Prisoners Revolt In Gaza. - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

What's even more unbelievable is that you seem to see no connection between the US-drive sanctions and the civilian deaths and suffering.

Can you prove they are connected?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Who is to blame for the deaths resulting from the U.S.-led sanctions, then?

 

Who is to blame for the deaths resulting from the U.S.-led invasion, then?

Um, Saddam and his minions?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

You are not understanding my point.  I am saying that you have shown no evidence that the Israelis deliberately target innocent civilians.  No amount of statistics, data points or other "evidence" is going to change the fact that Palestinians target innocent men, women and children, and the Israelis don't.  

 

Edit:  By the way, aren't you the one who claimed the U.S. had killed 100-200,000 civilians in Iraq?  Yeah, I think you were.  

You tend to believe what you want to believe, which is pretty much 100% in line or what officials tell you to believe. There is a stack of evidence that the Israeli military target Palestinian civilians, and have been doing just that since 1948 - on an hourly/daily/weekly basis with lethal results. Some of it is available on the web. Most is not. If you actually talked to people in Gaza and the occupied territories, or watched the huge archive of video shot by those at the business end of the Israeli military  - you would KNOW this. The ultimate aim of the Israeli Likudists, or "Zionist" is to ethnically "cleanse" that entire region of non-Jewish people and ultimately expand the borders of Israel well beyond what comprises its current area. 

You also believed that there were WMDs in Iraq, even though there was no evidence, and the material that the Bush Administration used to "justify" that war was known to be false, by a man known by the CIA (and other intelligence agencies) to be a known liar, or unreliable at the very best. 

The sanctions, which were imposed by the UN (and approved by the US) were responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqis, a large proportion being children, while "Saddam and his minions" remained in power - largely unaffected. Perhaps you didn't know that right after the US involvement in the 1991 Gulf War was over, Saddam Hussein's government came under fire from a massive popular rebellion. This revolt was put down in brutal fashion by Saddam's military, and the US helped him achieve that by supplying helicopter gunships and other modern heavy weaponry. Saddam Hussein was never really our enemy - he was just a dumb patsy who for every trap that was set up for him.

"What luck for rulers than men do not think".

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Can you prove they are connected?  

 

 

Um, Saddam and his minions?  

Saddam imposed sanctions on his own people and invaded his own country?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

 

You tend to believe what you want to believe, which is pretty much 100% in line or what officials tell you to believe.

  OK.  Samantha Joan Conspiracy strikes again.   

Great.  Show me some.  From credible sources with relatively neutral points of view.  

There was evidence.  There was an unbelievable amount of evidence.  Saddam had used weapons in the past, and failed to verifiably dispose of those weapons since the first Gulf War, as required by his ceasefire agreement and subsequent resolutions.  

I dispute that there is evidence to show that sanctions were directly responsible.  I also dispute that fact that it would be the fault of United States even if those sanctions were proven to be responsible.  Saddam Hussein was the one that violated UN resolutions and his ceasefire agreement.  He was the provocateur.  

Ahhhhh..... that'll  be the old, deny a conspiracy by suggesting an alternative conspiracy.

Yeah and firing live ammo at young men throwing rocks is fine. They are just trying to kill them (and observing memebers of the press) because they hate them, not because they are trying to scare or terrorise them into submission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I dispute that there is evidence to show that sanctions were directly responsible.  I also dispute that fact that it would be the fault of United States even if those sanctions were proven to be responsible.

Why? On what basis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Why? On what basis?

Because Saddam was responsible for the sanctions to begin with.  It's not like we slapped sanctions on Iraq just for the hell of it.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Because Saddam was responsible for the sanctions to begin with.  It's not like we slapped sanctions on Iraq just for the hell of it.  

The US (and its allies) took the actions to prevent anyone from trading with Iraq, which reasonable estimates suggest resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, but Saddam Hussein is responsible for this.

Huh.

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

When, exactly, is violence the fault of the person that pulls the trigger?

Palestinians shouldn't have elected Hamas, right, SDW? So they get what they deserve?

When you have a bunch of retards who elect a bunch of retards like in the following picture, then yeah, it's their fault when things turn out badly for them. They're getting what they deserve. Who cares about what happens to a bunch of morons?

Deaths in Iraq due to American sanctions and American bombs were Saddam's fault. Right.

Yes, it was. It was all easily preventable by Saddam. Here's a message for all primitive dictators worldwide. When the USA gives you an ultimatum, listen up and do as we say. Otherwise, you will be sorry. It's really quite simple. The USA is much more badass than any desert thug dictator, and the USA has the power to back up its' words with action.

