Family 'proud' of suicide bomber

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/05/1065292478048.html

The parents of a Palestinian suicide bomber who killed 19 people at a restaurant in northern Israel have spoken of their pride in their daughter, and said she had avenged the death of her brother at the hands of the Israeli army.

Hanadi Tayssir Jaradat, 29, who worked as a lawyer in the centre of the West Bank town of Jenin, was a devout Muslim who would assiduously pray and read the Koran, her parents said.

The unmarried woman had witnessed the death of her brother, Fadi Jaradat, and cousin, Saleh Jaradat, during an Israeli army operation in Jenin on June 12. Both were members of the radical Palestinian Islamic Jihad group.

..............................................................

and who wouldnt be proud..... having a son and daughter that
are both murderers.

brings a tear to your eye.

Are all members of Islamic Jihad now presumed to be murderers, or are you just extrapolating?

And if ya want the ole tear in the eye, try doing an internet search for "kick Iraqi butt." Nothing gets the ducts running like a little American pride.

if you belong to a terrorist organization, congratulations...
youre a terrorist.

if your not sure, see if you can figure out who took credit
for murdering the 19 innocent israeli jews and arabs.....
ONLY YESTERDAY.

You said her brother was a "murderer." Now you say "terrorist." Can we keep the charges straight, please?

israel went after him for murdering innocent people
as part of a terrorist organization.

sounds like he made alot of wrong choices.

Not from this article.

Besides the fact that this young woman was very close to her brother, all it says about him is: "The unmarried woman had witnessed the death of her brother, Fadi Jaradat, and cousin, Saleh Jaradat, during an Israeli army operation in Jenin on June 12. Both were members of the radical Palestinian Islamic Jihad group."

sounds like he made alot of wrong choices.

Sounds like we know virtually nothing about him or his choices.

terrorism. When you join the group , youre
automatically fair game.

...when you join the group, even your parents become "fair game," regardless of whether a court of law has found you guilty of murder or an act of terrorism, or any other crime. Regardless of whether a court of law has even examined your case.

If you can call that "fair." ("Game" is spot on though. Like shooting fish in a barrel.)

if you shelter a murderer you are going to jail. Son, daughter, friend, one in the same. This means don't give aide and comfort to killers.

...before getting a trial, do you?

Since this young woman had apparently never before committed a murder, and since she died in her horrific suicide bombing, her parents never sheltered a murderer, did they? The last time she was in their home she was still an innocent woman.

If they knew of her impending attack, they are co-conspirators.

<snip> Speaking in a neighbour's house, after the family home was destroyed by the Israeli army early today, Umm Fadi said that she had had no idea what her daughter was about to do. </snip>

Is not always what they know.

Again, it depends on what they knew.

...before or after ascertaining "what they knew"?

If they knew anything, they should be jailed and tried for conspiracy to murder.

n/t

I see the desire to punish to cut back on the suicide bombings, but I don't think it helpful or good. So, unless they knew about the situation, then their home should not be destroyed.

If they did, they should be tried and executed.

n/t

LOL

that if they knew of terrorist actions, they should be executed. Ariel Sharon knew of the massacres in Sabra and Shatila beforehand. He didn't do anything to stop it. Therefore, according to your logic, he should be tried and executed. I was just trying to find out if you endorse a double standard. It seems as if you do.

And never agree. Let's leave it at that.

Executed? Mr. MLK?

It would be beyond hubris for me to consider myself like Martin Luther King.

I'm not. I don't agree with him on everything either. But he was one hell of a great man and I owe him a lot.

Acts of terror need to be punished.

OH MY GOD!

What planet are you from!?!?!?!?!

For Christ sake I can't believe I just saw your post.

So they are co-conspirators because their daughter committed a suicide attack? How, because they are Palestinian?......Good lord....

Drdon is not even trying to hear what you are saying.

Terrorists are, well, terrorists.

Terrorists deliberately target civilians. It is not up to the powers that be to change that.

And the IDF?

but Haganah did not and does not target civilians....there is a difference.

got it. Thanks for the enlightening bit of propaganda.

Or was it the vast, Islamist, leftist, anti-semitic, anti-zionist, and anti-american conspiracy that blew it up in an attempt to blame the Jews?

Not only was the King David the HQ for the British in the area, but the bombers notified those inside ahead of time.

that civilians were targeted.

The British MILITARY HQ was targeted.

It's much like the 9-11 target of the Pentagon. It's an attack on a military facility. Civilians may die as a result, but it's a legitimate military target. Now, the actual method of attacking the Pentagon was terrorism because it used a civilian aircraft filled with people. But the target was legitimate.

a legitimate military target. I said that the Hagganah knowingly targeted civilians.

