Jerusalem bombing victims

[drdon326]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1061350051488

Lilach Kardi, 22, Jerusalem
Menachem Leibel, 24, Jerusalem
Shmuel Zargari, 11 months, Jerusalem
Yaakov Binder,50, Jerusalem
Rabbi Eliezer Weisfish, 42, Jerusalem
Goldie Taubenfeld, 43, and Shmuel Taubenfeld, 3 months, NY
Mordechai Reinitz, 49, and Issachar Reinitz, 9, Netanya
Liba Schwartz, 57, Jerusalem
Binyamin Bergman, 15, Jerusalem
Miriam Eisenstein, 20, from Bnei Brak
Hanoch Segal, 65, Bnei Brak
Chava Nechama Rechnitzer, 19, Bnei Brak
Shmuel Wilner, 50, Jerusalem
Avraham Bar Or, 12, Jerusalem
Elisheva Meshulami, 16, Bnei Brak
Two victims have been indentified, but their names remain unpublished, due to the families' requests.

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

[Yentatelaventa]

1. And the Palestinians handed out candy in celebration of this act of terror

Those in celebration are as guilty as those lighting the fuse. Hate will destroy them.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Does that mean you think it'd be okay for the IDF to kill those civilians?

After all, you just said they're as guilty as the suicide-bomber. Why does this attitude only apply to Palestinians? After all, many in Israel treat the terrorists who bombed the King David Hotel and committed other atrocities as heroes and freedom fighters...

Violet...

[rini]

7. ok go back

almost 60 years to find 1, repeat 1 instance of Israeli terrorism, which BTW was against a military target not civilians, and when these terrorists were caught, guess what? No streets were names after them, no summer camps in their honor, no rap music written, no money to their families, THEY WENT TO JAIL! The forum doesn't have room for all the Arab atrocities.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I gave you an example of terrorism...

And two of those terrorists later went on to become Israeli PMs. Who needs music written when you can become a leader of a country? If you think the King David Hotel was a military target, yr wrong. Most of the victims were civilians, and the hotel was only being used for administrative purposes. Am I wrong in assuming that there's no way you'd call the attack on the Pentagon as anything but terrorism, or try to claim that the victims were military targets?

Violet...

[rini]

9. Menacham Begin of Israel

and Anwar Sadat of Egypt, yes indeed two old terrorists who realized this endless round of killing had to stop. For his pains, Sadat was murdered. BTW, so was King Abdull of Jordon and for the same reason. so was Rabin.

Round two, Barach )sp?) and Arafat. Barach tried to give away the house with a new set of keys, Arafat has tried to burn it down. Ok, that's history, what does it teach us?
1. a just peace is as difficult as raising a child
2. an Arab who has the courage to try to make peace is putting his life at risk
3. Yasser Arafat is a terrorist who does not want peace and can't be trustd.

Solutions.....

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Here's a solution...

How about you go back, read my post, and try addressing it. While yr at it you could even try answering the question I asked...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. I disagree

Not only was King David a military target -- English military HQ -- but the bombers notified the authorities ahead of time and said they were going to bomb it.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. But that doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism...

Part of the King David Hotel was solely used for administration and accomodation. When it comes to saying what's a military target, the Pentagon would have been much more of a military target than a hotel, but the attack on the Pentagon was terrorism. When it comes to military administration, those sort of buildings tend to have a high concentration of civilian workers, who in no way should be defined as legitimate military targets. And calling in a warning beforehand doesn't exempt something from being terrorism either, or else what the IRA used to do wouldn't be terrorism. Claiming that a warning was made is just an attempt by those carrying out the attack to place the blame for deaths on those they claim they warned, imo...

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

14. In My View, Ma'am

The King David Hotel was a legitimate military target, and so was the Pentagon: neither attack constituted a crime of war, and the sobriquet "terrorism" is inappropriate in either instance. The military and civil administration of a hostile power is always a legitimate target, and the requirement to minimize civilian casualties is balanced in the statute against the direct military benefit gained by the act; it is not an absolute requirement no civilians be killed, or even that as few as possible be killed. The direct military value of destroying an enemy's supreme headquarters, and killing and maiming its personnel, is both immense and undeniable.

[Darranar]

21. Agreed...

but the King David Hotel wasn't only a military installation. There were civilians without any connection to the British military there.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. My view's different...

I think I might have to leave explaining why I disagree with you on that till later tonight. I'm at work right now and late for a meeting, as per usual :)

Nice to see you up and about again...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. I concur

And welcome back.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Here's why I don't agree...

