largest-scale bombings of the intifada, Samhadana is believed to have ordered the October 2003 attack on a U.S. convoy in the Gaza Strip, in which three members of a security detail were killed.

Perhaps, in the end, only the Palestinians themselves can prevent a Palestinan state from coming into being. Perhaps, at least in this, they will succeed.

Perhaps it takes the Palestinian Arabs to finally explain the words of the American Jew named Dylan, when he suggested that there is, in fact, no success like failure.

Aiming at non-combatants is not honorable combat regardless of who does it.

But, Sam, when they intentionally went to help the combatanst/militants, they immediately became combatants! Why cna't you see that?

Let me ask you this: If you, the world and the Palestinians are so horrified by the targetting of non-combatants, why is it that no one says anything about the Palestinians firing rockets into Israeli towns ...where there are numerous non-combatants?


Unfortunately, it has become de riguer in war these days. No Bushido code of conduct.

The Japanese Bushido Code would never permit women to take part in combat like the Palestinian women did.

Baron Max

But, Sam, when they intentionally went to help the combatanst/militants, they immediately became combatants! Why cna't you see that?

Let me ask you this: If you, the world and the Palestinians are so horrified by the targetting of non-combatants, why is it that no one says anything about the Palestinians firing rockets into Israeli towns ...where there are numerous non-combatants?




I do wish you would read the posts, Baron



Aiming at non-combatants is not honorable combat regardless of who does it.




The Japanese Bushido Code would never permit women to take part in combat like the Palestinian women did.

Baron Max

Really?


From the tenth century on, Japan can never be said to have been at peace. But in 1467, the whole country was swept into chaos in what became known as the Sengoku Jidai (Warring States Period, circa 1467 c.e. through 1568 c.e.). It was a time in which all social classes were swept up into war. Feudal domains were sometimes stripped of almost all healthy men, who hired themselves out as nobushi (mercenaries), were drafted into armies, or slaughtered in battle. As a result of this rampant warfare, women were often the last defense of towns and castles.

In this period there are accounts of the wives of warlords, dressed in flamboyant armor, leading bands of women armed with naginata. In an account in the Bichi Hyoranki, for example, the wife of Mimura Kotoku, appalled by the mass suicide of the surviving women and children in her husband's besieged castle, armed herself and led eighty-three soldiers against the enemy, "whirling her naginata like a waterwheel." She challenged a mounted general, Ura Hyobu, but he refused, claiming that women were unfit as opponents to true warriors. He edged backwards in cowardice, saying under his breath, "She is a demon!" She refused to back down, but while his soldiers attacked her, he escaped. She cut through her attackers and won her way back to the castle.

Aiming at non-combatants is not honorable combat regardless of who does it.

But, Sam, when they intentionally went to help the combatanst/militants, they immediately became combatants! Why can't you see that?

Baron Max

But, Sam, when they intentionally went to help the combatanst/militants, they immediately became combatants! Why can't you see that?

Baron Max

An unarmed woman is a combatant? Were you a victim of spousal abuse Baron? :D

What do you think the Palestinian women should have done?

If they didn't want to be caught in the crossfire, they should not have cooperated. It's not a moral question. It's already war; the moral thing to do was not to fight in the first place.


Aiming at non-combatants is not honorable combat regardless of who does it.

Unfortunately, it has become de riguer in war these days. No Bushido code of conduct.

There is no honor on the battlefield, only off it. The bushido is a code of absolute servitutde to one's lord. Two opposing samurai in battle each choose death; there is no restraint for them.

Not just for the samurai, but for anyone at all, the notion of battle conducted in a "moral," or "ethical," or "chivalrous" fashion is blatantly contradictory to the nature of battle.

If they didn't want to be caught in the crossfire, they should not have cooperated. It's not a moral question. It's already war; the moral thing to do was not to fight in the first place.

That may have been true 40 years ago. I doubt anyone thinks of the rights and wrongs of the war in Palestine today.




There is no honor on the battlefield, only off it. The bushido is a code of absolute servitutde to one's lord. Two opposing samurai in battle each choose death; there is no restraint for them.