It was a public hotel where British military happened to be housed. The civilians who "incidentally" died were not bystanders, they were clients of the establishment. It was--if you will--their "home."

Muddle is right, here.

Were civilians not also housed there at the time of the bombing?

I agree, it was certainly a "military target." But it was not a military encampment or military structure like the Pentagon. It was a private facility requisitioned in part by the British military.

See the distinction? In my own misguided way, I think it's pertinent.

here. I, personally, would never have authorized the attack, but neither do I think of it as purely terroristic.

http://entropy.brni-jhu.org/israel-terrorism.html


The Origins of Middle Eastern Terrorism


<snip>

"Jewish Hanagah terrorists also killed over 200 Jewish immigrants by blowing up and sinking the immigrant ship Patria in 1940 after the British ordered the immigrants transported to detention camps in Mauritius, and were suspected of blowing up the ship Struma in 1942, in which 769 Jewish immigrants died."

..even Jewish ones.

If you think otherwise you are greatly mistaken! The Qana massacre was a deliberate target by the Israeli government which killed huddling familes seeking refuge from the bombing in S Lebanon and btw, the Israel government changed their story no less than 3 times on this tragedy. They were forced to acknowledge the existence of a drone in the area at the time b/c a Dutch soldier working at the UN compound caught the drone on video and someone was smart enough to make copies of the tape prior to turning the tape over to the UN. Nearly have of the victims were children. Some survivors lost their entire families, children, grandchilren, spouses.
I'm very, very tired of ppl making excuses for the Israeli government's misdoings and sometimes they are just that!!!!!

If I'm not mistaken, when he was killed in June, Islamic Jihad was a legal organization.

nt

Nonetheless, representatives of Islamic Jihad and Hamas were both involved in consultations with the Palestinian Authority regarding the formation of Arafat's new cabinet. Doesn't sound illegal to me.

Is not necessarily legal, moral or even ethical.

He has supported and condoned terror for years.

...the legitamacy of the Palestinian Authority or the votes of the Palestinians? It is, after all, the PA that determines (to some limited extent) what is legal in the Territories and what is not.

If the PA suddenly decides ducks are actually great apes, will that make it so?

...because Palestine is not yet an independent nation. Uh, that's sort of why we've been referring to that part of the world as The Occupied Territories for about 40 years. Obvious, naturally.

But your great apes and ducks simply allowed you to duck the question, didn't they?

I don't recognize the legitimacy of Hamas, Islamic Jihad et al. If Arafat embraces them in his government, I don't recognize that either as long as they continue their murderous ways.

Because in your post #38 you imply (but don't state explicitly) that Israel and Palestine are "nations at war."

You see, "murderous ways" are typical of warring nations... particularly if, as has occured in the ME, both parties have far overstepped the rules of "civilized combat."

Logically, it would seem you have only two options: (1) Refuse to recognize the Israeli leadership for the same reasons you refuse to recognize the Palestinian Authority, or (2) fully accept the consequences of your implication and admit that Israel and Palestine are indeed two nations.

I maintain that refusal to recognize the legitimacy of either party--both of which were elected democratically and continue to have the support of their respective populations--will only forestall a solution. It takes at least two to make a war and at least two to end it.

Sorry, I accept only one entity as legit -- Israel. If the PA decides to cut the terrorists out, I will recognize them as legit.

They already know ahead of time that killing civilians is what they do. The member already knows in advance that the Islamic Jihad group won't even pretend it's wrong. There's no gray line for people to be confused about what the group purpously does (unlike with the army, not that they are any less murderous). So, if they're not all murderers, then I would think that they are at least accessories to murder.

The only argument I can think of to the contrary would be to say that the Islamic Jihad might not consider anybody from Israel to be a civilian because they're occupying their land and because just about all of them are supposed to join the IDF (if they haven't already).

...and bombing black churches.

Not an argument that will stand up in a court of law--unless the justice system been subverted by the PATRIOT Act or the like.

is guilty of aiding and abetting murder. There is no excuse, no reason can be given for remaining in a group that commits murder, and everyone knows it commits murder. Same goes for the mafia.

Stupidity is no excuse. "I didn't know is no excuse, there is NO excuse.

is a perfectly legal (though hateful and vile) organization.

what they do is not

how is every member a criminal?

Different rules apply in other nations, especially in nations that are at war.

n/t

Not entirely. I fear unbridled government. I also fear unbridled terrorism.

I am unwilling to support either side having unlimited power.

that it's okay to repeal someone's civil liberties if "security" requires it.