Deaths in Gaza due to Israeli sanctions and Israeli bombs are the Palestinians' fault.

Yes, exactly. And here's a wise tip of the day for all terrorist organizations and other various not-so-bright people; Don't launch thousands of rockets and not expect your enemy to strike back. And especially, don't come and whine about it afterwards. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

 

Palestinians shouldn't have elected Hamas, right, SDW? So they get what they deserve?

 

When you have a bunch of retards who elect a bunch of retards like in the following picture, then yeah, it's their fault when things turn out badly for them. They're getting what they deserve. Who cares about what happens to a bunch of morons?

 

 

 

 

Deaths in Iraq due to American sanctions and American bombs were Saddam's fault. Right.

 

Yes, it was. It was all easily preventable by Saddam. Here's a message for all primitive dictators worldwide. When the USA gives you an ultimatum, listen up and do as we say. Otherwise, you will be sorry. It's really quite simple. The USA is much more badass than any desert thug dictator, and the USA has the power to back up its' words with action.

 

Deaths in Gaza due to Israeli sanctions and Israeli bombs are the Palestinians' fault.

 

Yes, exactly. And here's a wise tip of the day for all terrorist organizations and other various not-so-bright people; Don't launch thousands of rockets and not expect your enemy to strike back. And especially, don't come and whine about it afterwards. 

Oh dear...

Don't you realise that Hamas only control the Gaza Strip and that they have only done so since 2007?

The rest of your post isn't worthy of a response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungover 

Sorry but I have to disagree with you. Throughout this thread we have witnessed the ease with which words can be manipulated to either condemn or justify unlawful killings.

IMO both sides are (ultimately) as bad as each other. Neither has the right to kill innocent civilians for personal or political gain. That said, I do take umbrage with what seems to be a rehashing of the US media's take on the situation, namely the de-legitimisation of one side through terms such as terrorism. The implied intention being to portray one side as innocents that need to defend themselves from these "crazy idealists". Your insistence on using the term "political assassination" being one such euphemism- it just sounds much "nicer" than "state sponsored murder by terrorist organisations" (which is what it was). I appreciate that might not have been your aim but it is a sad fact that the Nintendofication of violence has filtered down through to the press and in turn the public.

I was not making any value-statements about the two sides of the conflict, I was just suggesting to be precise with the terms used:

Terrorism is not only about killing civilians, cause that happens in assassinations, murder, warfare... as well.

Spreading fear for the purpose of achieving a political change is the main-element of terrorism. The reason is mostly that through projecting fear a conflict-participant can have much greater effect than his military potential can deliver otherwise.

If the assassinations of iranian nuclear scientists has the main-element of projecting fear, ie. to convince other scientists not to work for Iran's nuclear program, then that should be called terrorism as well.

But back on topic:

Congratulations to the palestinians for having achieved the status of a non-member observer state at the UN. This is a great success for the palestinian authority in the Westbank and for the palestinians as a whole, a historic achievement!

Of course Israel, having tried to prevent it with all means, is foaming with rage and decided as revenge to hold back taxes Israel collected in the occupied terrorities for the palestinian authority and decided to build 3,000 new settlerhomes in the Westbank.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hungover 

Don't you realise that Hamas only control the Gaza Strip and that they have only done so since 2007?

Yes, after Israel forcibly removed thousands of settlers from Gaza, and Israel withdrew, what they got was Hamas in control of Gaza. That's why Israel was taking action against Gaza recently and not the West Bank, since Gaza is where all of the rockets have been coming from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

The US (and its allies) took the actions to prevent anyone from trading with Iraq, which reasonable estimates suggest resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, but Saddam Hussein is responsible for this.

 

Huh.

 

That's an interesting line of reasoning.

Yes, we took the actions you describe.  No, I'm not sure how reliable the "reasonable estimates" are.  And yes, Saddam is responsible, because he was the one that took actions that led to sanctions in the first place.  Of course it's his fault, just as it was Hitler's fault that Germany was almost completely destroyed.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

When, exactly, is violence the fault of the person that pulls the trigger?

That depends, doesn't it?  Are you suggesting we deliberately targeted civilians in Iraq?  

If they knew what they were voting for in terms of terrorist acts, then I'm sorry...yes.  

Of course they were his fault.  Just as I said above, it was also Hitler's fault that Germany was destroyed.  You act as if Saddam was just hanging out, being kind of a bad guy.  In reality, he was violating weapons inspection protocol, attacking our aircraft in the no-fly zone, and more.  He provoked the sanctions.  He provoked the war by failing to verifiably disarm as required by international law.  

