Brave Hamas Freedom Fighters

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:10 am

Over the weekend Hamas terroists engaged the IDF in an all night gun battle taking refuge in a Mosque..Unable to escape the Hamas leadership called for Palestinian women to come to the Moaque and act as human shields..Two of them were killed and several more wounded in the gunfire..Some of the brave Hamas donned womens clothes and escaped..The headline on Yahoo, IDF Kills Palestinian Women.

There are two violations of the Geneva Convention involved I hope next time the IDF calls in all airstrike and totally destroys the Mosque and it's terrorist inhabitants.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:11 am

sickening

just sickening

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:19 am

It shows the low value they place on female lives.

:-1

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:21 am

zinkyusa;451223 wrote:

There are two violations of the Geneva Convention involved I hope next time the IDF calls in all airstrike and totally destroys the Mosque and it's terrorist inhabitants.

Nasty business. Which convention was violated?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:49 am

The odd thing about the idea of "human shields" being used by Palestinians is that they would have to believe that it would stop the IDF from firing. And that just isn't the case.

The call for the women to help must have been to increase the effect of the deaths. It didn't really shield anything, did it?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:53 am

koan;451260 wrote: The odd thing about the idea of "human shields" being used by Palestinians is that they would have to believe that it would stop the IDF from firing. And that just isn't the case.

The call for the women to help must have been to increase the effect of the deaths. It didn't really shield anything, did it?

It helped them escaped didn't it?..It is remarakble only two were killed and we don't know who's weapons killed them....It was typical of Islamic cowards who prefer to let their women and children die for them rather than battling trained soldiers..

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:56 am

zinkyusa;451223 wrote: Over the weekend Hamas terroists engaged the IDF in an all night gun battle taking refuge in a Mosque..Unable to escape the Hamas leadership called for Palestinian women to come to the Moaque and act as human shields..Two of them were killed and several more wounded in the gunfire..Some of the brave Hamas donned womens clothes and escaped..The headline on Yahoo, IDF Kills Palestinian Women.

There are two violations of the Geneva Convention involved I hope next time the IDF calls in all airstrike and totally destroys the Mosque and it's terrorist inhabitants.

Saw this on TV-there ws a tv crew there. Although the bit where the women were gunned down was cut.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 112386.stm

Brave women though.

Given the cavalier attitude of the us and israel to international law and the geneva convention you are hardly in a position to tut tut about Hamas ignoring it as well.

you might find this of interest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 108988.stm

Israel's latest raid into the Gaza Strip in which at least 10 Palestinians and an Israeli soldier have died has hit a raw nerve in the region's press.

Anger is the predominant sentiment in Palestinian newspapers, with one commentator describing Ehud Olmert as "the most stupid and corrupt prime minister since the establishment of the Hebrew state".

In Israel, the press is pessimistic, doubting that the operation will put an end to attacks on Israeli territory by Palestinian militants, and one commentator calls for the reoccupation of the Gaza Strip.

With such no compromise type of sentiments I can't see there being any peace for a long time.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:00 am

gmc;451460 wrote: Saw this on TV-there ws a tv crew there. Although the bit where the women were gunned down was cut.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 112386.stm

Brave women though.

Given the cavalier attitude of the us and israel to international law and the geneva convention you are hardly in a position to tut tut about Hamas ignoring it as well.

you might find this of interest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 108988.stm

I

With such no compromise type of sentiments I can't see there being any peace for a long time.

I was more tut tuting the use of women as human shields by cowards...

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:09 am

Bravery is an interesting concept. Does bravery become more apparent as the chances of survival get smaller? Is that a fair indication of what the word means, that people continue to act despite a greater chance of dying? The more the one, the more the other? Do correct me if I have the wrong end of the stick.

