Political Crossfire Forums

[Yrkoon]

superskippy wrote: Heres a link to statistics of the breakdown of fatalities in the conflict.


http://www.ict.org.il/

Aah yes. ICT.org. I'm familiar with this website. Folks, before we delve into the bizzare definitions of combatants and non combatants that this website decides to employ so as to make Israel out to be the lesser of the two civilian-killing machines, I would first like to turn your attention to the organization's leadership: Quote: Board of Directors

Shabtai Shavit-- Chairman, Board of Directors, former director of the Israeli Intelligence Agency (Mossad)

Uriel Reichman-- President of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya

Aharon Scherf Former director of Israel’s Foreign Affairs Division and senior official in Prime Minister’s Office
Among others. Their board of trustees feature retired Generals of the IDF as well as a captain of El AL airlines and a former leader of the IDF's military intelligence branch.

But none of this really matters. What *really* damns this website as completely unreliable is the bogus definitions that they use in order to stack the innocence in the favor of dead Israelis.

The terminology can be found here. Scroll down past the graphs and figures until you get to the portion entitled Catagorization. And read this: Quote: Combatant Level

his is one of our most significant ways of classifying casualties, and represents the degree to which someone killed or injured during the course of the al-Aqsa conflict can be considered an “innocent victim”. Our decisions in defining the Combatant Level categories and assigning casualties to these categories are made with reference to ICT’s published definition of terrorism, explained in Boaz Ganor’s article, “Terrorism: No Prohibition Without Definition”.

Non-Combatant

A non-combatant is an innocent bystander – a person whose death or injury has no justification other than nationality or ethnicity.

Health Related

A “health related” fatality is someone who died from a cause only indirectly related to violence – for example, due to a heart attack following an incident, tear-gas inhalation, or a roadblock delay that prevented an ilperson from receiving medical treatment in a timely manner.

* Probable Combatant

A “probable combatant” is someone killed at a location and at a time during which an armed confrontation was going on, who appears most likely – but not certain – to have been an active participant in the fighting. For example, in many cases where an incident has resulted in a large number of Palestinian casualties, the only information available is that an individual was killed when Israeli soldiers returned fire in response to shots fired from a particular location. While it is possible that the person killed had not been active in the fighting and just happened to be in the vicinity of people who were, it is reasonable to assume that the number of such coincidental deaths is not particularly high. Where the accounts of an incident appear to support such a coincidence, the individual casualty has been given the benefit of the doubt, and assigned a non-combatant status.

Uniformed Non-Combatant

A “uniformed non-combatant” is a non-civilian, but is not actively involved in the conflict. This category can include civil police as well as soldiers in uniform but not at their post.

Violent Protester

A “violent protester” may be a civilian, but has chosen to take an active and violent part in the conflict – such as rioting or vigilante activity.

Protestor Unknown

A “protestor unknown” is anyone who was killed during a protest, for whom information as to violent behavior is unavailable.



^Lets take a look at the bolded part there. To arrive at the figures that they have arrived at, the ICT has decided to label Palestinians as probable combatants if they happen to be in an area where fighting is taking place. And all it takes to get a palestinian labeled as a combatant is the suspicion of the IDF officials. Thus, a 13 year old girl coming home from school and finding herself in a battle zone, could be considered a combatant, causing a platoon commander to unload an entire magazine on her, from point blank range, to "verify the kill" .

On the other hand, a uniformed member of the IDF is somehow NOT a combatant if he happens to be away from his post when palestinian fighters spot him and target him because he's wearing the uniform of the enemy and carrying a gun!

Does this make ANY sense? Of course not. It's the epitome of ridiculous illogic. But there's no other way to spin the figures so as to make them favor Israel. They simply do NOT.


PS: Later we'll discuss ICT.org's decision not to count tear gas inhalation deaths as part of the Palestinian civilian death toll.

[Il Principe]

Somehow, for whatever reason I cant trust nor believe people who mutilate their own children - call it morality.

[Yrkoon]

Il Principe wrote: Somehow, for whatever reason I cant trust nor believe people who mutilate their own children - call it morality.
But enough about the Germans.

[Il Principe]

Yrkoon wrote: Il Principe wrote: Somehow, for whatever reason I cant trust nor believe people who mutilate their own children - call it morality.
But enough about the Germans.

Or more accurately the Slavs :lol:

Anyhow how do Germans mutilate their children again?

Really to some people critisizing Jews is offlimits since the 40's (or more accurately since the 60's when the holohoax was invented), no offence but those 25 million or so slavs are little more important imo.

[Yrkoon]

Il Principe wrote: Yrkoon wrote: Il Principe wrote: Somehow, for whatever reason I cant trust nor believe people who mutilate their own children - call it morality.
But enough about the Germans.
Anyhow how do Germans mutilate their children again?
Ask that one guy with the silly moustache.... made a big stink and pissed off the world back during WWII....

(it was a bad joke on my part. Sorry)

Il Principe wrote: Really to some people critisizing Jews is offlimits since the 40's (or more accurately since the 60's when the holohoax was invented), no offence but those 25 million or so slavs are little more important imo.
Agreed. I tend to avoid discussions about Jews. Instead, I like to focus on Israelis--specifically, the Israeli government. Over the years, I've gotten hammered for my alledged "anti-semitism" as a result. Go figure.

I wonder if criticizing the Iranian government = anti-muslim bigotry. Because it's the same concept.