Yes, they are.  The Palestinians could stop all of it by renouncing terror and negotiating for a true two-state solution.  But they won't.  

Offensive, inappropriate, and uncalled for. I would appreciate an apology.  

If Israel invades/bombs a civilian area with reckless abandon and no regard for civilian life, that would be their fault.  If Israel starts sending suicide bombers into Palestinian neighborhoods, that would be their fault.  But targeting terrorists and rocket launch sites (which the Palestinians have located intentionally next to playgrounds) and causing civilian deaths by accident?  Come on.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler 

 

I was not making any value-statements about the two sides of the conflict, I was just suggesting to be precise with the terms used:

 

Terrorism is not only about killing civilians, cause that happens in assassinations, murder, warfare... as well.

I disagree.  War is not terrorism.  Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilian or at least, non-military targets with the intent of causing as much death and destruction as possible...all to reach a political end.  There are possibly some exceptions where military members are targeted not for a military purpose, but to send a political message (e.g. Beirut).  

I suppose I'd agree with that.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Yes, we took the actions you describe.  No, I'm not sure how reliable the "reasonable estimates" are.  And yes, Saddam is responsible, because he was the one that took actions that led to sanctions in the first place.  Of course it's his fault, just as it was Hitler's fault that Germany was almost completely destroyed. 

I find this reasoning and the comparative example (though I realize it was and is a popular one) odd.

Oh well.

SDW2001, let me ask you a hypothetical question.

If someone threatened to commit a horrific act that resulted in the loss of many lives unless the POTUS met his/her demands, would it be the POTUS' fault if he refused to meet those demands and the horrific act was carried out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

I find this reasoning and the comparative example (though I realize it was and is a popular one) odd.

 

Oh well.

Why?  What do you have to say about the WWII Germany example I offered?  Who was responsible for the near total destruction of Germany?  Was it the Allies, or was it Hitler?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

SDW2001, let me ask you a hypothetical question.

 

If someone threatened to commit a horrific act that resulted in the loss of many lives unless the POTUS met his/her demands, would it be the POTUS' fault if he refused to meet those demands and the horrific act was carried out?

I'll answer, but let me ask this first:  Are you actually comparing U.S. sanctions in Iraq to the actions of your hypothetical terrorist?  If so, the entire question is ridiculous.  If not, then I'll just assume it's an academic exercise.  

My answer is "it depends."  It depends on everything from the nature of the demands, to the way they are delivered, to the threatened action.  It even depends on what you mean by "responsible."  Legally responsible?  No, I don't think so...but he could be, depending on how he handled the situation.  Morally responsible?  That's a tougher one.  If the POTUS could avoid tens of thousands of deaths by meeting a simple demand in a private way as to not encourage more terror, but didn't?  Yes, I'd say he could be considered "responsible."  But, taking it a bit further---what if the terrorist threatened to kill 10,000 people via nerve gas, and wanted the President to meet the demand of launching a nuclear strike on Israel?  In such a case, my answer would be no, as the POTUS would face an impossible demand to meet.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I'll answer, but let me ask this first:  Are you actually comparing U.S. sanctions in Iraq to the actions of your hypothetical terrorist?  If so, the entire question is ridiculous.  If not, then I'll just assume it's an academic exercise. 

I clearly stated it was a hypothetical question.

What a convoluted mess of reasoning, there.

Let me ask a clarification question:

Using the same hypothetical scenario, do you believe there are circumstances under which the person or persons actually carrying out the horrendous act resulting in the loss of many lives would not be responsible for those deaths?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

 Saddam Hussein was the one that violated UN resolutions and his ceasefire agreement.  He was the provocateur.  

So if it OK for you that Iraq was attacked on account of violating a UN Resolution, perhaps in the interest of fairness, the same should have happened to Israel each time they violated a UN Resolution?

[neocon]Ahhh... but thats different. Israel is a Jewish state - can't touch that. Iraq...well that's full of Arabs and Muslims, they're dispensable, (mostly Henry Kissinger's useless eaters")... and they've got what we need. Nothing more to be said there.[/neocon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

I clearly stated it was a hypothetical question.

Yes, and for the first time I can recall, I question your sincerity.  

Thanks for sharing your opinion.  I'm sorry you feel that needing all the facts is "convoluted reasoning"  

Yes.  There are many circumstances.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Yes, they are.  The Palestinians could stop all of it by renouncing terror and negotiating for a true two-state solution.  But they won't.  