Here's an example. Two airforces, and the track record in dogfights between them is zero kills to the Red side and fifty odd kills to Blue. Which airman is braver, one who engages in the next dogfight flying for the Red or the Blue side?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:14 am

spot;451488 wrote: Bravery is an interesting concept. Does bravery become more apparent as the chances of survival get smaller? Is that a fair indication of what the word means, that people continue to act despite a greater chance of dying? The more the one, the more the other? Do correct me if I have the wrong end of the stick.

Here's an example. Two airforces, and the track record in dogfights between them is zero kills to the Red side and fifty odd kills to Blue. Which airman is braver, one who engages in the next dogfight flying for the Red or the Blue side?

I agree bravery is the ability to act in spite of one's fear..My example would be two terrorists trapped in a Mosque by the IDF, one chooses to fight it out with them and is killed, and one grabs a women to hide behind and is saved. Which one the braver?

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:46 am

zinkyusa;451493 wrote: I agree bravery is the ability to act in spite of one's fear..My example would be two terrorists trapped in a Mosque by the IDF, one chooses to fight it out with them and is killed, and one grabs a women to hide behind and is saved. Which one the braver?You insist on inventing a parody of events? How does that build any common ground? You bias the entire question by using "terrorist", "women to hide behind", "grabs" - none of these have any parallel in the real-life circumstance underlying your point. You don't even find the earlier "we don't know who fired the bullets which killed the women" distasteful?

I didn't suggest that bravery is the ability to act in spite of one's fear. I don't even think that's a significant part of the meaning of the word. The action has to be in a particular direction, not unfocused. The fear is optional. The bravery is proportional to the risk.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:50 am

spot;451519 wrote: You insist on inventing a parody of events? How does that build any common ground? You bias the entire question by using "terrorist", "women to hide behind", "grabs" - none of these have any parallel in the real-life circumstance underlying your point. You don't even find the earlier "we don't know who fired the bullets which killed the women" distasteful?

I didn't suggest that bravery is the ability to act in spite of one's fear. I don't even think that's a significant part of the meaning of the word. The action has to be in a particular direction, not unfocused. The fear is optional. The bravery is proportional to the risk.

No the bravery is not proportional to the risk and in fact has zero to do with the risk. It has everything to with the fear. The risk may increase the fear but of itself has nothing to do with bravery. What requires bravery on your part may not require bravery of me..It is a subjective term. Risk has nothing to do with it.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:54 am

Talking about bravery in combat is missing the issue, you only need to be brave enough to follow orders properly to be a good solider, discipline is more important than anything else, though of course you do need to be personally not a coward to be in a conflict and be effective. Also bravery does not win conflicts, intelligent planing, adaptability, and discipline are what wins in the long run, always and always this has proven to be the case. When a side in a conflict has to rely on the personal bravery of indviduals to achieve results, they are inherently going to lose againt organized, disciplined, and well led soliders. The evidence for this is the last 3,000 years of military history.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:07 pm

zinkyusa;451522 wrote: No the bravery is not proportional to the risk and in fact has zero to do with the risk. It has everything to with the fear. The risk may increase the fear but of itself has nothing to do with bravery. What requires bravery on your part may not require bravery of me..It is a subjective term. Risk has nothing to do with it.

What I see is you trying to define bravery in your own terms instead of relying on a dictionary. No mention of fear, or overcoming it, in the dictionary, only in your interpretation of what must be involved. Bravery: Daring, courage, valour, fortitude (as a good quality). Brave: Of persons and their attributes: Courageous, daring, intrepid, stout-hearted (as a good quality).

A brave man has no rules to follow but the dictates of his courage, according to Pope, and that word "courage" seems central to the dictionary meaning as well. Far from requiring fear to be overcome, courage is "That quality of mind which shows itself in facing danger without fear or shrinking; bravery, boldness, valour". Facing danger without fear is my point.