Not just for the samurai, but for anyone at all, the notion of battle conducted in a "moral," or "ethical," or "chivalrous" fashion is blatantly contradictory to the nature of battle.


I would have thought that aiming at noncombatants (women children monks/priests and the old or sick) would be reprehensible to anyone or are we so far gone that we don't really care anymore?

And if you are right, why is terrorism such a big deal?

That may have been true 40 years ago. I doubt anyone thinks of the rights and wrongs of the war in Palestine today.



I would have thought that aiming at noncombatants (women children monks/priests and the old or sick) would be reprehensible to anyone or are we so far gone that we don't really care anymore?

It has always been that way. If you're in the line of fire, you're going to get shot at. This was true in Vietnam, the World Wars, Napoleon's conquest, the Crusades, the Punic wars... everywhere. It's simply the nature of combat. Barbaric, full of death, devoid of honor.


And if you are right, why is terrorism such a big deal?

It's not. If terrorism in principle shocks you, you underestimate the enemy.

It's not. If terrorism in principle shocks you, you underestimate the enemy.

Sorry, I don't get this.

Sorry, I don't get this.

I did a bad job explaining.

On the battlefield, as I said, there is no expectation of honorable conduct. In fact, it is discouraged, because it gets your comrades killed.

Unprovoked attacks directly on the civilian population are not generally considered to be on the battlefield. This is why they are shocking. They are unexpected and, as it were, dishonorable in the eyes of those attacked.

However, the ones using those tactics today are doing so on a regular basis. It's past the point of shame and morality now. It has to be dealt with because it's not going away. Terrorism as a primary strategy suggests that the whole world is a battlefield, which undermines the people's confidence in their government to protect them. Underhanded? Wrong-headed? Perhaps. But it is effective! Admonishing terrorism as wrong or dirty does nothing to quell it. The fact of the matter is that it is evidence that there is an enemy who needs to be defeated. To look at them as civilian actions is to miss the point: they are clearly acts of war.

I did a bad job explaining.

On the battlefield, as I said, there is no expectation of honorable conduct. In fact, it is discouraged, because it gets your comrades killed.

Unprovoked attacks directly on the civilian population are not generally considered to be on the battlefield. This is why they are shocking. They are unexpected and, as it were, dishonorable in the eyes of those attacked.

However, the ones using those tactics today are doing so on a regular basis. It's past the point of shame and morality now. It has to be dealt with because it's not going away. Terrorism as a primary strategy suggests that the whole world is a battlefield, which undermines the people's confidence in their government to protect them. Underhanded? Wrong-headed? Perhaps. But it is effective! Admonishing terrorism as wrong or dirty does nothing to quell it. The fact of the matter is that it is evidence that there is an enemy who needs to be defeated. To look at them as civilian actions is to miss the point: they are clearly acts of war.

Where do you see the effectiveness of terrorism? I ask because I don't, not to the people who undertake it for whatever reason.

Where do you see the effectiveness of terrorism? I ask because I don't, not to the people who undertake it for whatever reason.

Americans used terrorism in part of their campaign against the British government in the late 1770s. It worked.

Jews in Palestine used terrorism earlier last century. It worked.

Sectarians and others are using terrorism right now in Iraq. It's working.

It's an effective tactic, because there is no easy answer to it.

Americans used terrorism in part of their campaign against the British government in the late 1770s. It worked.

Jews in Palestine used terrorism earlier last century. It worked.

Sectarians and others are using terrorism right now in Iraq. It's working.

It's an effective tactic, because there is no easy answer to it.

I disagree.

The American campaign worked only because Britain was so far away and the people at home were against the war (like Vietnam).

The Jews in Palestine and sectarian Iraqis are hardly examples of success considering what they did win. Is endless conflict a sign of success?

I disagree.

The American campaign worked only because Britain was so
far away and the people at home were against the war (like
Vietnam). So you mean to say that terroristic or
guerrila tactics had no effect in the war? A justification
for this could get complicated.

