I'm just reading the articles.

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

Welcome to IWETHEY!