Even the right to life bows before the needs of a government -- especially in a time of war.

Does a nation have the right to defend itself against terror attacks? Yes. Does that mean it can jail every single citizen to do so? No.

Too bad it doesn't jibe with the US Constitution or American principles regarding freedom of association, presumed innocence, and the right to a trial by one's peers.

Democracy? Better luck next time.

innocent until proven guilty. But haven't you ever heard when you are part of a known criminal group you are considered libel for at least civil damages when the group commits crimes? Under civil law any member can be sued for complicity, either active or passive. It's rarely done because of the legal turmoil it would cause and it would probably put a halt on any and all court procceedings, but the possibility is there.

Aside from legal ramifications, morally if they are,not directly involved in murder and harrassment, they are morally responsible simply by doing nothing to stop the acts, by paying dues, or by inciting to murder. The same applies to terrorist groups. That is the discussion, not the KKK.

But, meanwhile, try this, it's called "guilt by association."

<snip> In October 2001, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, under a threat from Attorney General John Ashcroft. Among other things, it imposes guilt by association on immigrants, a philosophy that the Supreme Court has condemned as “alien to the traditions of a free society and the First Amendment itself.” Before the advent of the Patriot Act, aliens were deportable for engaging in or supporting terrorist activity. The Patriot Act makes them deportable for virtually any associational support that they offer to a “terrorist organization,” irrespective of whether the alien’s support has any connection to violence, much less terrorism. The Act defines “terrorist organization” as any group of two or more persons that uses or threatens to use a weapon against person or property, and therefore reaches any group that has ever been involved in a civil war or a crime of violence.

Under this provision, an alien who sent coloring books to a daycare center run by a designated organization would be deportable as a terrorist, even if she could show that the coloring books were used only by three-year-olds. Indeed, the law extends even to those who support a group in an effort to counter terrorism. Thus, a Quaker immigrant who sent a book by Gandhi on the virtues of nonviolence to seek to persuade a group to disavow violence would also be deportable as a terrorist.
Penalizing people for such conduct violates both the First and Fifth Amendments.

All persons in the United States have a First Amendment right to associate with groups that have lawful and unlawful ends, so long as they do not further the group’s illegal ends. And the Fifth Amendment dictates that “in our jurisprudence guilt is personal.” Without some connection between the alien’s support and terrorist activity, the Constitution is violated.

Some argue that money is fungible, so support of a group’s lawful activities will simply free up resources that will be spent on terrorism. But that argument proves too much, for it would authorize guilt by association whenever any organization engages in some illegal activity. Donations to the Democratic Party, it could be argued, “free up” resources that are used to violate campaign finance laws, yet surely we could not criminalize all support to the Democratic Party simply because it sometimes violates the campaign finance laws. Moreover, the fungibility argument assumes that every marginal dollar provided to a designated group will in fact be spent on violence, but in many cases that assumption is not warranted. No one would seriously contend, for example, that every dollar given to the African National Congress in the 1980s for its lawful anti-apartheid work in South Africa freed up a dollar that was spent on violence. </snip>

-- Foreign Policy in Focus
http://www.fpif.org/papers/post9-11_body.html

thinking like this is what gives liberals a bad name.

Would you find it acceptable if Timothy McVeigh's parents said they were proud of him?

You are for peace, right?

You've been around long enough, Yang, to know I opposed Shrub's military interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Please tell me how "I'm giving liberals a bad name." (I didn't realize I had such vast power.)

If Timothy McVeigh's parents said they were proud of him, I think I would assume they were probably seriously deluded or completely overwrought with grief. I would not, however, suggest we bulldoze their home or build a wall around their city.

of destroying your view that you ae the center of the universe I" didn't say that you had any power at all but that the type of "logic" you are using gives liberals a bad name.

You were attempting to lessen the seriousness of being a member of Islamic Jihad by saying that only the actual perpetrators of a crime are responsible for the crime.

That isn't the way it works in this country, a mob boss can be held responsible for their underlings. The driver of the car in a robbery where someone is killed can be charged with murder. It goes on and on. Under RICO all you have to do is take or give money to someone who used or gained that money from a crime.

Then of course there are the moral and ethical questions involved with being part of a goup which sanctions these types of activities.

Why is it considered "liberal" to allow people to get away with murder? Literally.

You were attempting to lessen the seriousness of being a member of Islamic Jihad by saying that only the actual perpetrators of a crime are responsible for the crime.

I am indeed saying that being a member of Islamic Jihad does not automatically make one a murderer. And if you were paying attention, I was referring not to the woman responsible for this suicide bombing, but her brother, who--for all we know--never committed a crime in his life. (Or do you have other information?)