How could either attack constituted or not constituted a crime of war as no war was going on at the time of the attacks? Using the word terrorism to describe what was definately an act of terrorism isn't misusing the word. Hell, after the King David Hotel bombing which you describe as a legitimate military act against a hostile power, most Jews in Palestine didn't join a general boycott called because they viewed the British as the legitimate authority. Ben-Gurion denounced the bombing and later on tried to convince the British to remain in Palestine. So how exactly were the British a hostile enemy and where was the direct military value of destroying a wing of the hotel and in doing so killing so many civilians? The only direct military value I can see is that it gave birth to modern terrorism where the aim of attacks are to make them as high profile publicity-wise as possible, and to make a name for those carrying out the attacks...

Violet...

[The Magistrate]

49. A Fair Position, Ma'am

Though insufficient to alter my view. The question of formal existance of a state of war does not much matter to me: it was certainly tidier when declarations of war were customary, but it is the fact of the thing that is important to me, not the statement. In both instances, one party certainly conceived itself at war with the other, and the acts of the other were not too unreasonably viewed as war against that party. Nor does the distinction between resistance fighter and terrorist matter much to me. You will be aware it is my custom to avoid the latter usage as meaningless, and employed purely for shaping the discussion toward distaste for the party so named: all use of violence means to terrorize surving onlookers, and the persons commonly dubbed "terrorists" are simply private individuals who have claimed for themselves the right to use violence towards political ends, traditionally a prerogative of states. To me, the question is whether in doing so, they commit acts which would be considered crims if carried out by a state at war, and those who do can be properly considered war criminals. No state at war which attacked the military and administrative headquarters of the opposing state would be considered to have performed a criminal act.

In the first instance, the Irgun certainly conceived itself to be at war with England: indeed, it had stated as much prior to the end of the Second World War, and conducted itself consistently in war-like fashion toward England's governing organs in Mandatory Palestine ever since. The actions of England's Mandatory administration in that period was certainly hostile to not only the Irgun, but to the Yishuv as well: the fact that Ben Gurion opted largely for a policy that eschewed open combat does not alter this: employment of a Fabian strategy does not mean peace, though it may greatly reduce the occurance of battle. By the end of the Second World War, Jews as well as Arabs regarded England as an occupying power in Palestine, and few will deny that resistance to such is a prerogative of any people who so view their situation, and any occupying power that does not regard itself as existing in a state of war against the people it occupies is foolish in the extreme.

The second instance is similar. Fundamentalist radicals of Islam under arms certainly have long conceived themselves at war with the United States, and conducted themselves accordingly: they have made no secret of this, but rather announced it as widely as they might contrive, to the point where it ought to be, and long have been, common knowledge. Further, from their point of view, the idea that the United States has long been at war against Islam is not far-fetched, but the most reasonable analysis of its actions in many parts of the world. Whether that view is agreeable to me or not is immaterial in analyzing their actions, and determining what conclusions ought to be drawn from them. My judgement of whether an act is a legitimate act of war is, to the best of my ability, held totally seperate from my view of the cause in which it is executed, or of the people who execute it.

[Jackie97]

19. Actually, Violet....

It's been debated whether or not the attack on the Pentagon was truly terrorism because of what it was. I just thought I would mention that. I agree with your argument, but I have to say that not everybody is accepting what happened to the Pentagon as terrorism.

[Aidoneus]

22. slightly off-topic probing curiosity..

I didn't agree with that view up to a couple years ago, though I do now. There are more unflattering examples than that, anyway.

for another example, do you think that the '83 bombing of the MNF barracks in Beirut was "terrorism"?

[The Magistrate]

23. In My View, Sir

That was a legitimate act of war. It is hard to imagine a more purely military target, and there is no doubt the U.S. forces were involved in the civil war ongoing in Lebanon at the time.

[Aidoneus]

29. agreed

we've had a couple short but interesting exchanges on this before, and we seem to agree.

I was actually curious what Muddle personally thought of it, for in the half-dozen or so discussions he's been in on the subject here I don't remember that specifically coming up, this reminded me to ask him about it.

[StandWatie]

26. of course it was..

when you blow up a barracks with a truck bomb it's "terrorism", when you blow it up with a laser-guided bomb it's good TV unless it's the CIA or Mossad blowing something up with a truck bomb it's of course "anti-terrorism".

[Darranar]

20. I disagree with you about the King David Hotel...

Though the majority of the dead were indeed civilian, the target itself was a military target, being the headquarters of the British. Also, the resistance fighters warned the British by phone call that the bomb was going to detonate. That call was ignored.