The Jews in Palestine and sectarian Iraqis
are hardly examples of success considering what they did
win. Is endless conflict a sign of success?
Yeah, it is, as a matter of fact. They got what they
wanted. The ensuing conflict was not a condition for
victory, but a sure sign that the actual conditions were
met.

So you mean to say that terroristic or
guerrila tactics had no effect in the war? A justification
for this could get complicated.

Depends on perspective; if you remember, the same tactics did not work in India (also against the British), not until Gandhi came on the scene with a diametrically opposite viewpoint ( though one may argue that the ensuing civil war between Hindus and Muslims made it costly all the same)


Yeah, it is, as a matter of fact. They got what they
wanted. The ensuing conflict was not a condition for
victory, but a sure sign that the actual conditions were
met.

I doubt it. The creation of a new nation/state always involves displacement of people and is resolved, for some vague testosterone related reason by bloodshed. One can easily argue that the militant activity is a result of the reshuffle, not a cause.

PS. Why is your text all to the left?

SamCDKey:

It is difficult to conceive as active aid to the enemy as a "non-combatant". Specificallly as such aid becomes so crucial in the war effort.

SamCDKey:

It is difficult to conceive as active aid to the enemy as a "non-combatant". Specificallly as such aid becomes so crucial in the war effort.

Those are murky waters. Active aid should be in the form of weapons or covering fire. By your definition, the Red Cross becomes a valid target.

Those are murky waters. Active aid should be in the form of weapons or covering fire. By your definition, the Red Cross becomes a valid target.

Disagreed - the Red Cross helps all sides, aids all wounded and needy. They don't have a particular "side".

Geoff

Either way, what the fuck is Israel doing in the Gaza Strip? I thought that 'kind Israel' had evacuated, and allowed Palestine some semblance of autonomy. Now everyone can see why I was skeptical about the Israeli 'withdrawal'.

But not as skeptical as they were about the 'ceasefire'.

Geoff

Disagreed - the Red Cross helps all sides, aids all wounded and needy. They don't have a particular "side".

Geoff

That is open to argument though isn't it?

I shouldn't think so, but if you have evidence of their bias, then by all means lash your stalwart brigandine to their rail and fire your larboards.

Bosun Geoff

Hmm what is your opinion of fishermen?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6047764.stm


Tens of thousands of Gazans depend on fishing, and - as their desperation has mounted - some have been putting out to sea regardless of the ban.

The navy now seems to let this pass, provided the vessels stay within about four kilometres of the shore.

But there is always the danger that the gunboats will move in.

And Mr Habeel says that is what happened last week when he and his crewmates were fishing off the town of Dier Ballah.

He says a gunboat steamed up from the south.

According to Mr Habeel, it did not issue any verbal warning, but opened fire first at the cables holding the nets - cutting them adrift.

Then he says the Israelis circled the unarmed fishermen spraying their craft with machine gun fire from no more than 20m away.

Mr Habeel says that one of the bullets hit Hani al-Najaar - ripping open the side of his head.

"I saw him killed," Mr Habeel says. "I couldn't bear it. God bless him."

Mr Najaar leaves two children.

The Israelis say that on the day in question boats had been pushing too far out to sea. On a number of occasions warning shots were fired.

"We did not identify in any situation any of our warning shots hitting a boat - at all," said a military spokeswoman. "So we are not aware of any fisherman being hit."

But later, as the trawler lays beached for repairs in Gaza City harbour, well over 100 bullet holes are clearly visible.

Both sides of the hull had been raked with fire, and the controls in the wheelhouse had been shot out. You could see where hydraulic steering cables had had to be replaced.

Not far away, in Shaateh refugee camp, Hani al-Najaar's family and friends were mourning his passing.

SamCDKey:


Those are murky waters. Active aid should be in the form of weapons or covering fire. By your definition, the Red Cross becomes a valid target.

The Red Cross knows the risks. If their care provides aid to the enemy, they too should be targetted. What do medically treated soldiers do? They come back into the field to kill more of one's own men. Toleration for such should be low or non-existent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjFYvGb2G_4

SamCDKey:



The Red Cross knows the risks. If their care provides aid to the enemy, they too should be targetted. What do medically treated soldiers do? They come back into the field to kill more of one's own men. Toleration for such should be low or non-existent.