Please see my post above about guilt by association (#63). An individual's right to presumed innocence should never be compromised by the mere associations he or she may have to any criminal organization. Of course this is a rocky ethical and moral path; however, the justice system is not set up to judge moral questions, but questions of fact.

As the article I link to above says, individual Democratic campaign donors cannot be held responsible for occasional Democratic Party campaign funding violations. Similarly, not all anti-choice militants are guilty of killing abortion providers. Not all KKK members have chained black men to their pick-ups and dragged them to their deaths. And despite what the State Dept. questionnaire for foreign visitors to the US suggests ("Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"), not all Communists are guilty of Stalin's purges or planning the overthrow of the US government. Even Nuremburg recognized that not all members of the German Wehrmacht were culpable for Hitler's crimes. So, yes, I maintain that--until proven guilty in a court of law that allows him to face his accusers publicly--no Islamic Jihad member can be presumed to be a murderer. Any legal system that attempts to be objective and equitable requires proof, substantiating evidence, and "fingerprints." It's one of the greatest accomplishments of modern democracies. (And--if I'm not mistaken--one of the many reasons the US went to war for its independence.) Or don't you agree?

This remark--Why is it considered "liberal" to allow people to get away with murder?--is unfounded and uncalled for. And frankly insulting. Read my posts again. I'm only speaking about the rule of law... which--if you haven't noticed--is probably the one American principle this imminently unliberal administration (Washington) has most frequently ignored.

I don't see what RICO has to do with any of this, though, since US laws do not apply in either Israel or the Occupied Territories. If it has any relevance to this situation, I would be delighted if you'd enlighten me. But before you do, I think you should review the law; your characterization is a bit hasty and therefore somewhat inaccurate.

HYMN
O come, day of God,
And fill all our spirits
With peace and with gladness from heaven.
From eventide to eventide
Let all earthly thoughts be sanctified
In prayer.
Upward to God, upward to God,
Sons of earth, together!

Lift the voice of prayer and song,
Heavenward borne on the current strong,
Upward all aspire.
In the angel choir
Blend our prayers and praises.

Lord God, see-
See Thou our heart's contrition,
And bow Thine ear.
Hear, O hear, the voice of petition.
Banish our fear,
Blot out our evil ways,
Open the door of grace,
Bid us enter there!

Thanks. :-)

It's a hymn for Yom Kippur.

47 Israeli children: babies, toddlers, preschoolers, gradeschoolers,
Bless their sweet, sweet hearts!
Middleschoolers, and should be filled with hope not despair upperschoolers,
Bless their sweet, embittered hearts! Killed in 2002
150 Palestinian children: babies, toddlers, preschoolers, gradeschoolers,
Bless their sweet, sweet hearts!
Middleschoolers, and should be filled with hope not despair upperschoolers,
Bless their sweet, embittered hearts! Killed in 2002

These baby and dream killers, I hate them both!
Bless my sad embittered heart!

Amnesty International 2003 report for Israel.

is actually more proud of her as a suicide bomber than they were of her as a unmarried 29 year old lawyer. An unmarried woman of that age would be an embarrassment in a devout Muslim family.

they revere murderers and we revere scholars, doctors, those who make life better, not those who take life.

We revere murderers, too.

People are going to vote for George W. Bush.

And they revere doctors and scholars as well.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

But then again, why should facts stand in the way of rhetoric?

Ever heard of John Negroponte? He's one of "us." And "revered," too, I guess, because as Shrub's US Ambassador to the United Nations, he gets called "Your Excellency."

What an awful, naive-beyond-belief remark, rini.

Much more accurate.

...would enable you to see that these people--who have lost at least three family members and their home--probably have little else to cling to except their "pride." These public statements of pride could also be orchestrated, or provoked by emotional denial at the horror of the daughter's crimes and the family's loss, or even made to "impress" their Palestinian neighbors. Who in the hell knows?

As I suggested in my first post on this thread, do an internet search for "kick Iraqi butt" and you'll see a similar phenomenon closer to home: the full glory of American pride unfurled for our service members wreaking violence on Iraq "in revenge for 9/11."

I think even US service members' families who opposed the invasion would say they were "proud" of their sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters' actions in Iraq.

She murdered almost 20 people. No compassion. None.

That you compare what she did to the actions of our military makes me want to vomit.

heavily bombing major population centers in some stupid "shock and awe" campaign seems like state-sponsored terrorism to me.

I spoke of compassion for the situation. And for her family.