[Violet_Crumble]

48. The target was a hotel...

That's not a legitimate military target. And they weren't resistance fighters, they were terrorists. We're talking about people who murdered Arabs in Palestine and carried out massacres. And later claims by a few of them that a phone call was made doesn't make it a legitimate attack either. The IRA were in the habit of warning of attacks, but what they did was still terrorism. Trying to blame the victims by saying they ignored a warning is as bad as if someone were to ring through a warning that they're going to drive drunk through a busy city and if they're ignored, then any deaths they cause isn't their fault...

Violet...

[Darranar]

50. It depends on your view of who carried out the attack...

I always thought it was an Irgun operation with approval from Hagannah. Irgun most certainly carried out terrorist attacks against Arabs, and members of Hagganah did as well, but it wasn't endorsed within the high command.

It is not solely the fault of the British commander. I personally believe that he should have been more cautious, but, of course, he payed for his mistake with his life. It is mostly the fault of those who carried out the operation, but it was not as heartless as, say, the suicide bombing of the Jerusalem bus.

[Jackie97]

18. Israel's own terrorism is occupation.

They destroy houses, making Palestinians homeless all so they can put Jewish settlments there mostly.

They kill Palestinian civilians for dumb shit like breaking a curfew.

They set out a bomb for one Hamas member, and claim it was an accident that nine or twelve people were killed.

With so many civilians dying or suffering, most Palestinians probably consider the Israelis to be their terrorists, so don't say that Israel doesn't do terrorism. They just do more politically correct types of terrorism. No, they don't pass sweets out to children in the streets. They just tell their kids that they have to grow up and kill people too because their country says so.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Curfews

Maybe you are too young to remember rioting in America, but I do. I recall when Martin was killed and the nation burned. Every major city had problems and to combat that they used curfews. If you were out after that curfew, you were presumed to be up to no good and could well be shot.

It's not an unusual tactic when an area is so out of control that you need to use a curfew in the first place.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

31. That's very one-sided, Violet.

I've never heard you say one bad thing about a Palestinian suicide bomber, or one nice thing about a bombing victim.

SyracuseDemocrat...
SyracuseDemocrat...
SyracuseDemocrat...
SyracuseDemocrat...

Oh, well... you get the point. :eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Try reading the posts...

There's a long thread of around 300 posts where I do indeed say bad things about suicide bombers. And if you want to see more go check the archives. Sheez. Are you so utterly desperate to project a mirror image of yr own mindset onto others that you have to make up crap like this?


on edit: Well, that was a waste of time. I posted that before I noticed this person had been thankfully tombstoned...

Violet...

[dfong63]

2. so much for sharon's promise of security and prosperity

Sharon's "iron fist" strategy has been a total failure.

anyone care to compare the death rate from terrorism, before Sharon's "temple mount" provocation, to after?

or Israel's economic stats?

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Honest question

Do you really think Sharon has used an "iron fist?" It sure doesn't seem like it to me. I mean, by "iron fist" standards. Stalin wielded an iron fist and he killed, what 20 million? Mao outdid him and more than doubled that number. Pol Pot had fewer people to murder, but he did his best. Kim Jong Il doesn't so much murder as just starve people by the millions.

All of those guys did the "iron fist" routine. It doesn't seem even vaguely similar.

[bemildred]

4. Clearly he does not measure up to those fellows.

But the name seems a variation of Jabotinski's "iron wall",
so it's not really a comparison to those guys, either. And
he did not just make the name up, search for "Sharon" and
"iron fist" together.

[yuvalmadar]

5. About the "Iron fist"

We used an "Iron fist" (Metaphorically, our actions weren't much more than your normal conquest, just like the one in Iraq) earlier, before the ceasefire, and the terrorist attacks were almost gone (Only a few shoot N run's near pales' territories, killing 2 people at most), but when we agreed to the ceasefire and let off palestinian territories they rebuild their organisation, and arms themselves, to make sure they'll be able to make out these many terrorist attacks.

As far as Israeli security goes the "iron fist" as you call it protected us more than this no-good ceasefire when we get a terrorist attack every two days or so...

:(

[bemildred]

16. Some truth in that.

Situation does indeed suck.
Still, as a policy, is has failed.
Fundamental issues need to be addressed, or things will
continue on the present course.

[Aidoneus]

17. but as a long term program?

there's a saying that I believe Aldous Huxley was fond of, I forget who it is originally attributed to, "you can do everything with bayonets, except sit on them.."

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. Who cares about death rates when arms sales are up?

Gotta keep those priorities straight. Sharon does.

[The Magistrate]

15. Some Questions, Mr. Fong

You speak of "Sharon's provocation" in this matter: do you see any reason requiring various Arab Palestinians to respond to that provocation in the ways that they did? Was it a proper response to that brief stroll to commence violent mobbing against other Jews in the vicinity, and follow up with a campaign of demolitions aimed at the civilian populace of Israel? How did Sharon's autumn stroll harm anyone? Has the campaign of violence begun in response to it brought any benefit to the people of Arab Palestine? Are their lives more secure in consequence? Are they more prosperous?