[Il Principe]

Yrkoon wrote: Il Principe wrote: Yrkoon wrote: Il Principe wrote: Somehow, for whatever reason I cant trust nor believe people who mutilate their own children - call it morality.
But enough about the Germans.
Anyhow how do Germans mutilate their children again?
Ask that one guy with the silly moustache.... made a big stink and pissed off the world back during WWII....

(it was a bad joke on my part. Sorry)

And how were German children mutilated by the Nazis? Even if we go along with this - its nothing traditional.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Really to some people critisizing Jews is offlimits since the 40's (or more accurately since the 60's when the holohoax was invented), no offence but those 25 million or so slavs are little more important imo.
Agreed. I tend to avoid discussions about Jews. Instead, I like to focus on Israelis--specifically, the Israeli government. Over the years, I've gotten hammered for my alledged "anti-semitism" as a result. Go figure.

I wonder if criticizing the Iranian government = anti-muslim bigotry. Because it's the same concept.

Agreed, the Israeli government has done a good job at flogging the holocaust issue to garner support for themselves - and at the same time disacrating the memories of the millions of jewish people who legitimately died in WWII at the hands of the Nazis

[Saracen]

Yrkoon wrote: superskippy wrote: Heres a link to statistics of the breakdown of fatalities in the conflict.


http://www.ict.org.il/

Aah yes. ICT.org. I'm familiar with this website. Folks, before we delve into the bizzare definitions of combatants and non combatants that this website decides to employ so as to make Israel out to be the lesser of the two civilian-killing machines, I would first like to turn your attention to the organization's leadership: Quote: Board of Directors

Shabtai Shavit-- Chairman, Board of Directors, former director of the Israeli Intelligence Agency (Mossad)

Uriel Reichman-- President of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya

Aharon Scherf Former director of Israel’s Foreign Affairs Division and senior official in Prime Minister’s Office
Among others. Their board of trustees feature retired Generals of the IDF as well as a captain of El AL airlines and a former leader of the IDF's military intelligence branch.

But none of this really matters. What *really* damns this website as completely unreliable is the bogus definitions that they use in order to stack the innocence in the favor of dead Israelis.

The terminology can be found here. Scroll down past the graphs and figures until you get to the portion entitled Catagorization. And read this: Quote: Combatant Level

his is one of our most significant ways of classifying casualties, and represents the degree to which someone killed or injured during the course of the al-Aqsa conflict can be considered an “innocent victim”. Our decisions in defining the Combatant Level categories and assigning casualties to these categories are made with reference to ICT’s published definition of terrorism, explained in Boaz Ganor’s article, “Terrorism: No Prohibition Without Definition”.

Non-Combatant

A non-combatant is an innocent bystander – a person whose death or injury has no justification other than nationality or ethnicity.

Health Related

A “health related” fatality is someone who died from a cause only indirectly related to violence – for example, due to a heart attack following an incident, tear-gas inhalation, or a roadblock delay that prevented an ilperson from receiving medical treatment in a timely manner.

* Probable Combatant

A “probable combatant” is someone killed at a location and at a time during which an armed confrontation was going on, who appears most likely – but not certain – to have been an active participant in the fighting. For example, in many cases where an incident has resulted in a large number of Palestinian casualties, the only information available is that an individual was killed when Israeli soldiers returned fire in response to shots fired from a particular location. While it is possible that the person killed had not been active in the fighting and just happened to be in the vicinity of people who were, it is reasonable to assume that the number of such coincidental deaths is not particularly high. Where the accounts of an incident appear to support such a coincidence, the individual casualty has been given the benefit of the doubt, and assigned a non-combatant status.

Uniformed Non-Combatant

A “uniformed non-combatant” is a non-civilian, but is not actively involved in the conflict. This category can include civil police as well as soldiers in uniform but not at their post.

Violent Protester

A “violent protester” may be a civilian, but has chosen to take an active and violent part in the conflict – such as rioting or vigilante activity.

Protestor Unknown

A “protestor unknown” is anyone who was killed during a protest, for whom information as to violent behavior is unavailable.



^Lets take a look at the bolded part there. To arrive at the figures that they have arrived at, the ICT has decided to label Palestinians as probable combatants if they happen to be in an area where fighting is taking place. And all it takes to get a palestinian labeled as a combatant is the suspicion of the IDF officials. Thus, a 13 year old girl coming home from school and finding herself in a battle zone, could be considered a combatant, causing a platoon commander to unload an entire magazine on her, from point blank range, to "verify the kill" .

On the other hand, a uniformed member of the IDF is somehow NOT a combatant if he happens to be away from his post when palestinian fighters spot him and target him because he's wearing the uniform of the enemy and carrying a gun!

Does this make ANY sense? Of course not. It's the epitome of ridiculous illogic. But there's no other way to spin the figures so as to make them favor Israel. They simply do NOT.


PS: Later we'll discuss ICT.org's decision not to count tear gas inhalation deaths as part of the Palestinian civilian death toll.

Excellent post and welcome to the forums! :clap:

[lowchen]

Il Principe wrote: Yrkoon wrote: Il Principe wrote: Yrkoon wrote: Il Principe wrote: Somehow, for whatever reason I cant trust nor believe people who mutilate their own children - call it morality.
But enough about the Germans.
Anyhow how do Germans mutilate their children again?
Ask that one guy with the silly moustache.... made a big stink and pissed off the world back during WWII....

(it was a bad joke on my part. Sorry)

And how were German children mutilated by the Nazis? Even if we go along with this - its nothing traditional.