And I did not compare her actions to those of our military. I compared the reactions of her family to those that family members of US service people might have even if they opposed the invasion. It's always hard to admit your child has committed a wrong, even one fully sanctioned by the weight of the world's only superpower.

Don't put words in my mouth and you won't find vomit coming out of yours.

You compared her family to that of U.S. servicemen, which by implication compares her to them. If you didn't intend to do that, you should say so.

I think it's pretty easy to admit this child did a wrong. I've seen parents on the news say their children were wrong when they killed. This is much the same. Till Palestinian parents do that, the culture of murder and suicide will continue.

I'd be here 24/7/365.

You merely need to read what I've written to grasp what I do, in fact, intend.

I did not compare her family to that of US service members. I compared her family's reaction to that of US service members' families. Is there something so particularly, extraordinarily other-worldly about the Middle East that one can no longer compare human reactions to violence, hardship and grief, regardless of those humans' national origins, skin color, or other identifying trait? Or does everyone in a US or Israeli uniform get special treatment?

You've seen parents say on TV their children were wrong to kill? Muddle, there's something known in social psychology as performing for the interviewer--giving the response you're expected to give. Of course in the US you expect bereaved contrition, you expect public shame and repentance (and godly forgiveness); and that's what you'll get much of the time.

Although you'll only grant them the epithet of "entity," even you admit the Palestinians are at war. In her family's eyes, this young woman avenged her brother's and her cousin's deaths. A matter of family--and national--honor. You can hardly expect contrite apologies in such a case. That would be spitting on their son's grave. Of course this situation is more than demented, but it is reality.

I say Israeli parents who support Sharon and send their children off to occupy Palestine bear as much burden as Palestinian parents who encourage the intifada. Until those of us with some distance on the problem take a more adult attitude to all concerns expressed by both parties and until we respect both parties as legitimate because they are there on the ground, struggling with their world, the suicide attacks and murderous occupation will continue. It should be plain by now: they thrive on each other, like symbiotic terminal diseases.

And, of course the tragedy of this thread is that this story was obviously written for the purpose of "sensationalizing" Palestinian "savagery" and "blood-thirstiness." More spinning the legend of the Dark Animus, the Threatening Other. That's something I would have thought you could have identified with and understood, Muddle. But, in my view, you've once again failed the MLK empathy test.

Clearly, we don't need to senationalize it. They do it well enough on their own. First you have terrorists who butcher innocents. Then you have a culture which embraces it and family members who celebrate it. Martin would be appalled.

As for your comparison, you are trying to split an awful fine hair. You didn't compare them, just their actions? Huh?

I know this as far as shame goes. If anybody in MY family did something this horrible, I would feel shame and horror.

You still don't seem to have seen that I discussed not "actions" but "reactions" (specifically, the family's remarks to the press).

If anybody in MY family did something this horrible, I would feel shame and horror.

Yes, that's called projecting. You might find the situation different if you were Palestinian. But again that requires empathy.

One could argue there is no such thing as an action, that everything we do is a reaction to the world around us. To me the distinction is not much of one.

No, feeling shame and horror is not projecting, it's called being human.

Actually, I might NOT find the situation different if I were Palestinian. Were I such, I wouldn't last long because I would try to stand up to the terrorists destroying my people. I am sure I would be treated as a "collaborator." We know how Palestinian justice works for them.

Actually, I might NOT find the situation different if I were Palestinian. Were I such, I wouldn't last long because I would try to stand up to the terrorists destroying my people.

Nothing like an American 'supporter of Israel' trying to put themselves in a Palestinians shoes and continuing to think like a garden-variety American 'supporter of Israel' ;)


Violet...

Under any moral upbringing you would be opposed to the actions of the suicide bombers.

I'm sure people who actually want to think with a tiny bit of depth about the issue understand that people can have a moral upbringing and still end up not opposing the actions of suicide bombers. Of course if you were a Palestinian *snicker* you'd be too busy out there offering yr services to help the IDF shoot and kill any kids picking up rocks and throwing parties for yr IDF heroes to wonder why everyone around you seems to be acting like Palestinians who live in fear of the IDF and who get shot at and treated like shit, instead of like typical middle-class Yanks who think putting themselves in someone shoes is doing it without taking into account that other persons experiences and environment....

Violet...

I think anyone who even vaguely tries to defend the suicide bombings has no concept of morality whatsoever. There are some moral absolutes.

You can't defend the indefensible.

As for your other random comments:

Attacking soldiers is a risky occupation in all parts of the world. When soldiers fear for their lives or get injured, etc., they have a habit of defending themselves. Inner city kids in America know better than to attack cops and they aren't even in a true war zone. Surely, the Palestinian children are just as smart.

