Please, tell me this isn't true.

Post #35,569 by pwhysall 4/16/02 7:47:59 AM Reply	Please, tell me this isn't true. [link\|http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=285413\|Jenin Massacre]. The scale of this atrocity boggles the mind. The Israelis are saying that there are about 70 Palestinian dead. I do not believe them. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #35,579 by Arkadiy 4/16/02 9:58:27 AM Reply	I've never been in the army... ...but from what I've heard about WW2 and about war in general - thhis is how battlefield is supposed to look, if the battle took place in the midle of a town. What did you expect? Go check out Stalingrad Battle images.
Post #35,580 by boxley 4/16/02 10:06:07 AM Reply	Its true When you have narrow alleys, you ram a tank thru, with infantry following behind mopping up anything that moves. It is a war zone, shit happens. Conversely the people there expected this, they must have. If they didnt expect this they should have either left or told the terrorists to get out and leave them alone. thanx, Bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #35,592 by pwhysall 4/16/02 11:28:02 AM Reply	Left? And gone precisely where, Bill? Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #35,594 by boxley 4/16/02 11:31:16 AM Reply	Same place people in london went during the blitz Doesnt matter where, just get the heck out of the way. OOh tanks coming to Ramalla, think its time for a nice hike into the desert. thanx, bill TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #35,600 by Brandioch 4/16/02 12:15:48 PM Reply	But why lie about it then? If they are conducting urban operations, then why the earlier reports about limited deaths? Why not be open about it and let the Red Cross in? And it can't be about protecting the Red Cross people. They know what they're getting into.
Post #35,640 by rsf 4/16/02 3:17:58 PM Reply	You can't let the Red Cross into a combat zone when combat is on going because they get in the way. Yea, they wear the red cross on white tunics to identify themselves but the Palestinine terrorist have repeatedly demonstrated that they will disguise themselves as non-combatants. Did you hear about the Red Cresent ambulance that was caught hauling explosives? Did you hear about the suicide bomber that disguised herself as a pregnant woman? Ray
Post #35,662 by Brandioch 4/16/02 4:39:57 PM Reply	Only once. You can't let the Red Cross into a combat zone when combat is on going because they get in the way. Maybe the dumb ones do. Think of it as Darwinism in action. On the other hand, the Red Cross has has workers in most wars since WWII that I'm aware of. You'd think that by now, they would have learned how to not get shot. Yea, they wear the red cross on white tunics to identify themselves but the Palestinine terrorist have repeatedly demonstrated that they will disguise themselves as non-combatants. Did you hear about the Red Cresent ambulance that was caught hauling explosives? Did you hear about the suicide bomber that disguised herself as a pregnant woman? I note your change in subject matter. What started out as reasons why the Red Cross shouldn't be in a combat zone ended up as examples of Palestinians disguising themselves. So, the Red Cross shouldn't be allowed in a combat zone because Palestinian terrorists might disguise themselves as Red Cross workers?