Quote: Il Principe wrote: Really to some people critisizing Jews is offlimits since the 40's (or more accurately since the 60's when the holohoax was invented), no offence but those 25 million or so slavs are little more important imo.
Agreed. I tend to avoid discussions about Jews. Instead, I like to focus on Israelis--specifically, the Israeli government. Over the years, I've gotten hammered for my alledged "anti-semitism" as a result. Go figure.

I wonder if criticizing the Iranian government = anti-muslim bigotry. Because it's the same concept.

Agreed, the Israeli government has done a good job at flogging the holocaust issue to garner support for themselves - and at the same time disacrating the memories of the millions of jewish people who legitimately died in WWII at the hands of the Nazis

Yeah. Its called the holocaust industry. Take millions of your own kind that died and use their deaths as a tool to further your agenda. And if someone calls you on your bs, accuse them of being an anti-semite (even though there are MORE ARABS than JEWs who semites). Works pretty well doesnt it?

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: The Qana shelling should have had no civilian losses, but the villagers had fled there after fighting erupted between us and militants across the border.

The Qana shelling shouldn't have happened. Period. Villagers were already present there, and the shelling happened after the civilians fled from nearby areas. Even the UN and other organizations claim that Qana was an inexcusable massacre, so it's not worth defending:

Robert Fisk wrote: "The Israelis have just told us they'll stop shelling the area", a UN soldier said, shaking with anger. "Are we supposed to thank them?" In the remains of a burning building - the conference room of the Fijian UN headquarters - a pile of corpses was burning. The roof had crashed in flames onto their bodies, cremating them in front of my eyes. When I walked towards them, I slipped on a human hand...

Israel's slaughter of civilians in this terrible 10-day offensive - 206 by last night - has been so cavalier, so ferocious, that not a Lebanese will forgive this massacre. There had been the ambulance attacked on Saturday, the sisters killed in Yohmor the day before, the 2-year-old girl decapitated by an Israeli missile four days ago. And earlier yesterday, the Israelis had slaughtered a family of 12 - the youngest was a four- day-old baby - when Israeli helicopter pilots fired missiles into their home.

Shortly afterwards, three Israeli jets dropped bombs only 250 metres from a UN convoy on which I was travelling, blasting a house 30 feet into the air in front of my eyes. Travelling back to Beirut to file my report on the Qana massacre to the Independent last night, I found two Israeli gunboats firing at the civilian cars on the river bridge north of Sidon.

Every foreign army comes to grief in Lebanon. The Sabra and Chatila massacre of Palestinians by Israel's militia allies in 1982 doomed Israel's 1982 invasion. Now the Israelis are stained again by the bloodbath at Qana, the scruffy little Lebanese hill town where the Lebanese believe Jesus turned water into wine.

And just to show you the F**ked UP DOUBLE STANDARDS

Robert Fisk wrote: The problem, however is that neither America nor Europe are going to condemn a country which pounded refugees of Qana with 155mm shells for 12 minutes; and such condemnation is about the only palliative that the Lebanese might accept for the moment. And you can see their point. On the coast road back to Beirut last night there were burning cars, civilians deliberately targeted by Israeli warships north of Sidon, three of whom had been badly wounded. Had this being a Syrian warship shelling Israeli civilians on the Haifa-Tel Aviv road, of course, Mr Clinton himself would have deplored - rightly - an act of "international terrorism". But not a word of criticism about this scandalous targeting of Lebanese civilians was uttered by the foreign ministers of America, Russia, France and Italy as they sought to bring an end to an apparently unstoppable war.

It was obvious to any untrained monkey that the civilians were deliberately targeted. It did not involve any "fights" between soldiers and so forth. And you can read the full UN report here.

Quote: Whereas the PLO deployed its base in Beirut turning the city into a fortress and littered villages around the countryside with their troops and used them as battlegrounds to force us to reduce our heavy artillary and airpower.

Arafat held a position in Southern Beirut and guerilla forces were dispatched all over. However, bombing the sh!T out of civilians was what the Israelis used instead of risking their own lives and going in their to root out the so-called "terrorists", who were simply Palestinian resistance fighters sent into Lebanon especially after the fascist Lebanese Christian Phalangists made a wreaking hell out of Palestinians living in Beirut.

Quote: The combatants list is a list of people who have borne arms against Israel. I'm not certain if rock throwers are catagorized as such, but once you take up violence against a military force you become a combatant. In any case the vast bulk are militants and I beleive it only refers to militants.

I don't care. Civilians who resist should not be placed under such a thing. If anything, resistance is legal. And that's exactly what these rock-throwers do. Read Yrkoon's latest post. It disspells all your nonsense.

Quote: Not really, the vast vast bulk of them are killed when in proximity to an artillary blast or missile fire. A tragic but collateral casualty and the lack of intent makes it a lack of murder as is so often claimed.

Please, stop apologizing for the intentional killing of innocents. Regardless of whatever it is, a bomb is a bomb, and it kills civilians and militants, but it was very obvious from the stats of the war that the Israelis and their fellow pro-Israeli Lebanese Christian Phalange fascists were responsible for the deaths of many Palestinian and Lebanese Muslims, Christians and Druze innocents. Don't forget the air raids the Israelis did at that time against the Palestinians and their positions. The term for it is scorched Earth.

Jean Shaoul wrote: While Israel made much of the terrorist attacks on its own population, there was little reporting of its own scorched earth campaign between 1968 and 1974 against Lebanon. This was justified in terms of the need to defend Israel’s northern settlements against Palestinian raids.