Being treating like shit is no excuse for suicide bombings. The Arabs treat the Palestinians like shit and use them like toilet paper, but they don't receive suicide bombings from Hamas and the other gangs of murdering scum.

I never said that I defend suicide bombings. I pointed out the sheer stupidity of the attitude taken by those who think putting themselves in someone elses shoes means taking their defend Israel no matter what indefensible things it does and pretending they'd think exactly the same way if they were a Palestinian. You were projecting in exactly that way...

No offence, but who, what or why you *think* are treating the Palestinians like shit isn't worth much more than shit when you defend everything Israel does to them as being justifiable. I think anyone who even vaguely tries to defend the killing of innocent civilians on either side has no concept of morality whatsoever. There are some moral absolutes, y'know...

Just curious after seeing yr performance over gun control. What issues do you take a left-wing position on?

Violet...

Again, you said, "people can have a moral upbringing and still end up not opposing the actions of suicide bombers." I take that to be an absolute impossibility. There is nothing moral in what they do. There is nothing moral in finding morality in it.

I do not defend Israel no matter what. I also don't trust the wildly biased world much of which wants to destroy Israel. I put everything in context. Israel is a nation fighting for survival beset by enemies, many of whom commit monstrous acts almost unheard of in human memory.

Not everything Israel does is right, though much of it is caused by those that oppose it. Is it right to shoot teens throwing rocks? In many cases, no. Is it understandable? In most cases, yes.

Take a look at the list of things I would do to cut down on violence in the U.S. if you think I am not liberal enough for ya.

"Is it right to shoot teens throwing rocks? In many cases, no. Is it understandable? In most cases, yes."

One of my Israeli friends was IMing me about that recently. The fear that they feel about being killed. The fact that few of them fire back says more than the fact that a few do.

It's amazing how little some of "pro-Palestinian" folks around here actually think of the Palestinians.

In poor areas of America, children know better than to attack police because they know bad things might happen. Somehow Palestinian children are supposed to be less intelligent? I don't buy that.

like taht is understandable. So are, frankly, suicide bombings. That doesn't mean that either one is justified or moral.

They're both despicable attacks on civilians; inexcusable attacks on civilians. That doesn't mean that they're unprovoked.

Two scenarios:

One: A soldier stands guard and is attacked. He may or may not have reason to fear for his life, but logic doesn't always come into play in the heat of the moment where people are trying to harm or kill you.

Two: A terrorist sits around building a bomb. Then carries the bomb to a place where he/she can accomplish maximum civilian body count. That's cold-blooded murder of the worst sort.

Psst, Muddle. You don't seem to be aware of the reality that troops are trained for situations that you appear to think they turn into quivering masses of poor sensitive souls fearing for their lives about. In the past they've shot and killed children while behind fortifications and with no threat of being hit by a pebble because the children have been riding bikes or flying kites....


Violet...

No matter how much training you have, this is reality. It is quite different.

Even if training is 95% effective, that means one in 20 will have problems. If it's 99% effective, that still means one in 100. Attacking them with rocks is still damn stupid.

"In the past they've shot and killed children while behind fortifications and with no threat of being hit by a pebble because the children have been riding bikes or flying kites...."

How do you know this? Were you there? Did you see what they saw? Are you sure that no Palestinian was standing nearby shooting at them? (No, the nice Hamas men would NEVER do that.)

No matter how much training you have, this is reality. It is quite different.

Training's just a waste of time, then. Troops are trained to deal with the reality that they could face, and if they don't and commit crimes against civilians, then they shouldn't be defended and should be held responsible for their crimes...

Even if training is 95% effective, that means one in 20 will have problems. If it's 99% effective, that still means one in 100. Attacking them with rocks is still damn stupid.

And I'm aware that you think being 'damn stupid' should carry a death penalty only when it comes to Palestinian children...

How do you know this? Were you there? Did you see what they saw? Are you sure that no Palestinian was standing nearby shooting at them? (No, the nice Hamas men would NEVER do that.)

Because unlike you I read the AI report that I posted a link to for you in a thread a few days ago. Nice try to negate what I said by saying I'm not there to see what's happening, when you've just been using anecdotal stories to support yr argument ;)


Violet...

Training minimizes problems, it doesn't eliminate them. What I don't understand is why you won't place some blame on those who attack soldiers.

No, I don't think being damn stupid should carry a death penalty, but in a war zone, it often does. However, the same applies to the soldiers. If a soldier is damn stupid and lets himself be killed by people throwing rocks or blown up or shot because of the distraction, that would also apply.