So, enough of you inventing what a word means to tie it in with your own interpretation, wherever or whyever you derive it that way. Stick to commonly agreed usage. Either what I have here or whatever you can dredge up yourself.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:11 pm

spot;451545 wrote: What I see is you trying to define bravery in your own terms instead of relying on a dictionary. No mention of fear, or overcoming it, in the dictionary, only in your interpretation of what must be involved. Bravery: Daring, courage, valour, fortitude (as a good quality). Brave: Of persons and their attributes: Courageous, daring, intrepid, stout-hearted (as a good quality).

A brave man has no rules to follow but the dictates of his courage, according to Pope, and that word "courage" seems central to the dictionary meaning as well. Far from requiring fear to be overcome, courage is "That quality of mind which shows itself in facing danger without fear or shrinking; bravery, boldness, valour". Facing danger without fear is my point.

So, enough of you inventing what a word means to tie it in with your own interpretation, wherever or whyever you derive it that way. Stick to commonly agreed usage. Either what I have here or whatever you can dredge up yourself.

Oh now we have to go the dictionary. Bravery, courage, whatever you want to call it. I am not interested in a semantics discussion with you. The Hamas action was cowardly and despicable and that is why they will ultimatley lose their struggle.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:26 pm

Galbally;451525 wrote: Talking about bravery in combat is missing the issue, you only need to be brave enough to follow orders properly to be a good solider, discipline is more important than anything else, though of course you do need to be personally not a coward to be in a conflict and be effective. Also bravery does not win conflicts, intelligent planing, adaptability, and discipline are what wins in the long run, always and always this has proven to be the case. When a side in a conflict has to rely on the personal bravery of indviduals to achieve results, they are inherently going to lose againt organized, disciplined, and well led soliders. The evidence for this is the last 3,000 years of military history.

very well put gal. i agree with your point of view.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:28 pm

This thread has gone way off topic I think, but I would remind you not to confuse bravery with machismo, also someone who has no fear in a dangerous situation is either a moron or mad, everyone feels fear when their life is threated, the point about soiders is that they are trained to follow their orders in spite of being afraid, it doesn't mean that they are not afraid, of course they are, but they can still operate when afraid, if soldiers have no fear then they will get killed rather quickly and easily, and their job is not to die bravely, but to make the other side die bravely.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:32 pm

zinkyusa;451470 wrote: I was more tut tuting the use of women as human shields by cowards...

If the BBC is to be believed (!) then one interpretation is that the women were

brave in their response to an appeal for help. From the article:

--

Hamas appeal

In the dramatic mosque rescue, Hamas radio issued an appeal to local women when a tense stand-off developed between Israeli forces surrounding the building and up to 15 militants who had taken refuge inside.

One of the women, Nahed Abou Harbiya, described what happened to the BBC Arabic Service.

"All the women headed to the mosque to get the Palestinian resistance men... But the Israeli occupation forces were firing heavily at us with their machine guns and also threw stun grenades at us.

"We entered the mosque and indeed we got all the resistance men out and put female attire on them so that the Israeli occupation forces wouldn't arrest them," she said.

--

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:36 pm

I think the women who went to the mosque were certainly brave, but courage based on outrage and anger doesn't last very long and isn't much use for soliders. They did help the militants to escape though, so in this case it was a useful tactic, I've no doubt that the Irsaeli military also realize this and will factor it in for future events.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:36 pm

Bill Sikes;451575 wrote: If the BBC is to be believed (!) then one interpretation is that the women were

brave in their response to an appeal for help. From the article:

--

Hamas appeal

In the dramatic mosque rescue, Hamas radio issued an appeal to local women when a tense stand-off developed between Israeli forces surrounding the building and up to 15 militants who had taken refuge inside.

One of the women, Nahed Abou Harbiya, described what happened to the BBC Arabic Service.

"All the women headed to the mosque to get the Palestinian resistance men... But the Israeli occupation forces were firing heavily at us with their machine guns and also threw stun grenades at us.

"We entered the mosque and indeed we got all the resistance men out and put female attire on them so that the Israeli occupation forces wouldn't arrest them," she said.