Post #35,668 by rsf 4/16/02 5:05:47 PM Reply	I'll spell it out for you The Red Cross will be most effective if they can get into the combat zone while the injured are still alive. There is a high probability that Palestinian combatant are likely to use disguise themselves as Red Cross workers and/or use Red Cross workers as human shields or hostages (hell, they use there own kids as human shields so I don't think they'll give a flying f' if any Red Cross workers get killed). Ergo, if you let the Red Cross workers into while the fighting continues, the IDF will either have to compromise their fighting ability (for fear of killing a Red Cross worker) or the IDF will have to accept the political fallout that will come when Red Cross workers get killed. The safest thing for the IDF to do is to keep them out because a Palestinian death doesn't cost as much politically as a Red Cross worker death. Note: The situation here is much different than in past wars where the sanctity of the Red Cross non-combatant status was held in high regard (for the most part). For example, in WWII, one of our subs sunk a Japanese hospital ship that had the Red Cross symbol painted on the side of the ship. It was a night attack, in the fog, and with the way the ship blew up, the crew was sure the ship was carrying munitions. However, because the US couldn't prove that it was in fact carrying arms, the sub commander was court martialed and the US paid reparations to the Japanese government (during the war too!). Ray
Post #35,689 by Brandioch 4/16/02 7:16:28 PM Reply	Try spelling it out again. Ergo, if you let the Red Cross workers into while the fighting continues, the IDF will either have to compromise their fighting ability (for fear of killing a Red Cross worker) or the IDF will have to accept the political fallout that will come when Red Cross workers get killed. Really? I don't suppose you know the history of the Red Cross. Do you think that they just blindly run across fire zones? Seems to me they've been in enough wars to have learned by now. For example, in WWII, one of our subs sunk a Japanese hospital ship that had the Red Cross symbol painted on the side of the ship. It was a night attack, in the fog, and with the way the ship blew up, the crew was sure the ship was carrying munitions. However, because the US couldn't prove that it was in fact carrying arms, the sub commander was court martialed and the US paid reparations to the Japanese government (during the war too!). Hmmm, so, what you're saying is that, in the past, the enemy has disguised himself as belonging to the Red Cross. But that's what you're saying he might do now. But in the past, we didn't keep the Red Cross off the battlefield (well, lately we have, along with reporters). But now it is different because now the enemy might do the same thing the enemy did in the past when things were the same. So, things are the same which means that things are different. Could you try explaining that, one more time? You see, you accept certain limitations when you are one of the "good" guys.
Post #35,696 by rsf 4/16/02 7:45:02 PM Reply	I can't comment beyond this post What I wrote in the previous post was clear enough for all of us to understand. You might not like it but I'm sure you understood it. Or you will if you think about it a little more. Sorry, but I'm a little to busy to play a cat and mouse game with this topic. Ray
Post #35,707 by 3) 4/16/02 9:47:16 PM Reply	Intention does matter There really is a difference between a mistake in the fog and dark and using an ambulance to transport explosives. Yes, it is moraly worse to target civilians than to target combatants and kill civilians in the process. Worst of all is to deliberately place your civilians in harm's way as SOP. It shows that you think your enemy cares more about your people than you do. If you even consider that it is possible for your enemy to care more about your people than you do, and you do not step down, you are no leader, just a thug. I am not a man, I am a free number.
Post #35,716 by Brandioch 4/16/02 11:06:39 PM Reply	Yep. Yes, it is moraly worse to target civilians than to target combatants and kill civilians in the process. You are, of course, familiar with the poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter". It's a shame I don't follow that morallity.
Post #35,774 by inthane-chan 4/17/02 2:01:16 PM Reply	Actually, he's got a point. Y'see, he left out this little bit - It is morally worse to target combatants and kill civilians in the process than to target combatants and actively attempt to avoid civilians in the process, putting yourself at greater risk. Now, as towards whether or not the Israeli military did so - we'll probably never know the truth and be certain of it. Methinks that the press corps needs some new technology - something akin to the Predator drones, sans weaponry. I've been reading David Brin's The Transparent Society and quite frankly, it's starting to appeal to me on a lot of levels... "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #35,778 by hnick 4/17/02 2:54:49 PM Reply	Drones aren't the technology we need... What we need would be something more like Heinlein's Fair Witness. Journalism is pretty much dead these days. The hacks that we have are intrested in selling paper or air-time. There is no doubt in my mind that reporters or their editors would go for the "entertainment" value of tanks and bulldozers crushing houses and maybe even people (yeah! just think of the ratings!!) rather than attempt to show an unbiased well analyzed narrative of what actually happened. Hey, they have the special FX of an Arnold movie without the cost (to them, of course...) Reporters are pretty useless. They could just as usefully bring in lawyers with the troops. my .02 Hugh
Post #35,784 by Ashton 4/17/02 3:59:22 PM Reply	Exactly! 'Fair Witness' is dead-on. But WHO amongst us ???