To cite but one example, the Palestinian terrorist attack at Ma’alot in May 1974 where 20 teenage youth were killed, was preceded by weeks of sustained Israeli phosphorous and napalm bombing of Palestinian refugee camps in southern Lebanon resulting in the deaths of more than 300 people. Just two days before Ma’alot, an Israeli air attack on the village of El-Kfeir in Lebanon had killed four civilians.

Israel’s campaign was also aimed at undermining popular support for the Palestinians, sowing divisions between the Palestinians and Lebanese, and forcing the Lebanese government to suppress the PLO. Abba Eban, Israel’s foreign minister from 1966 to 1974, said the government’s policy was predicated upon the “ rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities” (emphasis added).

The Lebanese army recorded over 3,000 violations of Lebanese territory by Israeli armed forces between 1968 and 1974, an average rate of 1.4 incidents per day. In 1974-75, this increased to seven incidents per day. During 1968-74, 880 Lebanese and Palestinians were killed in Israeli attacks. According to UN officials, 3,500 were killed in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan in Israeli air raids. While no separate figures exist for Palestinians, it was assumed that these must be at least twice as high as for the Lebanese.

By 1975, Israel had killed about 10 times as many Palestinians and Lebanese in cross border attacks as the total number of Israelis killed in Palestinian commando raids by 1982. Thousands of Palestinians were wounded and tens of thousands were forced to flee their homes in south Lebanon and move to the relative safety of Beirut and other cities. By the late 1970s, this figure had reached 250,000. The aim was to create a demilitarised zone in the south. To this end, 150 Palestinian camps and villages were virtually razed to the ground and olive groves and crops destroyed.

By the mid-1970s, Arafat’s Fatah party, the dominant faction in the PLO, had adopted a “two state solution”, advocating a mini-Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza that it hoped could be achieved by negotiations with Israel, and began to turn away from terrorist raids within Israel. This did not stop Israeli attacks on Lebanon, which actually increased. After 30 warplanes bombed and strafed Palestinian refugee camps and nearby villages, killing 57 people in December 1975, Israeli officials claimed their aim had been preventative, not punitive.

These attacks were aimed at torpedoing any attempt at reaching a solution to the long-running conflict that included a Palestinian state. Just two days earlier, despite angry objections by Israel, the UN Security Council had devoted a session to discussing an Arab initiative for a two-state settlement, thus paving the way for the PLO’s participation in talks. The US vetoed the proposal. Far from preventing terrorism, the Israeli attacks were aimed at provoking a retaliatory response from the Palestinians and preventing any possibility of the UN agreeing to a Palestinian state.

The outbreak of the first phase (1975-76) of the Lebanese civil war expressed the unviability of the truncated state, riven as it was with divisions sown and encouraged by French imperialism as a means of preserving its influence and interests. In what was essentially a class war between the Palestinians and their Muslim allies against the reactionary Maronite Christian ruling elite, the Israeli government backed the various rival Christian Maronite militias—the perpetrators of the Tel al Zaatar and Khiyam massacres to name but two—as their proxies against the PLO and their Muslim allies. When it appeared that the Palestinian and Muslim forces might prevail, the Syrian army intervened to preserve the Lebanese state and the Maronite establishment.

In May 1977, Menachem Begin’s right-wing Likud party came to power, ending nearly 30 years in which the Labour Party had dominated Israeli political life. Quite explicitly committed to a “Greater Israel” policy, Begin expanded the Israeli relationship with the Maronites, backing Pierre and Bashir Gamayel’s Phalangists against rival parties.

Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, provided the Phalange with canons, mortar, tanks, communications equipment, mines and explosives. Mossad officers were placed within the Christian command, ostensibly to provide help with Israeli weaponry but in reality to provide intelligence about the civil war and launch attacks against Palestinian strongholds in Lebanon. Later operations were to be extended against the Lebanese Shiites in southern Lebanon, who were then allied with the Palestinians. For the next five years, as the civil war waxed and waned in Lebanon with constantly shifting alliances, Israel continued to support the fascist Christian militia, to the tune of $100 million a year.

In 1977, the Palestinians surrendered their heavy armaments under the first phase of the Shtaura agreement whereby the Lebanese government, Syria and the PLO imposed a freeze on cross-border raids by the Palestinians and attempted to resolve the civil war. The Israelis responded to this peace initiative by mounting a provocative and intensive bombing campaign in which 70 people, nearly all Lebanese, were killed. In addition, the Israeli-controlled Haddad militia in southern Lebanon launched an offensive with Israeli support aimed at disrupting the Lebanese government’s plans to deploy its army in the south.

In March 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon in retaliation for a terrorist attack by Palestinian commandos, who had reached Israel by sea from Beirut and killed 34 Israelis. The bloody invasion led to the death of more than 2,000 people and drove more than 250,000 people from their homes in the south.

Israeli bombardment continued in 1979. The Lebanese government compiled a list showing the scale of Lebanese casualties alone. Nearly 100 Lebanese were killed or wounded in just one day in April, while nearly 1,000 were killed and 224 wounded between April and August.

It's obvious throughout the track record of the Lebanese Civil war that the Israelis were planning a full scale invasion. I'm glad they failed, and that they made themselves even more enemies in the Middle East.

Quote: That isnt why they attack and you know it, their own charter advocates attacks on us for the mere reason that Israel exists. They are a ravenous terrible terrorist organization. Heres a quaint peaceful mention from their charter: "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Yes, you and I know how despicable they are, but think about it: why are they bothered with Israel's existence? It's not because it is "Israel", but because of what "Israel" does: systematic killing of innocents, torture of Palestinian children in prisons and camps, forcing Palestinians to go through so much sh!t just to get into their country and leave (Allenby Bridge... ding ding!). Also, the bolded part serves to support my claim: they are against Israel for what it does, not for what it is. However, their attacks are indeed retaliatory. The timeline you "debunked" clearly shows that, and moreover, innocents are always being targeted by Israeli soldiers.