Unlike you, I don't think Amnesty International is an unbiased source. Maybe, given the nature of this conflict that makes sense. But it is still the case.

that terrorist is desperate enough to sacrifice his own life. Clearly, it isn't going very well. Perhaps he or she has lost a family member or property of some sort to Israel. Perhaps he or she must endure intense hardship because of Israel.

They're both wrong, and they're both inexcusable. However, they're both somewhat understandable.

Some religious folk think it's moral to force women to continue pregnancies against their will. Some folk think it's moral to execute convicted criminals....

A person's upbringing doesn't take into account the environment around them. People can have a good upbringing and still end up doing or supporting things that most other people are appalled by...

If you don't defend Israel blindly, why is it that no matter what Israel does, yr always in the thread defending it? Why is it that you come out with a ridiculous statement that much of the world wants to destroy Israel?

There's a world of difference between saying something's understandable and understanding why something happens. The former indicates that a person is condoning an action, while the latter is that someone doesn't condone the action, but has an understanding of what caused it to happen. That's why I don't see attacks on civilians, no matter if they're Israeli or Palestinian as understandable, but I do have an understanding of what caused the action to happen...

Read what I said again. I didn't mention anything about being liberal enough for me. I'm quite aware that the difference between things here and in the US probably would have an average Labor Party voter labelled as a radical extremist in the US. Which is why I asked you what issues you take a left-wing stance on....


Violet...

I understand the gap, but I'm curious to see where exactly I would stand in the view of Australian politics...

Opposition to the dismantling of Medicare. Opposition to the sale of public companies like Telstra etc. Opposition to any deregulation of higher education fees. Support of the union movement. Opposition to the war in Iraq and a lot of discontent over the lacklustre opposition shown by the ALP over that issue. Support for reproductive rights. Support for gun control (that sentiment runs across the political spectrum). A desire to be less tied to US foreign policy. Support for a two-state solution to the I/P conflict, and criticism of both terrorist groups and the actions of the Israeli govt in the Occupied Territories. I've probably missed a lot, but that gives you a general idea. I'm sure there's ALP voters who'd disagree with one or two of the things there, and others who'd agree with all...

Violet...

Morality isn't that vague. There are some absolutes. Suicide bombing civilians is clearly on the other side of the line.

You asked me about my defense of Israel. One of the things that happens here a lot is that people immediately assume things and don't ask questions. They assume if Israel did X that it didn't have a reason to. They never assume the opposite. I work from the theory that Israel is a nation at war for survival, since it is. As such, I look at it from a historical and realistic perspective.

Another point is that many here seem to have never seen any information about war, combat or anything like that. They assume too many things about how combat should be in an ideal world, but it is never like that.

Another thing is the use of the term civilians. People actively involved in the conflict -- attacking soldiers, smuggling guns, hiding terrorists -- are NOT civilians.

There is no such thing as an absolute morality, though some folk would like to believe that their own personal morality must be that of the entire world....

I didn't ask you what the reaction of other people was about the I/P conflict. I pointed out yr unwavering blind support of everything Israel does, no matter how unjustifiable it is. And saying that something's understandable IS support...

Yr idea of what's acceptable in war seems to be a rather simplistic 'might makes right' one. Given a choice between yr assumptions and the knowledge and experience of groups like AI, I'll take what they have to say on violations of international law any day...

Okay, so if yr going to get picky about who's defined as a civilian, I'm sure you'll have no problem acknowledging that armed settlers aren't civilians. I hope yr not going to try telling me that children throwing stones aren't civilians...


Violet...

And not an absolute liberal is because I do see right and wrong in the world and don't consider it acceptable to say we have to understand certain things or that they are OK in that culture.

I am perfectly willing to say suicide bombings are absolutely wrong and inexcusable. Though I usually disagree with you, I would generally consider you rational. If you think that morality varies that much so that suicide bombing could be considered moral, I will have to reassess.

I am unwavering in my support of Israel. So? Doesn't mean I always agree with them.

My comments about war are based on reality also. I've read enough history, talked over such things with enough vets to understand it isn't always perfect.

As for counting civilians, by your actions shall ye be known. If you have a gun at home (which most folks on both sides seem to), then you are a civilian. If you are shooting at people who have not attacked you, you are involved. Much the same thing for rock throwers, for instance. If you have a rock, that's OK, you could be a collector. If you throw it at somebody, you are an assailant.

There's not a regular at DU who doesn't see that there's right and wrong in the world....