--

No doubt the women showed more ba$$s than their cross dressing men.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:39 pm

zinkyusa;451583 wrote: No doubt the women showed more ba$$s than their cross dressing men.There are parallels in British history which have never been described as "cowardly and despicable", though. I do hear your interpretation, but it seems to lack anything but your own sense of biased outrage. Dressed as a woman, Bonnie Prince Charlie escaped the red coats under command of General Campbell and made it back to safety in France. Was he derided as a despicable coward or did the incident go down in history as a brave act? William Longchamp tried to escape England dressed as a woman but "an amorous and impudent seaman felt through his disguise" - he's generally been regarded as a hero ever since. You might also like to look up Colonel Blood's escape from the Tower of London, reflected eventually in Toad's escape to Toad Hall at the end of Wind in the Willows. These are strategems, ruses de guerre, neither despicable nor cowardly. Cowardice is, rather, the overwhelming use of force against a defenceless enemy.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:40 pm

zinkyusa;451583 wrote: No doubt the women showed more ba$$s than their cross dressing men.

ROFL! What would you do in the position of one of the "cross dressing men" (sic)?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:44 pm

spot;451584 wrote: There are parallels in British history which have never been described as "cowardly and despicable", though. I do hear your interpretation, but it seems to lack anything but your own sense of biased outrage. Dressed as a woman, Bonnie Prince Charlie escaped the red coats under command of General Campbell and made it back to safety in France. Was he derided as a despicable coward or did the incident go down in history as a brave act? William Longchamp tried to escape England dressed as a woman but "an amorous and impudent seaman felt through his disguise" - he's generally been regarded as a hero ever since. You might also like to look up Colonel Blood's escape from the Tower of London, reflected eventually in Toad's escape to Toad Hall at the end of Wind in the Willows. These are strategems, ruses de guerre, neither despicable nor cowardly. Cowardice is, rather, the overwhelming use of force against a defenceless enemy.

From the dictionary to British lure of sea and Bonnie Prince Charlie. Yes, those examples are really relavent.:yh_sleep

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:46 pm

zinkyusa;451589 wrote: From the dictionary to British lure of sea and Bonnie Prince Charlie. Yes, those examples are really relavent.:yh_sleep

There are lots of similar examples of bravery (although to call BPC "brave" is, I

feel, stretching a point) - aren't there?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:04 pm

spot;451584 wrote: There are parallels in British history which have never been described as "cowardly and despicable", though. I do hear your interpretation, but it seems to lack anything but your own sense of biased outrage. Dressed as a woman, Bonnie Prince Charlie escaped the red coats under command of General Campbell and made it back to safety in France. Was he derided as a despicable coward or did the incident go down in history as a brave act? William Longchamp tried to escape England dressed as a woman but "an amorous and impudent seaman felt through his disguise" - he's generally been regarded as a hero ever since. You might also like to look up Colonel Blood's escape from the Tower of London, reflected eventually in Toad's escape to Toad Hall at the end of Wind in the Willows. These are strategems, ruses de guerre, neither despicable nor cowardly. Cowardice is, rather, the overwhelming use of force against a defenceless enemy.

Yes, indeed, I could add that the former Irish President Eamon De Valera was broken out of wandsworth prison in England in 1921 by the IRB and was dressed up as an Irish Colleen to fool the guards, it annoyed the brits no end. :wah:

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:25 pm

zinkyusa;451589 wrote: From the dictionary to British lure of sea and Bonnie Prince Charlie. Yes, those examples are really relavent.:yh_sleep

How about this example:

Ehud Brog joined the Israel Defense Forces in 1959. It was then that he decided to change his name to "Barak", which means "thunder" in Hebrew. [2] He served in the IDF for 35 years, rising to the position of Chief of the General Staff and the rank of Rav Aluf, the highest in the Israeli military. During his service as a commando in the elite Sayeret Matkal, Barak took part in a covert mission (Operation Spring of Youth, Beirut 1973) in which he was disguised as a woman in order to assassinate members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Barak was awarded the "Distinguished Service Medal" and four other citations for courage and operational excellence.