 

 

I disagree.  War is not terrorism.  Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilian or at least, non-military targets with the intent of causing as much death and destruction as possible...all to reach a political end.  There are possibly some exceptions where military members are targeted not for a military purpose, but to send a political message (e.g. Beirut).  

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose I'd agree with that.  

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know about that.  Perhaps.  

 

 

 

 

I don't see what it achieves, actually.  

 

 

 

 

Yes, because Israel is the one launching rockets into civilian areas.  Israel is the one where people march in the streets, chanting "Death to Palestine."   And building homes is totally equivalent to sending 14 year olds into a pizza parlor to blow themselves up.  

1. Stopping terrorism won't help the palestinians achieve their political goals. The problem is that Israel's government and parts of Israel's society can't accept a palestinian state in all of the Westbank and Gaza with East-Jerusalem as capital. It’s a deeply-rooted zionistic dream of a bigger Israel that prevents a two-state-solution.

2. Who said that war is terrorism? I said that the difference between terrorism and other instances where civilians get killed is the element of using arbitrary violence against civilians to cause fear for the purpose of achieving a political change. Terrorism uses little means and limited violence for the biggest possible effect. Media-coverage is therefore central to multiply its psychological effect.

War is a whole different beast, it’s basically unlimited violence and uses all means possible and has specific military goals it wants to achieve. There are international rules to limit violence during war to military targets, but as can be seen during ww1 and ww2 these rules were used in flexible ways to justify the targetting of civilians.

Basically the decision to target civilians or not was usually dependent on the question through which means a war could be won (or won quicker).

3. The achievement of Abbas and the Palestinian authority to have the UN recognize Palestine as a non-member observer state is a symbolic achievement, but this symbol is a powerful one that will give the Palestinians a better position when negotiating for a two-state-solution and it will help to make the basis of such a negotiation be the UN-resolutions that declare the occupation of the Palestinian territories as well as the settler activities there as being illegal. So it achieves a lot if the two-state-solution has still a future.

If though the two-state-solution gets sabotaged for good by Israel, then the Palestinians have the option of starting to fight for equal citizen-rights within Israel. And that’s why:

4. Building settler-homes in the Westbank that split the Westbank in two and prevents East-Jerusalem from becoming a capital for Palestine is much more dangerous than any rockets Hamas and other groups can fire from Gaza. It’s a lethal blow (yes, it’s Israel chanting “Death to Palestine” and achieving it) for the two-state-solution and that is even more dangerous for Israel as it is for the Palestinians. The Palestinians in that scenario could dissolve the Palestinian authority and start a political non-violent (anti-apartheid) struggle for gaining equal rights within Israel (one-state-solution). That would mean Israel would have to give up the idea of being a jewish state and become a fully secular one or to become an apartheid-state like Southafrica was and risk being internationally isolated because of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Yes.  There are many circumstances.  

So, to make sure I understand your opinion, you believe that there are many circumstances in which the individual or group of individuals who directly causes harm or death to other individuals is NOT responsible for their acts of aggression?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

So, to make sure I understand your opinion, you believe that there are many circumstances in which the individual or group of individuals who directly causes harm or death to other individuals is NOT responsible for their acts of aggression?

Now hold on.  I never said anything about "acts of aggression."  In fact, I should have taken issue with the term "horrific act" earlier.  The nature of the act and the motivation behind it are important.  Let me put it this way:  Yes,it is my opinion that there are certain circumstances where the person who directly causes death and destruction is not responsible.  One example I offered was the aforementioned WWII scenario, where despite having bombed Germany back to the stone age, the U.S. and its allies were not "responsible" for the end result.  Hitler was.  I would include Saddam Hussein as another example (though I'm not directly comparing him to Hitler).  His refusal to verifiably disarm, aggressive actions (etc) were the impetus for the sanctions which may have resulted in Iraqi civilian deaths.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Now hold on.  I never said anything about "acts of aggression."  In fact, I should have taken issue with the term "horrific act" earlier.  The nature of the act and the motivation behind it are important.  Let me put it this way:  Yes,it is my opinion that there are certain circumstances where the person who directly causes death and destruction is not responsible.  One example I offered was the aforementioned WWII scenario, where despite having bombed Germany back to the stone age, the U.S. and its allies were not "responsible" for the end result.  Hitler was.  I would include Saddam Hussein as another example (though I'm not directly comparing him to Hitler).  His refusal to verifiably disarm, aggressive actions (etc) were the impetus for the sanctions which may have resulted in Iraqi civilian deaths.  