Quote: Also I ask you, why dont the suicide bombers strike at soldiers? Surely that fights the occupation more then some guy on a bus?

I agree that they should strike at the soldiers, and I don't support their method of "resistance". However, the militants who clash with soldiers should be resistance enough. Moreover, Israeli soldiers are not easy targets and are not easy to root out. On the other hand, you have them at checkpoints, which are, in my belief, the number one locations of humiliation. The oppression, humiliation and all other factors in the article I presented clearly prove my claim.

[superskippy]

Quote: The Qana shelling shouldn't have happened. Period. Villagers were already present there, and the shelling happened after the civilians fled from nearby areas. Even the UN and other organizations claim that Qana was an inexcusable massacre, so it's not worth defending:

We were aiming to dislodge enemy troops.

Quote: It was obvious to any untrained monkey that the civilians were deliberately targeted.

No they werent and what use would we have to target them in the midst of a UN compound?

Quote: Arafat held a position in Southern Beirut and guerilla forces were dispatched all over. However, bombing the sh!T out of civilians was what the Israelis used instead of risking their own lives and going in their to root out the so-called "terrorists", who were simply Palestinian resistance fighters sent into Lebanon especially after the fascist Lebanese Christian Phalangists made a wreaking hell out of Palestinians living in Beirut.

Arafat was quick to occupy all of Beirut and along with the remnants of a Syrian Brigade they put over 15,000 soldiers into the city as well has hundreds of towns and villages across Lebanon. Of course we used artillary and air power to push the PLO out of Beirut we werent going to give up at the outskirts of the city and let them win and reoccupy Lebanon.

And dont make up lies about being sent to Lebanon, the PLO went to Lebanon because they got kicked out of Jordan and no one else would take them, Syria wouldnt let them into Syria so the Syrians let them into Lebanon, where the PLO preceded to conquer the Southern half of the country and then seize Beirut.

Quote: I don't care. Civilians who resist should not be placed under such a thing. If anything, resistance is legal. And that's exactly what these rock-throwers do. Read Yrkoon's latest post. It disspells all your nonsense.

Resistence makes you a combatant under international law, if you take up violence against a military force.

Quote: Aah yes. ICT.org. I'm familiar with this website. Folks, before we delve into the bizzare definitions of combatants and non combatants that this website decides to employ so as to make Israel out to be the lesser of the two civilian-killing machines, I would first like to turn your attention to the organization's leadership:

Its no less applicable and valid then Electronic Intifadah, Red Crescent, Palestine Forgotten etc etc etc. And the group is well respected in counter terrorist circles throughout the world.

Quote: The Qana shelling took place in an established, and recognized by both sides, Civilian safe house Marked and run by the UN. In other words, these civilians were *literally* and responsibly removing themselves from the war zone. That Israel decided to shell an established *neutral* *civilian safe house* is yet another violation of the Geneva conventions, of which Israel is a signatory.

It was a misfire we had received Katyusha and mortar fire less than 250 yards from the compund 15 minutes before we returned fire and it was a logical but tragic misfire, and it was in the midst of a major campaign against Hizbullah.

Quote: Does this mean anything to you? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the Palestinians are the ones who are suffering?

They suffer because of the actions of the militants.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: We were aiming to dislodge enemy troops.

By beating the sh!t out of a village full of people?

superskippy wrote: No they werent and what use would we have to target them in the midst of a UN compound?

The report claimed that there were civilians dead. It even claims that Shimon Peres did not regret the shelling.

superskippy wrote: Arafat was quick to occupy all of Beirut and along with the remnants of a Syrian Brigade they put over 15,000 soldiers into the city as well has hundreds of towns and villages across Lebanon. Of course we used artillary and air power to push the PLO out of Beirut we werent going to give up at the outskirts of the city and let them win and reoccupy Lebanon.

And dont make up lies about being sent to Lebanon, the PLO went to Lebanon because they got kicked out of Jordan and no one else would take them, Syria wouldnt let them into Syria so the Syrians let them into Lebanon, where the PLO preceded to conquer the Southern half of the country and then seize Beirut.

What lies? Arafat was forced into Lebanon because he was in a bad situation.. Granted, he was stupid to do what he did, but that did not excuse the continuous bombardment of Beirut. There were many witnesses and accounts that claim that Israel's targetings were intentional.

superskippy wrote: Resistence makes you a combatant under international law, if you take up violence against a military force.

You missed this part:

ICT wrote: * Probable Combatant

A “probable combatant” is someone killed at a location and at a time during which an armed confrontation was going on, who appears most likely – but not certain – to have been an active participant in the fighting. For example, in many cases where an incident has resulted in a large number of Palestinian casualties, the only information available is that an individual was killed when Israeli soldiers returned fire in response to shots fired from a particular location. While it is possible that the person killed had not been active in the fighting and just happened to be in the vicinity of people who were, it is reasonable to assume that the number of such coincidental deaths is not particularly high. Where the accounts of an incident appear to support such a coincidence, the individual casualty has been given the benefit of the doubt, and assigned a non-combatant status.

Uniformed Non-Combatant

A “uniformed non-combatant” is a non-civilian, but is not actively involved in the conflict. This category can include civil police as well as soldiers in uniform but not at their post.

