American position on the PA

[Sirotnikov]

Intriguingly, I don't defend the practice of targeting children. I think it is criminal to bring children with you when you commit a crime.

You do defend the practice of targetting children.

I ask you again.

If you steal my house, and move in. Am I morally just to murder your children, until you move out?

But you, my friend, just admitted to defending the practice of using children as human shields.... Are you a settler at heart, Siro?

Never have I admitted that.

[CyberGnu]

You do defend the practice of targetting children.

I ask you again.

If you steal my house, and move in. Am I morally just to murder your children, until you move out?

I just did. Didn't you read my previous post?

[Sirotnikov]

Anyway, if my family insists on bringing food and ammo to me while I occupy my house, feel free to shoot them.

If they sit tight in their house and don't involve themselves in my crime, attacking them would be wrong. Just like attacking jews in Europe for Israels atrocities.

You are evading the actual question.

You and your family move in to my house, having expelled me.

Your wife and child do not assist you in the war effort. They simply live in the house.

I come and target your wife and child specifically, since I know that I am too weak to fight with you.

I kill your wife and child.

Was I morally just to do so, according to you?

Don't tell me it's your guilt or whatever. Tell me was it morally just for me, to come and slaughter your child and wife.

[Sirotnikov]

Intriguingly, I don't defend the practice of targeting children. I think it is criminal to bring children with you when you commit a crime.

Tell me this.

The palestinian combatants, know that they will be targetted by Israeli soldiers.

Is it moral for them to put up crowds of children infront of them, as they do, according to the BBC?

[Sirotnikov]

I just did. Didn't you read my previous post?

You are evading the actual question.

You and your family move in to my house, having expelled me.

Your wife and child do not assist you in the war effort. They simply live in the house.

I come and target your wife and child specifically, since I know that I am too weak to fight with you.

I kill your wife and child.

Was I morally just to do so, according to you?

Don't tell me it's your guilt or whatever. Tell me was it morally just for me, to come and slaughter your child and wife.

[CyberGnu]

Let me remind you of several incidents

1. A bomb is put next to school. Explodes 10 minutes before it the end of school, luckily.

2. A small bomb in a milk carton placed near a kindergarten (iirc)

3. Two israeli teens are murdered while taking a walk in the territories.

4. Several teens in a school in the territories, playing basketball are all gunned down.

5. Teen is lured over the internet to meet with a palestinian woman and then slaughtered

6. Suicide bomb at a disco for young (below 18) teens.

7. Suicide bomber approaches a bus stop in which only children are standing. Begins talking to them, gathering them around, explodes.

8. Suicide bombers which get on buses around 7, when children go to school, and over 50% of people on the bus are children.

9. Terrorist enters civilian house, guns down mother. guns down naked little girl which walks out of bathroom.

10. Terrorist enters school, guns down children in dorms.

11. Terrorist enters civilian house, shoots everyone in thier beds, including children.


I'm sure there have been lots of incidents I forgot.

Do you have sources for 1, 7 and 10?

2: Near? And source, please.

3 &4: Can you tell a teen from an adult on shooting distance?

5: That one is weird and twisted... Not defending that one.

6: First of: no one there was under 18? Second: Do you expect the Hamas to know the difference between a disco for 16-18 and 18-20?

8, 9 & 11: Seems pretty clear that the purpose was not to kill chlidren, just israelis in general. Again, Sharon carries the guilt for the death of these children.

[CyberGnu]

Aaaawwww

Little gnu is offended by expressions such as 'ass'.

Well, to yee of little knowledge of english:
"talk out of ones ass" = "speak bullshit" = "talking without having the slightest idea or basis of his words"

And 'speak bullshit' is not an insult?

It's a standard english expression. But I understand than english is a difficult language, and you being of the smart elite are probably not acquainted with slang.

Well, in light of your previous crap, you might want to look up the saying 'pot calling the kettle black'.

[CyberGnu]

1. I doubt that even a third of what I post here is intelligence.

So you could cut your posts with a third...