He is also an expert in art of krav maga, the official martial art of the Israeli Defense Forces.

Barak was later given a citation for bravery for his conduct in this operation.

Relevance factor: Ehud Barak was the prime minister of Israel from 1999-2001

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:35 pm

koan;451663 wrote: How about this example:

Ehud Brog joined the Israel Defense Forces in 1959. It was then that he decided to change his name to "Barak", which means "thunder" in Hebrew. [2] He served in the IDF for 35 years, rising to the position of Chief of the General Staff and the rank of Rav Aluf, the highest in the Israeli military. During his service as a commando in the elite Sayeret Matkal, Barak took part in a covert mission (Operation Spring of Youth, Beirut 1973) in which he was disguised as a woman in order to assassinate members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Barak was awarded the "Distinguished Service Medal" and four other citations for courage and operational excellence.

He is also an expert in art of krav maga, the official martial art of the Israeli Defense Forces.

Barak was later given a citation for bravery for his conduct in this operation.

Relevance factor: Ehud Barak was the prime minister of Israel from 1999-2001

How is this relavent? He wasn't using a woman as a shield to escape..He was apparently disguised to get closer to his target..If the Hamas used the disguises to get closer to the IDF for the purpose of attaking them I wouldn't consider that cowardly..

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:41 pm

zinkyusa;451679 wrote: How is this relavent? He wasn't using a woman as a shield to escape..He was apparently disguised to get closer to his target..If the Hamas used the disguises to get closer to the IDF for the purpose of attaking them I wouldn't consider that cowardly..My understanding is that the women went to provide a crowd into which these disguised people could meld, not to provide bodies to interpose between the IDF rifles and the Hamas members. Call one a shield and the other a cloak, if you like. To refer to them as a shield presupposes that the IDF wouldn't fire on unarmed women - a forlorn hope in Gaza. The cloak concept is far more likely, presupposing only that the IDF might still feel constrained at least not to kill *all* the women.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:43 pm

Again, may I point out that war and conflict is not about proving how brave you are, its about attaining whatever objective you want to achieve with as little cost to yourself as possible, in fact the minimum cost to everyone possible, as above everything war is expensive in every way. Any other attitude to war is highy questionable at best. In military terms, Irsrael has been winning in the middle east hands down for 50 years, (i.e. compare the life of the average Israeli with the average palestinian and look at the respective power of Knesset with that of the Palestian authroity which isn't even a proper government yet) in political terms its harder to judge, Israel has stored a lot of trouble for itself with some of its more unpleasant policies over the years, and over the course of time all accounts get settled one way or another.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:45 pm

Pick a point and stick to it zinky.

you are guffawing about the Palestinians dressing as women and then say an Israeli Prime Minister employing drag as a strategy is not relevant. It's absurdity.

The women, though I'm sure they have some spunk to them, did not arrive to be grabbed. They arrived and maintained control of their own bodies until being shot.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:50 pm

spot;451683 wrote: My understanding is that the women went to provide a crowd into which these disguised people could meld, not to provide bodies to interpose between the IDF rifles and the Hamas members. Call one a shield and the other a cloak, if you like. To refer to them as a shield presupposes that the IDF wouldn't fire on unarmed women - a forlorn hope in Gaza. The cloak concept is far more likely, presupposing only that the IDF might still feel constrained at least not to kill *all* the women.

Please stop equivocating it's making my head hurt..

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:52 pm

koan;451690 wrote: Pick a point and stick to it zinky.

you are guffawing about the Palestinians dressing as women and then say an Israeli Prime Minister employing drag as a strategy is not relevant. It's absurdity.

The women, though I'm sure they have some spunk to them, did not arrive to be grabbed. They arrived and maintained control of their own bodies until being shot.

You apologists are the ones who are bouncing all around the dictionary, English history and wiki..anything to find a way to justify and immoral an cowardly action by your terrorist heros..