This makes things murkier and murkier.

superskippy wrote: Its no less applicable and valid then Electronic Intifadah, Red Crescent, Palestine Forgotten etc etc etc. And the group is well respected in counter terrorist circles throughout the world.

Yeah, American and British counter-terrorist circles as well as other allies to Israel, which makes it less reliable.

superskippy wrote: It was a misfire we had received Katyusha and mortar fire less than 250 yards from the compund 15 minutes before we returned fire and it was a logical but tragic misfire, and it was in the midst of a major campaign against Hizbullah.

So everything Israel does is an accident, while everything the Palestinians do is not... I don't buy that for a single second.

superskippy wrote: They suffer because of the actions of the militants.

Which I respectfully disagree.

[superskippy]

Quote: By beating the sh!t out of a village full of people?

By shelling an area where fire had come from.

Quote: The report claimed that there were civilians dead. It even claims that Shimon Peres did not regret the shelling.

The shelling is regretable in that it was a misfire, but as part of the overarching campaign it is not regretable.

Quote: What lies? Arafat was forced into Lebanon because he was in a bad situation.. Granted, he was stupid to do what he did, but that did not excuse the continuous bombardment of Beirut. There were many witnesses and accounts that claim that Israel's targetings were intentional.

Arafat conquered South Lebanon, usurped the government in Beirut and using Lebanon and its civilians as a shield launched a campaign against Israel. We shelled beirut to dislodge an enemy force that had been launching a cross border war.

Quote: Yeah, American and British counter-terrorist circles as well as other allies to Israel, which makes it less reliable.

American and British Counter Terrorist circles are the most reputable in the world alongside other Western Nations including Israel.

Quote: So everything Israel does is an accident, while everything the Palestinians do is not... I don't buy that for a single second.

For god sakes we received artillary fire 250 yards from the area of the compound 15 minutes before we returned fire. This is admitted in the UN report or do you dispute that as well?

Quote: Which I respectfully disagree.

You have the right to disagree, while I beleive nay I'm sure that the militants bring the suffering to the Palestinians.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: By shelling an area where fire had come from.


Which still had people. There are other ways to go around that loophole.

superskippy wrote: The shelling is regretable in that it was a misfire, but as part of the overarching campaign it is not regretable.

Please, skippy, everyone, even Peres, knows that it was intentional. It was impossible for it to be unintentional.

superskippy wrote: Arafat conquered South Lebanon, usurped the government in Beirut and using Lebanon and its civilians as a shield launched a campaign against Israel. We shelled beirut to dislodge an enemy force that had been launching a cross border war.

What government? Bishar Gemayel was still in control of most of Beirut. It was this guy and his right-hand man, Elie Hobeika, who were responsible for the Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims suffering from their grasp on the capital. Moreover, they had Israel's support, and Israel hammered the capital with its air raids and bombardment. Many civilians died as a result, and Arafat's presence was not an excuse to bomb the sh!t out of Beirut, which, by the way, is still in a war-torn state (I've been there myself).

superskippy wrote: American and British Counter Terrorist circles are the most reputable in the world alongside other Western Nations including Israel.

Reputable or not, that still does not make them "counter-terrorist" more than terrorist: Israel for its below-the-belt dealings against Palestinians, and America and the UK for their war on Iraq.

superskippy wrote: For god sakes we received artillary fire 250 yards from the area of the compound 15 minutes before we returned fire. This is admitted in the UN report or do you dispute that as well?

I admit that, but the fact that civilians were there doesn't make it unintentional bombardment. When civilians are in side, send some troops gawddammit! Bombardment causes civilian casualties and too many times we have seen the "collateral damage" excuse flown around. We're not buying it anymore and we have never bought it from the beginning.

superskippy wrote: You have the right to disagree, while I beleive nay I'm sure that the militants bring the suffering to the Palestinians.

The Israelis are responsible for the most part, but yes, let's agree to disagree.

[superskippy]

Quote: Which still had people. There are other ways to go around that loophole.

Not really save by organizing an assault battalion and crossing the border and trying to weed out the militants.

Quote: Please, skippy, everyone, even Peres, knows that it was intentional. It was impossible for it to be unintentional.

It was completely unintentional, and have you ever seen or handled even a light artillary piece? I've had weapons training on them and 250 yards off with a piece of artillary is not terrible even with modern artillary, and with self propelled artillary it is even harder. Artillary is meant to pound defensive positions and to hit concentrations of troops, if your using it as a pin-point weapon your using it wrong.

Quote: What government? Bishar Gemayel was still in control of most of Beirut. It was this guy and his right-hand man, Elie Hobeika, who were responsible for the Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims suffering from their grasp on the capital. Moreover, they had Israel's support, and Israel hammered the capital with its air raids and bombardment. Many civilians died as a result, and Arafat's presence was not an excuse to bomb the sh!t out of Beirut, which, by the way, is still in a war-torn state (I've been there myself

The Lebanese government the National Assembly, Gemayel didnt make an attempt to lead the country by seeking office until the 1980's.

Arafat decided to make South Lebanon his own country, and his PLO tormented the population. He usurped the National Assembly and forced Lebanon to become a front in his war as he launched a cross border campaign against Israel. He shifted support from various militias as it suited which escilated the civil war and inflamed to other parts of the country.

As for Beirut, Arafat using PLO forces occupied the city and fortified it. He made it a fortress and was fully prepared to sacrifice the population of Beirut on the pyre of his cause rather than take the option of leaving Lebanon with the PLO as he had the oppertunity to do by fleeing to Syria. Instead he wanted to use the population of Beirut as a political point knowing full well we would force him out of the city.

