[Morlock]

Originally posted by CM
I will explain my view point but i know a majority will neither accept it as justified or even believe it is justifiable. Suicide bombers arent there to achieve a pure goal or work towards something. They are simply a measure to create terror and make sure that the people of israel feel unsafe. That obviously has been achieved.

If they stopped the bombings, they'd be morally right. No one would have any reason to not support a Palestinian state 100%.

And for the record- I am totaly for a Palestinian state, including total evacuation of all settlements.
But this is only for a Palestinian state- I am totaly against giving the Golan heights to Seria.

Originally posted by CM
Yesterday 8 palestinians were killed in a military incursion by the Israeli army. 8 civilians dead. Whether it was a suicide bomber or a military act, the end result is the same. Civilians die.

In the case of the suicide bomber the intention is obvious. With the israeli army it isnt. But the continious targetting of Palestinian civilains doesnt leave much to the imagination.

First of all, it was 9 or 10 Palestinians. And only five of them were innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. Three School children and one bystander were killed. The other people killed were militants who were going to be arrested but fired back at the soldiers.
All 10 of the Israelis killed this morning were innocent civilians, perpusley targeted.

Originally posted by CM
Lets not forget Marwan Baghoti, a Palestinian diplomat who is currently being held illegally by the Israeli military intelligence as he was extremely popular and support Al Aqsa.

He has personally planed several suicide bombings. Only someone who supports suicide bombings could call him a diplomat.
And Arafat black mailed Rabin in Oslo, and then abused the deal by giving the guns given to him for the Palestinain police to Hamas to kill Israelis. And Rabin was killed for it.

Originally posted by Mysteria
First party: "They're killing our compatriotes, let's go kill theirs!"

Second party: "They're killing our compatriotes, let's go kill theirs!"

First party: see above ...

Yeah, right, great conflict solving.

"There's two things that have no boundaries: The universe and human stupidity ... although I'm not 100% sure about the universe ..."

A biased observation:
True this is a stupid way of thinking, but I look at it this way. The Palestinians kill Israeli civilians, and praise the killers. The Israel enters Plestinian cities, detains and/or kills known militants, with several innocent bystanders killed by mistake. Israel sends an apology and creates an inquery board, and for a few weeks or months, there is relative quiet. Israel eases restriction, eventualy leaving the town. Palestinians send in suicide bombers, killing innocent civilians. Israel enters Palestinian cities, there is relative quiet, Israel eases restricions, Palestinians attack again.
Note- the Palestinians attacks don't drop for lack of trying, but because of the increased efficiency of the Israeli army. And I think the best argument for the security fence -which I am against right now, but totaly for if it leaves the settlements with the Palestinians- is that less innocent civilians on both sides (although mostly Israelis) were killed in 2003 than 2002.

Originally posted by Zelgadis
An interesting opinion I saw on the board CM linked to was that suicide bombing against military personnel would be more acceptable than against innocent civilians. This seems strange to me, in both cases aren't people being killed? Does anyone here share that view, and if so can you tell me what differentiates the two?

I am (as you can naturally deduce) a very proud Israeli, very proud of my army, which I believe to be the best, most proven and the most moral army in the world. Of course- one of the main complaints is it's lack of morality but I say this:
A. The army carries out the orders and policies of the government.
B. I believe that any other army in the world under similar circumstances would be less apologetic, more violent, and more civilains would be killed. Last year, (in august, I believe) the Israeli army got info that the heads of the Hamas, including spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin, were meeting at a certain building in Ramalla (I believe it was Ramalla). Once in the past, Israel used a 1 kilo bomb to assassinate a leading member of a terrorist group, and in doing so, killed several innocent civilians. So in August, even though there was concrete proof that the heads of the group most detrimental to Israel's security would be at a certain place at a certain time, Israel used a 1/4 kilo bomb, in an attempt to reduce civilain fatalities. It was not enough, and all the leaders of Hamas got away. But the point is, even in face of the possible eradication of the leadership of Hamas, Israel learned from it's previous errors, and used a significantly smaller bomb, which was succesfull in avoiding civilian fatalities.
I doubt that any other country would risk not killing off it's leading terrorists in face of civilain casualties.

Following that long prelude- I could understand if the terrorist bomber were used only against soldiers. As any pro Palestinian person would tell you- Hamas and Jihad Islami don't have the power to fight the very organized I.D.F. (Israeli Defence Force), and suicide bombers are the best weapons it has. So aside from the total waste of Palestinian children and parents, I can understand that. There's a saying in hebrew that is very basic- (Transliterating) "Be milchama kemo be milchama"- which, translated literally means "In war like in war". Soldiers are meant to fight, and, if nessecary, die for their country.

EDIT: I've just seen Smass' post, and I think the above offers my view on that.

Originally posted by dragon wench
Though... given that military service is compulsary in Israel (please correct me if I'm wrong Morlock ) I don't think the argument holds much water....

I've never thought of this aspect, as conscription was always compulsary here. All men between 18 and 21 here are soldiers (though there are tens of thousands of exceptions to that rule).