You dont seem to know much about the Red Cross do you? - In countries where appropriate it is also known as the Red Crescent.

It doesn't take sides :rolleyes:

http://www.ifrc.org/index.asp?navid=01

http://www.ifrc.org/common/images/ifrc_logo.gif

stu43t:

It does not matter if they help both sides. The fact that they help the enemy makes them legitimate targets.

stu43t:

It does not matter if they help both sides. The fact that they help the enemy makes them legitimate targets.


You think like a terrorist - I hope you never get medical aid when you need it most. With your attitude you dont deserve it

stu43t: It does not matter if they help both sides. The fact that they help the enemy makes them legitimate targets.

Well, Ho Chi Minh and his boys considered them legitimate targets, that's for damned sure! But they were the first to scream "Foul!" if one of our bombs went astray. Interesting viewpoint, huh?

However, Prince James, just so we all know, I can't abide intentionally targeting a Red Cross service member or a battlefield medic ....that just ain't right, ya' know? I mean, even for someone who's as hard as me finds that somewhat reprehensible.

Baron Max

Baron Max, Stu43T:

How about they surrender if they need medical treatment? If they are in such pain, why do they continue to fight?

Hmm what is your opinion of fishermen?

Does that relate to the Red Cross thingy?

Baron Max, Stu43T:

How about they surrender if they need medical treatment? If they are in such pain, why do they continue to fight?


Maybe one day hmmm? You just might grow up and see the big picture

Baron Max, Stu43T: How about they surrender if they need medical treatment? If they are in such pain, why do they continue to fight?

Most of 'em don't continue to fight, James. Most are lying on the ground bleeding to death, they're hardly a threat, are they?

James, I understand your basic thought process, but I think you've gone just a bit too far, that's all.

Baron Max

Baron Max:

The problem is this: Whilst clearly it is true that wounded soldiers aren't actively fighting at the time, to get medical treatment at the battle site is to prepare one for a continuation of combat. That is to say, if they are getting people to come into the Mosque to care for the wounded, they are not intending to stop, but to persist in fighting. If they want to simply lay down arms, this is acceptable. Surrender and they shall be treated humanely.

stu43t:

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want medical treatment with no danger, one must surrender.

The problem is this: Whilst clearly it is true that wounded soldiers aren't actively fighting at the time, to get medical treatment at the battle site is to prepare one for a continuation of combat.

James, I said that I understand your position, but look at it this way, if you have the chance to kill the medic that's treating the wounded, why not just kill the wounded soldier, not the fuckin' medic!

James, I'm sorry, but you've taken this issue just a bit too far, I fear that you should stop while you're only this far behind!

Baron Max

"Israeli troops fired at a large crowd of unarmed Palestinian women in the Gaza Strip today as the women approached a mosque to help Palestinian militants holed up inside."

You aid the enemy, you become an enemy. These women deserved to die. You do not get to assist an enemy and get away with it.

You know, that's the same thing Osma Bin Laden thought. I guess he was justified on 9/11 according to you. Americans pay taxes that are used to buy bombs and support his enemies. I guess the suicide bombers are justified also. If this is your and the Barons justification for this act then please support it when it's turned around and the gun/bomb is pointing at you. There is no Justification for this.

Baron Max:

The problem is this: Whilst clearly it is true that wounded soldiers aren't actively fighting at the time, to get medical treatment at the battle site is to prepare one for a continuation of combat. That is to say, if they are getting people to come into the Mosque to care for the wounded, they are not intending to stop, but to persist in fighting. If they want to simply lay down arms, this is acceptable. Surrender and they shall be treated humanely.

stu43t:

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want medical treatment with no danger, one must surrender.


Ahhhh - you mentioned the magic word - "Mosque"

No wonder you think like a retard.

If I ever saw you injured and a red crescent member helping you - I'd shoot you right between the eyes

You know, that's the same thing Osma Bin Laden thought. I guess he was justified on 9/11 according to you. Americans pay taxes that are used to buy bombs and support his enemies. I guess the suicide bombers are justified also. If this is your and the Barons justification for this act then please support it when it's turned around and the gun/bomb is pointing at you. There is no Justification for this.