3. If an Israeli newspaper quotes a palestinian civilian or politician, you should trust it, unless you have an example of Israeli newspapers forging evidence.

Ahh, yes, trustworthy as an israeli politician. There are roughly six billion people on this earth I'd trust more...

But you know what? If you give the name of a palestinian as a source, I might take it at face value. AFAIK, not a single post you have made does that...

4. You claims about not being able to substatiate said quotes applies equally to NYT and so on. And I do no accept the claim that NYT is "well known" etc, since just a month ago I read about a journalist in some major american newspaper (NYT or WT or WP) fabricating articles out of his arse. I see no difference between the liability of NYT and Haaretz or Jerusalem Post.

Well, one minor difference: the NYT employs journalists who check things before they print them.

However, you are now minimizing your claims.

You have also claimed that Israeli newspapers bring quotes from arab speaking newspapers, which are obviously false, or misrepresented.

You must have an actual example of false quotes if you think so, or else, your opinion is unfounded and therefore I regard it as false.

Infact, I have also recently provided you with an Arabic -> English translator, which you could use to translate arabic newpapers and prove once and for all, that Israeli newspapers have a habbit of lying.


You can not automatically assume that the Israeli media is untrustworthy, just because you think so. You have to have some basis for it.

Other wise, you are infact inventing those claims, based on your prejudices.

Sigh. As if I had time to do that... I trust the NYT. I have no reason to do otherwise. When it was revealed that they jumped the gun on the alleged chinese spy in Los alamos, they dutifully printed apologies and rectifications.

I did follow jewsih media for one week, checking out the stories.

The vast majority had no sources whatsoever, apart from 'IDF sources' or 'Israeli radio'. This is no better than hearsay.

A few stories were true, as they appeared in western media as well.

And a few had sources, that upon further checking appeared to be untrue. The 'die welt' fabrications were the worst oif that batch, as it consisted of a plain face lie as a headline story...


So it is back in your court. If you want to prove anything, quote a real source.

[CyberGnu]

You are evading the actual question.

You and your family move in to my house, having expelled me.

Your wife and child do not assist you in the war effort. They simply live in the house.

I come and target your wife and child specifically, since I know that I am too weak to fight with you.

I kill your wife and child.

Was I morally just to do so, according to you?

Don't tell me it's your guilt or whatever. Tell me was it morally just for me, to come and slaughter your child and wife.

You can kill my wife. she made a decision to profit from a crime, and should be prepared to face the consequences. As I've said before, you can't deliberately kill the kid.

If the kid is killed by accident, however, the guilt falls squarely on my shoulders.

I'm amazed that you don't manage to draw these parallels on your own...

[CyberGnu]

Never have I admitted that.

I quote:
Gnu: Are you defending the practice of using children as human shields?

Siro: You are defending the practice of using children as targets. Who is worse?

This means you implicitly say 'yes' to my question.

Look, I know logic isn't your forte, so I won't rag on you for that. I'm assuming you didn't understand what you were saying.

Instead I'm going to ask my question once again:
Are you defending the practice of using children as human shields?

[Sirotnikov]

This means you implicitly say 'yes' to my question.

I never saw myself as the subject of your question.

Well, one minor difference: the NYT employs journalists who check things before they print them.

Are you defending the practice of using children as human shields?

No.

But I also don't consider that letting them live is "using them as shields"

[CyberGnu]

Tell me this.

The palestinian combatants, know that they will be targetted by Israeli soldiers.

Is it moral for them to put up crowds of children infront of them, as they do, according to the BBC?

According to the BBC, NYT and other news media, it is impossible to keep the kids away from confrontations with israeli soldiers...

Either way, while you could question the basic humanity of someone taking cover behind a child, the moral fault is still with the invading soldiers. If they don't open fire, no children will get hurt.

I'm fascinated that you still haven't managed to figure it out yet... the criminal is repsonsible for all damage caused by his actions. Israel is responsible for all suffering caused by its greed...

[GeneralTacticus]

You can kill my wife. she made a decision to profit from a crime, and should be prepared to face the consequences. As I've said before, you can't deliberately kill the kid.