[mecca]

24. One point you make is false

The campaign of violence was started by Israel. that is how the intifada begun. I am surprised to see how little people really knows around here.

[newyorican]

25. knowing is not admitting

n/t

[The Magistrate]

27. Honestly, Fellow

It is a staple of agitation here among your own comrades that the current wave of violence was begun in response to Sharon's intolerable provocation. The mob which emerged was indeed met with violence by the Israeli police; "vengeance" was sworn and taken, matters deteriorated as they always do. It does no good to pretend otherwise.

[mecca]

28. All I would like to say is ....

In order to understand what is happening, we need to at least get our facts straight. It was the Israeli 'security' police that started the violence. This is the truth and if people can't get beyond something as simple as that then we may as well be banging our head on a wall.

[The Magistrate]

30. Honestly, Sir

Mobs are dispersed. That is the job of police the world over.

The question is, what required the assembly of the mob? What material injury was accomplished by Sharon's little stroll? What gain was wrought for the people of Arab Palestine by the response made, and the sequelia that have followed in train of it?

[Resistance]

32. Do you think a mob would show up

If Osama Bin Laden were to take a "little stroll" through Manhatten? (Backed up by hundreds of his "security police" of course)

[The Magistrate]

33. These Mirror Games Grow Tiresome, Mr. Resistance

There is a fine line between what is simple, and simple-minded: care must be taken in debate to keep well to one side of it, particularly in complex matters.

The question no one advocating for Arab Palestine here has yet even attempted an answer to remains: what required mob response to Sharon's stroll? What benefit did that gain the people of Arab Palestine?

Would not all involved have been better served if the provocation, which did no material harm to any, been simply ignored?

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

34. Seems like you hold others to a different standard

This question is simple minded in its intelletual dishonesty...

"The question no one advocating for Arab Palestine here has yet even attempted an answer to remains: what required mob response to Sharon's stroll? What benefit did that gain the people of Arab Palestine?"

Why did Sharon need to go for a stroll? What did it bebefit the people of Israel?

You saying he had 'no idea' what the reaction would be?...then go on to blame the people for reacting?..come on now...

EDIT: Anybody inviting David Duke to the Synagogue any time soon?

[The Magistrate]

37. Honestly, Mr. Apples

Of course Sharon's intent was to provoke precisely the reaction he got: that reaction has benefited Sharon greatly, propelling him to political success of the highest order. He would never have achieved the rule of Israel without it.

The people of Arab Palestine gained nothing by it but to hand rule of Israel to a bitter and unyielding foe. It is the essence of failure in strategy to do what your enemy seeks you to do in a conflict, and the essence of success to balk your enemy's intentions. The successful strategy for the leadrship of Arab Palestine would have been to see to it Sharon's stroll was ignored entirely; this would have brought the greatest benefit to them and their people, and the defeat of Sharon's aspirations.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

38. Does this logic not work for both sides?

"Of course Sharon's intent was to provoke precisely the reaction he got: that reaction has benefited Sharon greatly, propelling him to political success of the highest order."

we agree

why did Israel need to elect Sharon based upon the reaction of Palestinians? Especially when it was obvious he was trying to provoke. And the former Prime Minister was assinated by a right wing Israeli....they could not see the forest for the trees?

[The Magistrate]

39. Of Course It Does, Sir

Israel ought not to have elected Sharon. They may have come out of it somewhat better than the people of Arab Palestine have from their error, but it seems to me a short-sided thing to have done. The assassin of Mr. Rabin was a member of a small radical fringe, as determined to prevent a peaceful solution as any hard man of Hamas.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

40. Then we agree on this

Unfortunatley, we will not agree on Zionism in the 21st century.

I hope you can understand that I am not one who camoflages anti-semitism with anti-zionism (other thread).

I believe our age (assumption) and personal experience have led usually common minds to differ tremendously in this regard.

Bill

[The Magistrate]

41. A Pleasure, Sir

This is a matter where persons of good heart and sound intellect may well find themselves drawing opposing conclusions: there is more than enough of justice and blame to go around in it.

As for that other matter, Sir, of course not: where that is my feeling, there is no room for doubt in my expression.

[Noon_Blue_Apples]

42. Its official

we've kissed and made up

adieu

Bill

[dudeness]

45. do any of the contributors to this forum

actually reside in the middle east in particular israel?..

[tinnypriv]

46. Yep

Gimel does, for one.

[yuvalmadar]

51. I do