I fail to see how morality comes into any of this. Or is there such a thing as a righteous murder after all?

Depends on perspective; if you remember, the same tactics did not work in India (also against the British), not until Gandhi came on the scene with a diametrically opposite viewpoint ( though one may argue that the ensuing civil war between Hindus and Muslims made it costly all the same)

I wouldn't expect it to work all the time (nothing in war does), but theoretically and in practice I still see it as an effective strategy.


I doubt it. The creation of a new nation/state always involves displacement of people and is resolved, for some vague testosterone related reason by bloodshed. One can easily argue that the militant activity is a result of the reshuffle, not a cause.

That the status quo was seriously contested, to the point of going into limbo, was a direct effect of terrorism. To attract attention at all can be considered a degree of success. Certainly a terroristic strategy offers no guarantee of total success in whatever endeavor in which it is employed, but no such strategy exists.


PS. Why is your text all to the left?

I committed an act of text-formatting terrorism.

James, I said that I understand your position, but look at it this way, if you have the chance to kill the medic that's treating the wounded, why not just kill the wounded soldier, not the fuckin' medic!

James, I'm sorry, but you've taken this issue just a bit too far, I fear that you should stop while you're only this far behind!

Baron Max



It seems that James hasn't done military service - unlike me and you

You know, that's the same thing Osma Bin Laden thought. I guess he was justified on 9/11 according to you. Americans pay taxes that are used to buy bombs and support his enemies. I guess the suicide bombers are justified also. If this is your and the Barons justification for this act then please support it when it's turned around and the gun/bomb is pointing at you. There is no Justification for this.

So I suppose any time Israel finds someone who likes to fire missiles at them, all the militants would have to do is surround themselves with women and children, and bingo, they are immune to arrest.

So I suppose any time Israel finds someone who likes to fire missiles at them, all the militants would have to do is surround themselves with women and children, and bingo, they are immune to arrest.

Well, does it work the other way 'round? I mean, if Israel doesn't want the militants to fire missiles into their town, then why not bring in a bunch of Israeli women to stand around and shield the town from missile attacks? That would work, right??? Surely the militants wouldn't intentionally fire missiles if they thought it would hurt women, would they?

Baron Max

So I suppose any time Israel finds someone who likes to fire missiles at them, all the militants would have to do is surround themselves with women and children, and bingo, they are immune to arrest.

In response, no. But that does not give soilders the right to kill unarmed women. Arrest them if you have to. Why couldn't trained soilders move in and arrest them?

Baron Max:


James, I said that I understand your position, but look at it this way, if you have the chance to kill the medic that's treating the wounded, why not just kill the wounded soldier, not the fuckin' medic!

Preferable! I would much rather shoot the wounded soldier to death than shoot the medic attempting to treat him, so long as the medic would then leave and have nothing further to be done. But because the medics attempt to treat many soldiers and that the soldiers are usually behind protective structures, whereas the medics must make constant movement unprotected, it is more practical to take out the medics.

Broadandbeaver:


You know, that's the same thing Osma Bin Laden thought. I guess he was justified on 9/11 according to you. Americans pay taxes that are used to buy bombs and support his enemies. I guess the suicide bombers are justified also. If this is your and the Barons justification for this act then please support it when it's turned around and the gun/bomb is pointing at you. There is no Justification for this.

Whereas I am a bit "iffy" on any justification of a primarily economic target which was not directly linked to any war effort nor focused on any battle with the Islamic world, I did find the Pentagon a legitimate target. That is to say, whereas I might cry foul for attacking the World Trade Center, the Pentagon is a military building and therefore completely okay to target.

stu43t:


Ahhhh - you mentioned the magic word - "Mosque"

It is not a Moslem issue. I do not care if it is a church, temple, druidic grove...or any other structure, place, et cetera. It's the enemy.

In response, no. But that does not give soilders the right to kill unarmed women. Arrest them if you have to. Why couldn't trained soilders move in and arrest them?

They would then be forced into an exposed position. People that interfere in police action in the states are dealt with most harshly, weapon or not. Not having a weapon doesn't mean you can do what you like without fear of recrimination.

They would then be forced into an exposed position. People that interfere in police action in the states are dealt with most harshly, weapon or not. Not having a weapon doesn't mean you can do what you like without fear of recrimination.


Then deal with them harshly. I'd rather be dealt with harshly as opposed to KILLED.

Then deal with them harshly. I'd rather be dealt with harshly as opposed to KILLED.

You just don't understand, do you. You think that a few Israeli soldiers could just walk out there and tell those women to stop, and then all would be well with the world, huh?

You don't understand anything of which you speak! Get some grasp of understanding and experience in the real world, then come back and post sensibly, ...please.

Baron Max

Then deal with them harshly. I'd rather be dealt with harshly as opposed to KILLED.

Surely you're joking. How is one to trot out and arrest people with militants spraying 5.45mm ammunition all about? Including, I am forced to conclude, at the "arrestors"?

Is there any additional room at the Dream World Hotel? Room for four please: ocean lookout best, with a view to the Plaza of Endless Ice Cream and Absent Consequence.

Well since I guess GeoffP and Baron Max are in this area of the world they should know how it works better than I. Surely they'd know the reasons why all this is going on on the first place. Why unarmed women would stand in front of well armed soilders willing to die for whatever reason. Forgive me for making such a comical statement as the one above.

Then deal with them harshly. I'd rather be dealt with harshly as opposed to KILLED.

Think of it this way, would it be wrong to kill someone during the course of an arrest who reaches for their jacket pocket? Answer: no. Wether they had a gun or not, their actions were threatening. The women could have been covering for an escape or an attack.

Come on, lets hear how these unarmed women had it coming. Lets hear it!!


JERUSALEM (CNN) -- In a deadly attack from northern Gaza, Palestinian militants hit the Israeli town of Sderot with four Qassam rockets Wednesday morning, killing one woman and wounding a man, Israeli police and medical sources said.

yeah
lets hear it

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/15/mideast.rockets/index.html

Well since I guess GeoffP and Baron Max are in this area of the world they should know how it works better than I.

Who, of course then, is in this area of the world. No?

Moreover - and more to the point - if we take the position that only those people who are "in that area of the world" may have any meaningful input on the situation, does that then include the Israelis themselves? Should they "know how it works" better than I, or you, or Baron Max, or anyone else?

Is it wrong for me to tend to think you would opine "no"? :)


Surely they'd know the reasons why all this is going on on the first place. Why unarmed women would stand in front of well armed soilders willing to die for whatever reason.

Indeed; they do. Islam puts great value on the contribution of the martyr, or "shaheed". You can see pictures of them all over just about every bloody plaza in Gaza, wazza. Cultural or religious, I rather warrant that the deliberate sacrifice of these women reflects the same philosophy. Human shields are, to be frank, nothing new to islamic terrorism.


Forgive me for making such a comical statement as the one above.

But of course. You are forgiven.

Geoff

As another poster stated, some, if not all of those women, were Men.. Its a typical Extremist trick to trick the Media and Human rights organisations into squealing protest about those Evil Joooz Slaughtering Innocent Civilians. Most of the Palestinian "Soldiers" wear jogging suits and track shoes.. Hide the AK and walla!.. Immediate dead helpless civilian, and so valuable as propagada! It would seem that Children are sent to torment the Israeli troops.. Like, Where Are your Children Mom and Dad? probably throwing rocks at tanks or running errands for the militants.

I have no sympathy for the cause that condones the use of Suicide Bombers and Death as a way of reward. Now that Saddam can't pay rewards to the Bomber's Families, there is a huge glut of worthless Children and young Men.

You know, that's the same thing Osma Bin Laden thought. I guess he was justified on 9/11 according to you. Americans pay taxes that are used to buy bombs and support his enemies.

Actually, Bin Laden's reasoning was that Americans were defiling Arabian territory, of which Mohammed said "there shall not be two religions in the Arabian Peninsula". Not really the same issue.

Geoff