Post #35,805 by inthane-chan 4/17/02 5:03:30 PM Reply	Ah, but drones are just the start... ...if EVERYBODY has drones, and not just the press corps, and enough pictures get out and around, then statistically an image of what has really happened is creatable. That's the premise of The Transparent Society - everybody observes everybody else, no secrets. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #35,806 by hnick 4/17/02 5:06:15 PM Reply	Doesn't matter... wouldn't work Fair Witnesses would not work in our society because an unemotional strictly factual account is not exciting to the masses and would not sell paper/air-time. And because the trade would not be valued, it would be fairly difficult to get an intelligent, educated person to train and dedicate their life to such a discipline. Just cause I can spec it doesn't mean I can implement it... Pity, Hugh
Post #35,811 by Ashton 4/17/02 5:54:16 PM Reply	An important minority* would value them, but (* a handful among the minority who now even vote, that is) it's moot: only those on a course to genuine adulthood might apply for training.. Even then.. they would have to cultivate abnormal characteristics, present in only a small sampple of the species. Which current handful of genuine 'adults' - might train them? See? - not ready yet. Ashton
Post #35,601 by mmoffitt 4/16/02 12:16:29 PM Reply	Heh. "Thrown the terrorists out" That is hysterical. Tell me, how many more terrorists do you think this action by Israel gave birth to?
Post #35,604 by Brandioch 4/16/02 12:20:39 PM Reply	At this point in time..... I wish for a better search engine. Then I could provide a link to Marlowe's post containing a link to the article that said that Israel's operations were actually reducing the number of suicide attacks. Of course, wasn't there one last Friday? And it sounds like they plan on training that kid to be one. sigh
Post #35,639 by 3) 4/16/02 3:06:43 PM Reply	My guess? Not many, maybe none. Compared to the mythology spread about them, the Israelies would have to do far more to make a noticable difference. A problem with extreme slander is that it frees the other guy to do almost as much as you accuse him of without further damage to his reputation. Yer basic martyr isn't there because of one atrocity, no matter how bad. He's there because his commander considers it a good strategic or tactical idea. I am not a man, I am a free number.
Post #35,596 by 3) 4/16/02 11:36:08 AM Reply	It isn't One constant in war: all sides are liars. The Israeli version is also a lie. I find it hard to locate much sympathy anymore. Too many intentional martyrs, too many situations set up to force "atrocities". Machavelli said that each prince is allowed one bloodbath, and I think he's right here. The other two choices for Israel are to engage in a prolonged reign of terror or allow people to continue blowing them up. The Palestinean side demanded this, specificaly so they could howl about the atrocity of it all when they got it. Their Arab buddies encouraged it and financed it, because it is cheaper to buy some explosives and pay off the families than it is to fight your own wars. I've been a raging peacenik for my entire life, but it is time to end this, and when one side won't accept anything less than the anihilation of the other, well, Israel did, in fact, Give Peace a Chance. Several times. I am not a man, I am a free number.
Post #35,602 by SpiceWare 4/16/02 12:16:51 PM Reply	Yep, they sure did. [link\|http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/104/oped/Let_Israel_fight_its_way_to_peace+.shtml\|Let Israel fight its way to peace] The United States did not spend eight years negotiating with Mullah Omar and the Taliban. President Bush gave them one chance to cooperate and hand over Osama bin Laden; when they refused, they were destroyed. Arafat and his lieutenants, by contrast, have been given chance after chance to prove their peaceful bona fides. What they have proven instead is that they are liars and conscienceless killers. If America after Sept. 11 had the right to obliterate the Taliban, Israel has the right to obliterate the Palestinian Authority. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #35,607 by Brandioch 4/16/02 12:26:31 PM Reply	Interesting article. Particularly when, supposedly, it is attempting to show how Israel does not resort to terrorism while Arafat supports it. But it keeps bringing up how Israel is a friend of the US and Palestinians celebrated the WTC attack. Just an observation. I take it "journalism" isn't taught in schools anymore.