They arrived to shield cowards hoping the IDF would not shoot at them. Can you not be honest about anything?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:07 pm

zinkyusa;451693 wrote: You apologists are the ones who are bouncing all around the dictionary, English history and wiki..anything to find a way to justify and immoral an cowardly action by your terrorist heros..

They arrived to shield cowards hoping the IDF would not shoot at them. Can you not be honest about anything?

Two questions :-

Given "Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist", in what way do one side of this discussion become apologists in the prejoritive sense without you also being an apologist?

When did holding a different opinion to yours become dishonesty?

Why do you always have to come so heavy on the emotive language? You're quite capable of arguing from facts without adding the smears in?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:10 pm

zinkyusa;451693 wrote: You apologists are the ones who are bouncing all around the dictionary, English history and wiki..anything to find a way to justify and immoral an cowardly action by your terrorist heros..

They arrived to shield cowards hoping the IDF would not shoot at them. Can you not be honest about anything?

your taking license with the dictionary for the purposes of the word "bravery" is not a matter of concern, i suppose.

your flavouring of facts with colourful words is quite amusing but only that. btw, i have no heroes.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:15 pm

zinkyusa;451693 wrote: They arrived to shield cowards hoping the IDF would not shoot at them. Can you not be honest about anything?And the IDF shot at them anyway?

The Palestinians are learning the Gandhian principles of non-violent resistance. When there's a kill ratio of ten to one, the odd bit of resistance resulting in the one death is swamped by the firepower involved in killing the ten. If, correspondingly, the IDF would just recognise that they're merely in the process of squandering any goodwill Israel might once have possessed, they might tone down their act.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:19 pm

Galbally;451688 wrote: Again, may I point out that war and conflict is not about proving how brave you are, its about attaining whatever objective you want to achieve with as little cost to yourself as possible, in fact the minimum cost to everyone possible, as above everything war is expensive in every way. Any other attitude to war is highy questionable at best. In military terms, Irsrael has been winning in the middle east hands down for 50 years, (i.e. compare the life of the average Israeli with the average palestinian and look at the respective power of Knesset with that of the Palestian authroity which isn't even a proper government yet) in political terms its harder to judge, Israel has stored a lot of trouble for itself with some of its more unpleasant policies over the years, and over the course of time all accounts get settled one way or another.

we heard you. we're just too busy scrapping at the moment

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:20 pm

Bryn Mawr;451713 wrote: Two questions :-

Given "Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist", in what way do one side of this discussion become apologists in the prejoritive sense without you also being an apologist?

When did holding a different opinion to yours become dishonesty?

Why do you always have to come so heavy on the emotive language? You're quite capable of arguing from facts without adding the smears in?

I used apologist as in the synonym of "comforter". I don't think you are dishonest because you hold a different opionion I think you are wrong.

I use the adjectives or smears as you call them because I have respect for Hamas or the people who support them.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:21 pm

spot;451730 wrote: And the IDF shot at them anyway?

The Palestinians are learning the Gandhian principles of non-violent resistance. When there's a kill ratio of ten to one, the odd bit of resistance resulting in the one death is swamped by the firepower involved in killing the ten. If, correspondingly, the IDF would just recognise that they're merely in the process of squandering any goodwill Israel might once have possessed, they might tone down their act.

Apparently not very well..

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:21 pm

zinkyusa;451738 wrote: I used apologist as in the synonym of "comforter". I don't think you are dishonest because you hold a different opionion I think you are wrong.

I use the adjectives or smears as you call them because I have respect for Hamas or the people who support them.

There's a word for people like you....

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:22 pm

koan;451717 wrote: your taking license with the dictionary for the purposes of the word "bravery" is not a matter of concern, i suppose.

your flavouring of facts with colourful words is quite amusing but only that. btw, i have no heroes.

and your emphasis of form over substance is no concern of mine..

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:22 pm

koan;451744 wrote: There's a word for people like you....

no doubt i have heard them all..