If the kid is killed by accident, however, the guilt falls squarely on my shoulders.

Are you saying that the Palestinians kill teenagers 'by accident' when they blow themselves up in discos, restaurants etc?

[CyberGnu]

But I also don't consider that letting them live is "using them as shields"

Good. That takes care of your points 8, 9 and 11. There is no moral requirement to call off an attack because Israel has decided to put some kids there. Sharon is guilty of the deaths of these children.

[Sirotnikov]

According to the BBC, NYT and other news media, it is impossible to keep the kids away from confrontations with israeli soldiers...

I don't recall anyone stating it being impossible.

I do recall reports that the Palestinians haven't tried to preven it, but rather used TV to promote children going out the streets and confront Israeli soldiers.

Either way, while you could question the basic humanity of someone taking cover behind a child, the moral fault is still with the invading soldiers. If they don't open fire, no children will get hurt.

They open fire at those who fire at them.

If the soldiers accidentally hit the children, those who promoted their coming to the place are guilty - the PA which broadcasts calls for them to come.

[CyberGnu]

Are you saying that the Palestinians kill teenagers 'by accident' when they blow themselves up in discos, restaurants etc?

Teenagers as opposed to adults? Yes.

However, does anyone know at what age you are considered adult in palestine? Since they themselves apparently consider 15 year olds grown men, I assume they consider israeli 15 year olds adults as well.

[CyberGnu]

I don't recall anyone stating it being impossible.

I remember reading an interview with a woman whose son was killed for throwing stones. She said she tried to keep him away from there, grounded him, smacked him, but nothing worked. He'd run back anyway.

I don't think this really matters tough.

[CyberGnu]

They open fire at those who fire at them.

*sigh*... Should I type slowly? They have no business being there. They have no moral right to return fire even if shot upon. They are an occupying presence. The only moral choice they could do is to stop the occupation.

Does it hurt to contemplate Israels crimes? Does it ease the hurt to try to blame others for the suffering those crimes cause? I'm struggling to understand the mental block you seem to have.

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


Good. That takes care of your points 8, 9 and 11. There is no moral requirement to call off an attack because Israel has decided to put some kids there. Sharon is guilty of the deaths of these children.

In none of the three cases you mentioned were the children in the way. They just happened to be there and the Palestinians decided to kill them too.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
So you could cut your posts with a third...

You could ignore those parts, or ignore my threads and post completely.

Ahh, yes, trustworthy as an israeli politician. There are roughly six billion people on this earth I'd trust more...

I don't care who you trust.

Unless you have actual reasons not to trust Israeli media, such as an example of lies, then you are judging according to prejudice.

But you know what? If you give the name of a palestinian as a source, I might take it at face value. AFAIK, not a single post you have made does that...

Because I don't bother quoting the names, but usually bring a short review.

I'm not Haaretz.

Well, one minor difference: the NYT employs journalists who check things before they print them.

I just told you about a journalist in a major american nespaper the name of which I forgot, who wrote articles out of his ass, and that's your reply?

If you are very very interested I could try and find that report again.

Sigh. As if I had time to do that... I trust the NYT. I have no reason to do otherwise. When it was revealed that they jumped the gun on the alleged chinese spy in Los alamos, they dutifully printed apologies and rectifications.

What reason do you have to not trust the Israeli newspapers?

That's exactly what I'm asking.

I did follow jewsih media for one week, checking out the stories.

The vast majority had no sources whatsoever, apart from 'IDF sources' or 'Israeli radio'. This is no better than hearsay.

IDF sources = US military sources.

Do you automatically disregard any NYT article about the war on terrorism, just because they quote US military and political sources?

A few stories were true, as they appeared in western media as well.

correction - you should have said:
"A few stories I could verify myself, as they appeared in western media as well".

And a few had sources, that upon further checking appeared to be untrue. The 'die welt' fabrications were the worst oif that batch, as it consisted of a plain face lie as a headline story...

Please repeat that for me.

As far as I can remember, you read a report in JP about an article in "die welt" which you later couldn't find.