Post #35,626 by SpiceWare 4/16/02 2:27:46 PM Reply	It is on the Editorial/Opinions page Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #35,693 by Ashton 4/16/02 7:35:15 PM Reply	Re. 'lying' If.. the first casualty of war is truth, then life in a Warfare State is guaranteed to afford precious little 'truth' -- and assuredly none of that! from any side's Official Sources. CYA is the universal Religion, just after - the accumulation of $. So then - believe every 'journalist's extrapolation of an event, via 10 minutes spent talking to survivors? (My solution is - I know that I will not hear anything approaching truth -during- and very little after. Those who imagine, just now, that they are well-enough informed: are either very wise and well-connected OR they are fantasizing.) The only general Rule I find I can rely upon in every event: where homo-sap and his mouth are involved, Shit Will Happen, but half will say that it smells like a rose. Ashton
Post #35,718 by Brandioch 4/16/02 11:12:00 PM Reply	There is ONE way to "know". The side with nothing to fear from public disclosure will/would/should allow reporters to follow along after the combat troops. Wasn't Wolf in a hotel in Bagdad during the initial attack on Iraq? Filming. Recording.
Post #35,655 by bluke 4/16/02 4:08:42 PM Reply	It is not It is a perfect example of the [link\|http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-cohen041602.asp\|"The Big Lie"] at work. [link\|http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=105001937\|Best of the Web] "The British press--last seen spreading phony charges of torture at Guantanamo Bay--has been crying "massacre" over the assault on Jenin, site of a "refugee camp"- cum-terror nest. "A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight has finally been exposed," shouts the always- hysterical Independent, though the "evidence" consists of rumors that "hundreds of corpses" are "entombed beneath the dust." The London Times echoes the claim: "The hundreds believed dead were not all fighters. Buried under the rubble are the bodies of women and children whose houses caved in around them." How does the reporter know what's buried under the rubble? ... The Guardian buries in its dispatch this crucial detail, which explains why the Israelis had to wreak as much destruction as they did: Palestinians admit the camp was liberally mined two or three days before the assault. But the strategy failed because Israel had no compunction about razing homes to make roads for its tanks. "The thing we did not count on was the bulldozer. It was a catastrophe. If the Israelis had only gone one by one inside the camp, they would never have succeeded in entering," said Mr Damaj. The Washington Post and Newsday have far more balanced reports on Jenin. "Lives Reduced to Rubble," the Post's headline reads: "Jenin Camp Is a Scene of Devastation But Yields No Evidence of a Massacre." And Newsday says: "No Sign of Massacre in Jenin Camp: Destruction and death evident in Jenin, but no mass killings."
Post #35,666 by Brandioch 4/16/02 5:00:09 PM Reply	Fascinating. From The National Review: When the Israelis cleared the booby traps and allowed Western media into the city on Monday, the reality turned to be completely different: difficult door-to-door infantry fight; 23 Israeli soldiers fallen in battle; dozens of terrorists killed. No massacre. So, lots of terrorists killed, but no massacre. Many houses were booby trapped by the terrorists who hoped to blow Israelis to smithereens. The IDF repeatedly ceased fire and demanded that all civilians leave the area, but the top Palestinian terrorists, true to form, were using them as human shields. So, the Palestinian terrorists were hiding behind civilians. But no massacre occured. Dozens of dead terrorists, but no civilians. Seems that the Israel military hits what it shoots at. That's some good shooting. You know, if this had been any other military operation, I'd expect to see some dead civilians (what were being used as human shields). Particularly 'cause the Palestinians have no problem disguising themselves as civilians. Like I said, that's some good shooting.
Post #35,686 by wharris2 4/16/02 6:57:28 PM Reply	There you go again I don't think anyone is claiming no civilians died, just that it was a battle between gunmen (who sometimes were using civilians as shields) and the IDF. There's still no "hundreds dead" or "Massacre". Plenty of Russian civilians, German civilians, Polish civilians, French civilians died during World War 2 just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. War is hell. For soldiers and civilians alike. The difference is that the IDF, at least until I see evidence otherwise, isn't trying to slaughter civilians. If they really wanted to do that, there are much easier targets than booby-trapped terrorist strongholds. Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
Post #35,687 by Brandioch 4/16/02 7:10:03 PM Reply	I'm just reading the articles. The difference is that the IDF, at least until I see evidence otherwise, isn't trying to slaughter civilians. And I'm sure that makes all the difference to you. To me, not trying to slaughter civilians means nothing. Like I've said before, "victims" or "collateral damage" or whatever. Dead women and children is dead women and children. And, >IF< reporters had been allowed in, the "evidence" would be clearer. If they really wanted to do that, there are much easier targets than booby-trapped terrorist strongholds. I'm not saying they were specifically targetting civilians. Does the word "indiscriminate" mean anything to you?