Of course we shelled it, he entrenched in the city and we were determined to force him out. He started a war we were going to end it and we really did. After the Siege of Beirut the Palestinians never again managed to come to the field with significant arms.

Lebanon is one of the few Arab nations were the Palestinians are quite possibly despised more than the Israelis. Dont give me idle accounts of a Lebanese citizen, I have plenty of Lebanese friends and though it may surprise you I've been to Beirut though not for pleasure, and they hate Palestinians, Saracen, your people destroyed their country not us. The PLO and the Palestinian militias destablized the country and fought against and alongisde both muslims and christians depending on which was better for them, and killed ten's of thousands of people and are responsablse for thousands more.

Hizbullah may give its support, but thats due to our longstanding conflict. Ask the average Lebanese person on the street and you probably rank above us on their list.

Quote: I admit that, but the fact that civilians were there doesn't make it unintentional bombardment. When civilians are in side, send some troops gawddammit! Bombardment causes civilian casualties and too many times we have seen the "collateral damage" excuse flown around. We're not buying it anymore and we have never bought it from the beginning.

We didnt beleive we would hit civilians, nor did we beleive that is where we would be hitting. It was supposed to be a routine shelling to drive back Hizbullah militants, there shouldnt have been a need for troops.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Not really save by organizing an assault battalion and crossing the border and trying to weed out the militants.

That would have been better. Shelling civilians is not a rational way of approaching the matter. Moreover, Qana wasn't the only butchering perpetrated by the Israelis.

LAA.org wrote: But when the army did not interfere with commando raids and the Israelis launched attacks into Lebanon in retaliation against the Palestinian forces, the army and the Deuxiéme Bureau were charged with collusion with Israel. In December 1968, the government was humiliated when Israeli commandos landed at Beirut International Airport and destroyed Middle East Airlines aircraft with impunity. In October 1969, the Lebanese Army took a more active role in fighting Palestinian forces. Nevertheless, it was clear that the army could decisively defeat the Palestinians only at the risk of splitting the nation. Therefore, army commander General Emil Bustani signed the Cairo Agreement in November 1969 with Palestinian representatives

It was these air raids that resulted in the deaths of many civilians.

superskippy wrote: It was completely unintentional, and have you ever seen or handled even a light artillary piece? I've had weapons training on them and 250 yards off with a piece of artillary is not terrible even with modern artillary, and with self propelled artillary it is even harder. Artillary is meant to pound defensive positions and to hit concentrations of troops, if your using it as a pin-point weapon your using it wrong.

Then don't use artillery pieces. Use bullets or some other form of weapon. Shelling positions like that are totally unacceptable. Of course, we all know who was responsible for Qana, and what he said regarding the massacre and attacks on Palestinians:

ICH wrote: The UN have noted that an Israeli officer is also ensuring that his military career remains unblemished. For although the Israeli Prime Minister, Shimon Peres, denied knowing that more than 800 civilians were sheltering at the UN base at Qana on 18 April, Major General Moshe Yaalon, the Israeli army chief of intelligence, stated on the day of the massacre that the Israel Defense Forces knew of the civilian presence at Qana and that it was the Israeli army's Northern Command under General Amiram Levine -- already reprimanded after his artillery fired into the village of Shaqra last year and killed a young Lebanese woman -- which ignored the intelligence information.

"Yaalon knows something smells and he's keeping himself out of it," a European UN soldier said. "The Israeli investigation that Dan Harel [the brigadier commanding the Israeli Artillery Corp] carried out was cursory. He said they fired at the Katyushas and that only two rounds hit the UN base. This is bulls**t. We know that at least 12 rounds hit the base, seven of them fitted with proximity fuses which explode the shells seven metres from the ground and are designed to kill the maximum number of people by inflicting amputation wounds."

WARNING: Link contains graphic video.

On 27 August, 2002, Moshe Yaalon, in an interview with Haaretz, wrote: The Palestinian threat harbors cancer-like attributes that have to be severed. There are all kinds of solutions to cancer. Some say it's necessary to amputate organs but at the moment I am applying chemotherapy

Yep, Moshe Yaalon. What a racist bastard.
Without a shred of doubt, the Qana shelling, as the article proves, was intentional.

superskippy wrote: The Lebanese government the National Assembly, Gemayel didnt make an attempt to lead the country by seeking office until the 1980's.

Arafat decided to make South Lebanon his own country, and his PLO tormented the population. He usurped the National Assembly and forced Lebanon to become a front in his war as he launched a cross border campaign against Israel. He shifted support from various militias as it suited which escilated the civil war and inflamed to other parts of the country.

As for Beirut, Arafat using PLO forces occupied the city and fortified it. He made it a fortress and was fully prepared to sacrifice the population of Beirut on the pyre of his cause rather than take the option of leaving Lebanon with the PLO as he had the oppertunity to do by fleeing to Syria. Instead he wanted to use the population of Beirut as a political point knowing full well we would force him out of the city.

Of course we shelled it, he entrenched in the city and we were determined to force him out. He started a war we were going to end it and we really did. After the Siege of Beirut the Palestinians never again managed to come to the field with significant arms.