As you yourself said - just because you don't find it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You could simply not notice it, and it is frequent that online versions of newspapers are not the same as the printed ones, or aren't free.

If you are going to claim that Israeli newspapers are not credible you need to find a based source for it, such as a report claiming otherwise.

For instance, if you find a report saying : "There are no palestinian school books which are anti-israeli" it would prove that the Israeli media is lying.


Furthermore, just because you think you can't trust JP, doesn't mean it's the same for the rest of the newspapers.

You yourself said there is a difference between NYT and the Sun. If you consider JP to be untrustworthy, read Haaretz or something.

So it is back in your court. If you want to prove anything, quote a real source.

Not at all.

You still haven't given a viable example of an Israeli media lie which was done knowingly.

[GeneralTacticus]

*sigh*... Should I type slowly? They have no business being there. They have no moral right to return fire even if shot upon. They are an occupying presence. The only moral choice they could do is to stop the occupation.

Their business in being there is to attempt to stop the Palestinians from attacking Israel. As has been stated previously, terrorism against Israel has been going on for years before 1967. The occupation provides a boost to the terrorism, nothing more: the goal remains the destruction of Israel.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
You can kill my wife. she made a decision to profit from a crime, and should be prepared to face the consequences. As I've said before, you can't deliberately kill the kid.

So it is moral for me to kill your wife, just because she profits from theft?

Sweet.

If the kid is killed by accident, however, the guilt falls squarely on my shoulders.

Therefore the guilt for palestinian dead innocents falls directly on thier shoulders, as they do not prevent them from going to battle fields, and infact provoke them to confront soldiers.

I'm amazed that you don't manage to draw these parallels on your own...

I'm asking your opinion.

I luckily have my own morals which differentiate between civilians and combatants, unlike you.

[CyberGnu]

In none of the three cases you mentioned were the children in the way. They just happened to be there and the Palestinians decided to kill them too.

*sigh*

In the way = just being there.

[Mr. President]

Well, one minor difference: the NYT employs journalists who check things before they print them.

Newspapers often get facts not just wrong, but completely wrong. Even your precious New York Times frequently prints retractions.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I remember reading an interview with a woman whose son was killed for throwing stones. She said she tried to keep him away from there, grounded him, smacked him, but nothing worked. He'd run back anyway.

I don't think this really matters tough.

I however read on western media that the palestinian media aimed at children, and their school books, are all inciting them to confront Israeli soldiers.

Therefore it's the responsability of the PA who stands behind the incitement on TV and in schoolbooks.

[CyberGnu]

You could ignore those parts, or ignore my threads and post completely.

Why? The only thing I do is to call you on your lack of substance in those instances. Would be easier for both of us if you left them out in the first place.

I don't care who you trust.

Unless you have actual reasons not to trust Israeli media, such as an example of lies, then you are judging according to prejudice.

You mean things like 'It is all Arafats fault'?

Because I don't bother quoting the names, but usually bring a short review.

I'm not Haaretz.

So when I ask for sources, you should be able to find ones, right?

I just told you about a journalist in a major american nespaper the name of which I forgot, who wrote articles out of his ass, and that's your reply?

If you are very very interested I could try and find that report again.

Could you? I'm willing to bet money that the newspaper which employed him aologized and published retractions.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Teenagers as opposed to adults? Yes.

However, does anyone know at what age you are considered adult in palestine? Since they themselves apparently consider 15 year olds grown men, I assume they consider israeli 15 year olds adults as well.

How about a source ?

[GeneralTacticus]

*sigh*

In the way = just being there.

In which case Israeli soldiers have every right to kill anyone they find near Palestinian militants.

[CyberGnu]

How about a source ?

apparently

Means 'based on my impressions'. Not a statement of fact. Not a claim.

Could this be the cause of your confusion regarding sources? You really don't understand when they are needed?

[CyberGnu]

In which case Israeli soldiers have every right to kill anyone they find near Palestinian militants.

Which would be true, if palestine occupied israel.

Man, it feels like I'm talking to a five year old.