Post #35,728 by wharris2 4/17/02 1:27:47 AM Reply	Ah, so Israel should just lay back and let bombers in. That's what I hear you saying. Bombers were coming in. Israel went out and is trying to smack them off at the root. Rather than trying to whack the terrorists before they get the chance to strap some explosives to themselves, you want them to just sit back and just react to the next suicide bus-bombing. Yah. Works real well with me. Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
Post #35,759 by Brandioch 4/17/02 12:36:18 PM Reply	So, "reporters" == "bombers" to you? Fascinating. That's what I hear you saying. Really? When I say that Israel should NOT keep reporters and Red Cross workers off of the battlefield, you read that as letting bombers in? So, in your mind, "reporters" == "bombers"? Bombers were coming in. Israel went out and is trying to smack them off at the root. Rather than trying to whack the terrorists before they get the chance to strap some explosives to themselves, you want them to just sit back and just react to the next suicide bus-bombing. Fascinating. Allow me to quote from my previous post. I said: To me, not trying to slaughter civilians means nothing. Like I've said before, "victims" or "collateral damage" or whatever. Dead women and children is dead women and children. And, >IF< reporters had been allowed in, the "evidence" would be clearer. Again, I say that Israel should NOT keep reporters off of the battlefield. And you read that as me saying Israel should allow suicide bombers in. Fascinating.
Post #35,763 by boxley 4/17/02 12:56:39 PM Reply	So Reporters==evidence? If that is the case, Clinton should be hung, Bush did win the election OJ is guilty and all Palestinians are angels with just a couple of bad eggs that arafat cant control.:) TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #35,770 by Brandioch 4/17/02 1:47:03 PM Reply	Reporters == evidence. If reporters were there during Clinton's "crimes", the case would be a lot easier. (it's "hanged" not "hung"). We have LOTS of evidence about how the election was handled. We also have lots of spin. But the evidence is recorded. If reporters had been present during the killing, OJ's trial would have gone a lot quicker. If Israel had allowed reporters on the battlefield, the world could SEE how the operations were handled and SEE who the dead were and how many. Otherwise, it is all forensics and spin. If I were Palestinian, I'd be moving ANY dead women and children I could to those sites. Eventually, someone will start digging through the rubble. The more bodies they find then, the worse Israel will look. And it doesn't take a lot of dead children to affect world opinion.
Post #35,771 by boxley 4/17/02 1:53:20 PM Reply	flesh not rope :) TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
Post #35,773 by Brandioch 4/17/02 1:58:52 PM Reply	TMI Too Much Information ewwwwwwwwww
Post #35,745 by static 4/17/02 8:24:00 AM Reply	That is the word. "Fascinating." The traditional media I've been keeping up with most regularly have been [link\|http://www.abc.net.au/news\|ABC News], [link\|http://www.smh.com.au/\|The Sydney Morning Herald] and news breaks on [link\|http://www.sbs.com.au\|SBS]. Just an hour ago, the news break on SBS suggested without saying so (nor overtly taking sides either) that exact truth over what is really happening is very hard to come by. There was a sound bite of an IDF soldier saying that they gave Palestinians opportunity to evacuate before bulldozing, but didn't force them. There were pictures of IDF soldiers going door-to-door and restraining Palestinian men. There was a shot of a Palestinian woman venting at the camera; the translation was that children are asking to be suicide bombers. It is not a situation with an easy solution, nor with a solution everyone will be 100% happy with. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #35,762 by Brandioch 4/17/02 12:52:16 PM Reply	It's a nasty bit of business, killing. It is not a situation with an easy solution, nor with a solution everyone will be 100% happy with. Ending lives, destroying property, and so on. The best we can do is accurately record the events as they happen. That requires 3rd party reporters and camera crews.

Welcome to IWETHEY!