The Palestinians never had significant arms to begin with. That war was definitely one of Israel's biggest mistakes and the one that defined Israeli brutality. However, Arafat was rooted out of Lebanon way before the civil war ended, and after which ensued more civilian casualties from all sides:

Al Jazeera wrote: One of the main Israeli objectives was to drive Arafat's fighters out of Lebanon. Israeli forces besieged the Lebanon capital, Beirut, and Arafat's departure was the price for lifting the siege. The Palestinian leader and his fighters were sent to various Arab countries in an agreement hammered out with the help of several countries. According to the agreement, the US would guarantee the safety of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Shortly after the PLO's departure, the slaughter of more than 2200 refugees in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps took place under the nose of the Israeli occupation forces.

Arafat and the PLO headquarters headed for Tunisia. Other members of the leadership settled in Tunisia as well as Syria, while Palestinian fighters found themselves scattered throughout the Middle East. In November 1988, the PLO's Palestinian National Council declared the independent state of Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital. Arafat read the declaration of independence and later publicly rejected "all forms of violence" and met US conditions for dialogue.

Even after that, the Israelis continued to pound the Lebanese and Palestinians.

superskippy wrote: We didnt beleive we would hit civilians, nor did we beleive that is where we would be hitting. It was supposed to be a routine shelling to drive back Hizbullah militants, there shouldnt have been a need for troops.

My article above refutes this claim. The attack was intentional without a shred of doubt.

[superskippy]

Quote: That would have been better. Shelling civilians is not a rational way of approaching the matter. Moreover, Qana wasn't the only butchering perpetrated by the Israelis.

Had we known the major civilian presence then an assault might have proven worse as a battle inside a packed civilian zone almost never turns out well.

Quote: Then don't use artillery pieces. Use bullets or some other form of weapon. Shelling positions like that are totally unacceptable. Of course, we all know who was responsible for Qana, and what he said regarding the massacre and attacks on Palestinians:

So artillary should never be used on urban targets because civilians may be present? Tell that to Russia, America, Germany, Egypt, Syria, the Palestinians, Italy, France, North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, etc etc. Artillary is an established weapon of war and war is not refineable.

Quote: Yep, Moshe Yaalon. What a racist bastard.
Without a shred of doubt, the Qana shelling, as the article proves, was intentional.


Not really, I never contested that their were civilians, their will always bee civilians in a town or village but the aim was to dislodge the Hizbullah militants that had fired at us bare minutes before and from the same area.

Quote: The Palestinians never had significant arms to begin with. That war was definitely one of Israel's biggest mistakes and the one that defined Israeli brutality. However, Arafat was rooted out of Lebanon way before the civil war ended, and after which ensued more civilian casualties from all sides:

Wrong the Palestinians organized an army that was the largest force in Lebanon ouweighing even the Syrian Army, along with over 18,000 troops organized into Brigade form they had 300 tanks, 180 APC's, around 400 anti tank weapons of individual merit (IE not anti tank rounds, but actual anti tank weapons), around 400-500 pieces of heavy artillary, 300-400 pieces of Anti-Aircraft guns, and tens of thousands of small arms, and millions of rounds. They had an Army in Lebanon and Arafat organized it for his new state in South Lebanon.

He was rooted out only by our efforts, and after he fled to Beirut and brought a few thousand troops into the City to protect him. He let the city become a pyre of corpses for his cause instead of simply leaving Lebanon. He was a mindless butcher who cared nothing for his fellow Arabs only for his own twisted way to achieve his cause.

Also dont try and portray it that Sabra and Shatilla happened because the PLO could no longer protect it, the PLO and the Palestinian militia's carried out dozens of massacres over the years in Lebanon far exceeding the casualties of Sabra and Shatilla.

And if Arafat had actually renounced violence maybe we wouldnt have had to continue to kick the ccrap out of his PLO, but since that never happened... Well he sure did get a surprise when we blew the hell out of his Headquarters in Tunis :lol: .

[mr crunchy]

i too have many lebanese friends
to a man the christians like the israelis much more than the palestinians

the moderate lebanese muslim people dont care for the palestinians much either...

[Yrkoon]

mr crunchy wrote: i too have many lebanese friends
to a man the christians like the israelis much more than the palestinians

the moderate lebanese muslim people dont care for the palestinians much either...
I have a (well, 2) friends who are Palestinian Christians. They also happen to be Lebanese.

They tend to like themselves more than they like Israelis.

[Yrkoon]

superskippy wrote:

And if Arafat had actually renounced violence maybe we wouldnt have had to continue to kick the ccrap out of his PLO, but since that never happened... Well he sure did get a surprise when we blew the hell out of his Headquarters in Tunis :lol: .
Forcing him to come back and set up shop right smack dab in the middle of Ramallah. Yes. I'm sure that's exactly what you all wanted. In the meantime you guys LOST your war in Lebanon and ended up retreating back home with your collective lails between your legs in 2000.

Congrats on 18 years of MINDLESS, POINTLESS, WINNLESS butchery. I'm positive you had NO IDEA things would turn out like they did when you decided to invade Lebanon in 1982. Will Israel ever learn its lesson?

[superskippy]

Quote: Forcing him to come back and set up shop right smack dab in the middle of Ramallah. Yes. I'm sure that's exactly what you all wanted. In the meantime you guys LOST your war in Lebanon and ended up retreating back home with your collective lails between your legs in 2000.

We'd rather have him in Ramallah where we could keep on eye on him and strike at him rather then in his fortresses in Lebanon, or his bases in Tunis.

We won in Lebanon and withdrew per peace negotiations from the 10 mil security strip we had kept for decades, Operation Peace for the Galilee achieved its goals, it destroyed the PLO as an effective military group and reasserted peace in the Galilee and forced Syrian Artillary out of the Beqa Valley as well as their SAM Sites.