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:24 pm

zinkyusa;451747 wrote: no doubt i have heard them all..;)I expect she had "sloppy" in mind having seen "I have respect for Hamas or the people who support them", don't you?

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:27 pm

spot;451750 wrote: I expect she had "sloppy" in mind having seen "I have respect for Hamas or the people who support them", don't you?

I have no idea are you a mind reader now?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:30 pm

What I find annoying about these types of debates, is that people just revert back into their own prejudices or allegedly "moral" positions and the actual issues of a given conflict becomes irrlevant, Israel-Palestine is a supreme example of this, where you can almost immeadiatly tell someones domestic political perseausion from the position they take on it, and what they really want to argue about is conservativism vs liberalism in their own societies, and the actual conflict is an irrelevance. Israels policies towards the Palestians are militarist and highy partisan, Hamas are an extremely violent and unapologetically murderous organization, neither side has much to boast about in its treatment of the other. The conflict is a very brutal and depressing one, western people shouting from the sidelines based on thier own self-obessed worldview just adds to the depressing futility of the mutual hatred and loathing that keeps it going.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:44 pm

Galbally;451759 wrote: What I find annoying about these types of debates, is that people just revert back into their own prejudices or allegedly "moral" positions and the actual issues of a given conflict becomes irrlevant, Israel-Palestine is a supreme example of this, where you can almost immeadiatly tell someones domestic political perseausion from the position they take on it, and what they really want to argue about is conservativism vs liberalism in their own societies, and the actual conflict is an irrelevance. Israels policies towards the Palestians are militarist and highy partisan, Hamas are an extremely violent and unapologetically murderous organization, neither side has much to boast about in its treatment of the other. The conflict is a very brutal and depressing one, western people shouting from the sidelines based on thier own self-obessed worldview just adds to the depressing futility of the mutual hatred and loathing that keeps it going.

It does seem to revert to a my dad is gonna beatup your dad type of idiocy at times..

Not that I am at all to blame

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:52 pm

zinkyusa;451754 wrote: I have no idea are you a mind reader now?Well, no. I was within earshot when she said it, that's all.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:08 pm

zinkyusa;451738 wrote: I used apologist as in the synonym of "comforter". I don't think you are dishonest because you hold a different opionion I think you are wrong.

Then why did you say :-

zinkyusa wrote:

They arrived to shield cowards hoping the IDF would not shoot at them. Can you not be honest about anything?

When Koan had just disagreed with you?

zinkusa wrote:

I use the adjectives or smears as you call them because I have respect for Hamas or the people who support them.

You'd get far more respect youself if you prove someone wrong rather than insult them.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:55 pm

zinkyusa;451493 wrote: I agree bravery is the ability to act in spite of one's fear..My example would be two terrorists trapped in a Mosque by the IDF, one chooses to fight it out with them and is killed, and one grabs a women to hide behind and is saved. Which one the braver?

If the object was to get out alive to continue fighting then it was a successful tactic. Interesting they seemed very sure the israeli's wouldn't just slaughter the women.

As to courage-how brave is it to use tanks and air strikes against an enemy that doesn't have the equivalent weapons to fight back?

posted by galbally

Israel has stored a lot of trouble for itself with some of its more unpleasant policies over the years, and over the course of time all accounts get settled one way or another.

The only way to make peace is at some point sit down and talk to your enemy, or utterly destroy them.

Post by **spot** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:20 am

Diuretic;452030 wrote: Now they know the IDF will shoot they shouldn't use that tactic again. If they don't then I'll be sure they tried it on but underestimated the ability of the IDF to be necessarily ruthless. If they do it again then I'll know they regard their women as cannon fodder.Why is it that Edith Cavell can be shot by the enemy, having said "I am glad to die for my country", and be universally accounted a heroine, while others are derided? Nobody herded these women into the line of fire, they willingly took themselves there knowing the capacity of the IDF for shooting civilians.