I'd be happy if you also came to the conclusion that the murder of any child, no matter if they're Palestinian or Israeli is wrong and inexcusable. As for what people view as moral, I honestly don't think any attempt to reassess on yr part would lead you to think that yr own personal morality must be that of everyone else in the world. To do that you have to put yrself into someone else's shoes and look at the environment around them in a genuine manner...

I don't hold unwavering support for any nation, not even my own. I think if any of us are incapable of criticising actions of a nation, and applying a different standard to others who act in the same way, then we may as well join the freeper-brigade. If you actually do disagree with some of Israels actions in the Occupied Territories, then it wouldn't hurt to express that opinion, especially if it's not followed immediately with a disclaimer justifying the actions...

I don't mean to pooh-pooh you talking to vets, but yr idea of what's acceptable in reality isn't that same reality that's shared by all those nations that have signed various conventions and who are obligated to abide by international law. If incidents where Palestinian civilians were killed were few and far between, then there'd be some justification for arguing that these things happen in war and it's acceptable, but when it happens again and again with little to no investigation by the IDF or independent investigators, then it stops becoming any of that....

Huh? Those settlers don't keep their guns at home to protect themselves. They tote them round on land that's been stolen and if you want to label children who throw stones as not being civilians (which is absolutely sickening), then those settlers aren't civilians either....


Violet...

Murdering (note the use of the word) children is wrong and inexcusable. Children have died in every conflict in history, it is not always murder. It is always sad.

Again, thinking that sucide bombers are wrong is not my personal morality. It IS morality. Anyone who thinks such an act is OK has no morality.

I have made many statements disagreeing with Israel. I would love to see a peaceful settlement instead of war, but don't think that's likely no matter what. Personally, I am sure that the wall is not going the path I would have chosen. Nor do I think Israel should allow a single Palestinian to enter Israel until there is peace either.

Palestinian civilians die because they live in a war zone, so created by their own terror forces that have set up shop in those same locations. The Palestinian people have the power to change this.

You and I disagree about the land inhabited by settlers. Until there is a peace agreement, it is land controlled by and administered by Israel. Carrying a gun for self defense in that area does not make you a combatant on either side. Attacking soldiers does.

Hmm how is with the IDF and almost every Israeli being part of it. By your logic (even civilians with guns in their homes should be considered involved) EVERY Israeli that either was in the IDF, is in the IDF or will be in the IDF is a legitimate target since it's the IDF occupying Palestinian territory and therefore they all share the responsibility. We could put it that way as well then. Since you see even kids as responsible if they throw rocks (wow, that really is a crime and deserves them to be killed) then if we apply the same for the other side, anyone is a legitimate target, even Israeli kids. Of course I would never accept such logic, but that's where you'r going with your logic. Sadly.

By that logic one could kill anyone anytime that was convenient.

You have to actively involved in military activites. Having a gun at home does not qualify either an Israeli or Palestinian as a combatant. Attacking soldiers does. (Yes, throwing rocks is a crime and it could get a soldier killed.)

That means actively serving military, terrorists, etc. Not civilians.

So demonstrators around the world that throw rocks are criminals (not just those Palestinians, antiglobalization activists as well). And even though the soldier may be in a tank or protected by a shield and not endangered in any way he can shoot the demonstrator with real bullets and kill him, and everything is ok?

Throwing rocks at people is assault and battery. It's a crime. It's not protest, it's thuggery.

Attacking a tank with rocks is silliness. Yes, the rocks CAN do damage. Most tanks have things on the outside, antennas and other equipment. Cutting off communications can kill troops in combat.

But far more dangerous is attacking soldiers with rocks. Those can injure or distract the soldier and both could get him killed.

it's your personal morality, and it's mine as well.

There is no such thing as absolute morality. Who would decide what it is? You?

They killed thousands more innocent people in just a couple months than she & her peers ever could across several decades.

to show compassion to the perpetrator of a murder but not the victims of the same murder?

..."compassion to the perpetrator"? I think you're not reading attentively.

Anyybody that gives him solice for his murderous tirade should suffer ther same fate only alone in private witth nobody around but those that enjoy seeing innocents destroyed by the scum that he was comprised of.

Suicidal homicide bombers are nothing but worthless inhumantrash.

live alone forever.

sad...

i can understand why she did it...

the cycle of violence continues...

you said you condone the suicide bombing? condone means the following
according to dictionary.com

condone " To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure"

i hope you meant that you condemn the suicide bombing and you merely mispoke :)

peace
david
:hippie:

You must be very proud of yourself.

i have a feeling lastdeminidaho that elduderino mispoke when he/she said condone. from the rest of the post i would think condemn was meant to be used.

peace
david
:hippie: