Israel on alert after three Palestinians killed in air strike

[Resistance]

Channel News Asia

GAZA CITY : Israeli security services are on a high state of alert for fear of reprisals after the killing of three Palestinians in an air strike near Gaza City, including a leader of Islamic Jihad.

Police reinforcements were deployed in large numbers along the Green Line which separates Israel from the West Bank in a bid to prevent any infiltrations by would-be Palestinian suicide attackers, Israeli security sources said.

The radical Palestinian group had warned that the attack on Saturday night, when an Israeli helicopter blew up a car near Gaza City, would merely serve to encourage it "to continue the struggle".

[Resistance]

1. this is a plain admission

that slamming missiles into crowds of civilians results in suicide attacks.

(but then Israeli officials will try to claim it's a "genetic defect")

[lefty_mcduff]

2. The IDF seem to forget that they are not the only ones

who understand the concept of *retaliation*.

[Resistance]

5. au contraire my friend

I would argue that they understand it quite well. Provocation and the subsequent retaliations are, in fact, part of the overall strategy.

[brainshrub]

27. Yes, the more violent the Palestinans get

the more it removes attention from land theft, torture, human rights vilations and the aparthid wall.

If all that was being done to me & my family... I can't say that I wouldn't have grown up to become rather violent.

[Resistance]

30. plus

if you get a suicide bombing right now, you can whine and make emotional appeals to the ICJ (and everyone in the int'l community who is paying attention to the ruling) that the Land-Grab Wall is oh-so-needed.

[JohnLocke]

3. A few bystanders wounded and one killed, while tragic, can hardly

...be described as "slamming missiles into crowds of civilians."

[Resistance]

4. was there a crowd of civilians?

Yes.

Was there a missile strike?

Yes.

[JohnLocke]

6. Was the purpose of the strike to kill civilians?

No.

Did the Israeli government intend to kill civilians?

No.

Is the loss of life regrettable?

Yes.

Do you fail to grasp the basic concepts of "intent" and "minimizing damage"?

Yes.

Edited for clarity.

[drdon326]

7. lol

.

[JohnLocke]

13. I know.

This is like attempting to equate three car fatalities: one the death of a person who was killed by someone deliberately, one who was killed because of reckless disregard, and the last of a freak accident with no fault to either driver. The logic is of dime-store variety.

[drewb]

14. What are you laughing at?

:loveya:

[JohnLocke]

16. The inanity of this "logic" some use (nt).

[lefty_mcduff]

17. Quite the morbid sense of humor.

LOL - that means 'laughing out loud' does it not?

[JohnLocke]

18. It does (nt).

[drewb]

19. And to think he gets offended when I use...

:nopity: in some of my posts...

:loveya:

[number6]

49. so you think dead people are funny

..

[Resistance]

10. oh ok

slamming a missile into a crowd of civilians is ok because there is no "intent" to harm the civilians.

:crazy:

Are you the killers' spokesperson now?

[JohnLocke]

15. Not necessarily.

Intent is not needed to make it immoral; reckless disregard will suffice. However, in this case, neither was present.

Edit: grammar.

[lefty_mcduff]

20. Well, if the 'intent' is not to harm civilians...

... we can then chalk this up to incompetence, or faulty equipment?

[Resistance]

22. more "accidents"

[brainshrub]

23. Or faulty logic?

[JohnLocke]

24. Funny, now.

I've said repeatedly that intent is not the only factor. that fact aside, which is the real killer: the ones who killed the terrorist or the terrorist himself?

[drewb]

11. Apparently those new "harm only terrorists missles"...

aren't working perfectly yet...

Time for some more testing eh, John?

Seriously though...

What do you think happens when you shoot a missle into a crowd of people? Do you think only terrorists get injured? I can't believe you aren't smarter than that... :dunce:

:loveya:

[brainshrub]

12. How can you not expect to kill civilians

when you lob missiles at crowds?

That's like being surprised that you'll get wet when you jump in a lake.

"I never intended to get wet." :silly:

[Resistance]

26. good point

The "intent" of jumping into the lake was to search for a lost watch.

[JohnLocke]

28. How can a terrorist go out and do what he does?

Putting his family, his home, his people at risk...

[Resistance]

29. Obviously

(as I tried to make clear in my first post above)

The IDF has put their people at risk by slamming a missile into a crowd of civilians. They admit that suicide bombings are a retaliation, by putting their troops in high alert for would-be suicide attackers.

[JohnLocke]

31. Sure.

But suicide bombing is not an appropriate response. :wtf:

[Resistance]

32. I didn't say it was

[JohnLocke]

34. So why should Israel submit to that?

:wtf:

[Resistance]

35. we go back to my first point (again)

Israel is pretty much admitting to the world (well anyone who pays attention to more than Western elite media) that their own actions - slamming missiles into a crowd of civilians - directly results in suicide bombings as retaliation.

We can argue other points if you want: should Israel do this or do that, should Palestinians do this or do that. I'm just making a simple observation - do you agree with the point, or not?