If defending yourself against aggression results in the death of the aggressor(s), then I believe it is justified.

But is causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people by starvation through economic sanctions a defensive or aggressive act?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

If defending yourself against aggression results in the death of the aggressor(s), then I believe it is justified.

OK.

 

Quote:

 

But is causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people by starvation through economic sanctions a defensive or aggressive act?

 

First, I don't buy those numbers..not at all.  Secondly, the sanctions put in place were not on food, or clothing, or any humanitarian supplies whatsoever.  In fact, Saddam egregiously abused the Oil for Food program as well as others.  So whose fault were those deaths, even if that number is accurate?  

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

What we're talking about here is not defense.

No, no it's not.  Hamas and the Palestinians don't want peace.  Glad we agree.  

What path?  Let's see your plan.  

Are you actually claiming that if Israel stopped military actions in response to terrorism, there would be no more terrorism?  That's laughable.  

What do they want, then?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

First, I don't buy those numbers..not at all.

Why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

I'm saying that if Israel withdrew from illegally occupied lands, stopped illegal settlement, stopped deliberate provocation like Sharon visiting the Temple Mount, and stopped the sanctions, yes, 99% of palestinian terrorism would stop immediately.
The Zionists want all of the holy land. That's what they want, and they won't settle for less.

You're dreaming.  The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel.  Israel has previously offered stunning concessions (specifically in 1995 and 2000).  Did the terrorism stop? Of course not.  You don't seem to understand the nature of what many Palestinians want.  

By the way, how is Israel "illegally" occupying lands?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

You're dreaming.  The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel.  Israel has previously offered stunning concessions (specifically in 1995 and 2000).  Did the terrorism stop? Of course not.  You don't seem to understand the nature of what many Palestinians want.  

 

 

What "stunning" concessions? A future Palestinian "state" under the terms acceptable to Israel would have been a non-contiguous area of small parcels, like a landlocked archipelago - a swiss cheese of a state - in which persons traveling to adjoining parcels would have to cross the borders into and out of Israel - ie undergoing checkpoints, security scans, lengthy delays and all the crap that goes with dealing with power crazed goons... just to visit relatives, get the groceries or take the kids to school. Acceptable? Stunning concessions? Jesus H. ¶∞¢ing Christ. Even with your pathological hatred for the people of Palestine, you have got to be kidding. 

READ!!!!   It says something about the international community... or is Israel free to break international law, just because they have special privileges, and don't have to abide by the same standards as everyone else, such as Iraq? Remember what happened to Iraq when they "defied the international community" -  (which they did NOT, as was known from before that war happened)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

What "stunning" concessions? A future Palestinian "state" under the terms acceptable to Israel would have been a non-contiguous area of small parcels, like a landlocked archipelago - a swiss cheese of a state - in which persons traveling to adjoining parcels would have to cross the borders into and out of Israel - ie undergoing checkpoints, security scans, lengthy delays and all the crap that goes with dealing with power crazed goons... just to visit relatives, get the groceries or take the kids to school. Acceptable? Stunning concessions? Jesus H. ¶∞¢ing Christ. Even with your pathological hatred for the people of Palestine, you have got to be kidding. 

1.  Prove that's what would have been acceptable to Israel.  You're just making shit up now. 

2.  I reject your characterization of security checkpoint personnel being "power crazed goons."

3.  "Palestine" does not exist as a nation. Regardless, I have no hatred towards them.  What I take issue with is the support of terrorism and desire to destroy Israel.  Even a raging anti-semite like you should understand that.   

Yes, it does.  It says the "international community" (by which you mean the U.N.) is a hotbed of anti-semitism.  

You are drawing a false equivalence.  Israel was not accused of gassing its own people.  Israel is not run by a dictator.  Israel has never, say, invaded and taken over Syria (just for example).  Israel's actions may not always be right, but they are not equivalent to those undertaken by the bloodthirsty, psychopathic former dictator of Iraq and his regime.  

I agree with you 100% they are just spiteful in stating they want to co exist in peace with Palestine. Never will this happen. Israeli people are to dam aggressive I knew by being friends with them.They think they know it all.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

I agree with you 100% they are just spiteful in stating they want to co exist in peace with Palestine. Never will this happen. Israeli people are to dam aggressive I knew by being friends with them.They think they know it all.
 

Generalize and stereotype much?  

A Banksy Xmas card....

This is no generalization but the truth. They are to dam aggressive and only care about their own kind.We support them but what do we get back in return?
 

YOU ARE DAM RIGHT.