[JohnLocke]

36. Sometimes it does occur at a more rapid rate--just another excuse, anyway.

[Resistance]

39. so - (final point)

If Israeli war-planners know that missile strikes into a crowd of civilians will directly result in suicide attackings, and if their stated goal is to stop suicide bombers (protect Israeli citizens) then why on earth are they continuing to slam missiles into crowds of civilians?

[JohnLocke]

40. Because they will not submit to terrorism!

Just because some moron extremists decide to "retaliate" for the death of their leader doesn't make what they're doing right! Do you think by leaving terrorist leaders alone, these attacks will go away?
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[Darranar]

42. Of course it isn't right...

that makes little difference.

The war in Iraq was wrong. One reason it was so was because Iraq, not a terrorist haven before the war, would become one afterwards - and that happened.

Is it right for terrorists to exploit the chaos of war and use it for their reprehensible purposes? No, of course not. Is it expected? Yes.

All Israel is accomplishing through these strikes is an increase in popular support for terrorism - making it even harder to destroy terrorist infrastructure. What is necessary is a political solution similar to that of the Geneva Accords, with Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and Palestinian cooperation in matters of Israeli security. That would greatly decrease popular support for terrorism and allow the government of the Palestinian state to crack down on terrorists effectively.

[brainshrub]

41. Because they don't want peace.

That's why.

[frylock]

43. you are correct..

if we supplied the Palestinians with the same weaponry we provide the IDF, there would be no need for suicide bombers. They could accomplish their mission, nice and neat, just like the IDF.. from the cockpit of a gunship. No fuss, no muss.

[_Jumper_]

51. Thankfully we don't

If we did we wouldn't have a solution, we would have the "final solution."

[brainshrub]

33. Perhaps because he knows that his family, home and people are

actively being oppressed and have nothing to lose.

From the Palestinian perspective, they have nothing to lose. They can sit at home, and get strangled by the slow-motion genocide or they can fight back.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."
-Emiliano Zapata-

[brainshrub]

8. What would you call it?

An accident? You don't launch missiles at people without expecting to kill people.

Resistance is correct: Israel has just admitted that such attacks create terrorists.

Here's the next logical question: Why would Israel keep doing this if it knows that it just escalates the violence?

[Jack Rabbit]

45. Dissenting (response to post number 1 by Resistance )

Your case seems a bit weak to me.

Now, I agree that when one fires a missile into a crowd of people, there is a considerable risk that somebody other than the target of the attack will be killed. I would characterize that, as you do, as a reckless disregard for human life. Like you, I believe this is unacceptable.

However, have we not seen cases where an IDF target was taken out clean? Did the militants not vow revenge? It would seem that the claim that somebody was killed who should not have been in this act is being used as a pretext to launch a future suicide attack, one that would be launched regardless.

I would submit to you the thesis that, in the minds of their associates, the loss of the militant leaders is sufficient cause to take revenge and that the loss of any unfortunate bystander is inconsequential. Moreover, they will take their revenge on a target with no military value, claiming victims who are little more than bystanders in this conflict.

It would seem that neither the Palestinian militants nor the IDF can claim any moral high ground. One side deliberately targets bystanders, the other takes no account of them when they could and should.

Rather than using the loss of bystanders as a pretext to launch another attack, we need to think of the loss of bystanders as a good reason -- in fact, the best reason -- to end the conflict altogether. Currently, those in power on both sides regard any attack as a provocation for another; hopefully, more reasonable people will come to power and work to end this bloodbath.

[kalian]

9. I wonder whether the IDF used those shiney new jets....

:eyes:

[brainshrub]

21. You mean the ones I paid for?

Interesting how my tax dollars are being used to create new terrorists.

[JohnLocke]

25. Hmm...

:nopity: :nopity:

[Aidoneus]

37. Israel kills two Palestinians in West Bank

Israel kills two Palestinians in West Bank
Sunday 29 February 2004

Two Palestinians have been shot dead by Israeli occupation soldiers in seperate incidents in the West Bank.

The latest victim, who was identified as Riad Abu Shallal, 15, was killed on Sunday during clashes with Israeli soldiers at the funeral of Muhammed Ouais who had been shot dead only hours earlier by troops.

Earlier on Sunday, Israeli forces raided the Balata refugee camp near Nablus and clashed with its residents, killing Muhammad Ouais and injuring several others, our correspondent in the West Bank reported.

Ouais, a member of al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades movement, had been on an Israeli wanted list.

"Ouais, 19, opened fire at the soldiers when they headed towards a mosque in the camp," said the Aljazeera correspondent. "The soldiers shot back, killing him with a bullet in the neck," he said.

"The Israeli invasion of Nablus, particularly Balata refugee camp and the Old City, is still going on," said the correspondent.

--snip--

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6D715639-A4CF-4E8C-A7A7-3E9B5BAFD090.htm

Shooting people at a funeral for somebody they shot before.. that's not the first time for this, actually. Nice touch, tho'.. :eyes:

[JohnLocke]

38. I am sorry for the death of Shallal...

but the death of Ouais gets no sympathy from me. :nopity:

[ex_jew]

44. You dispense sympathy with an eye-dropper !

You sift through the dead people, saying - this one deserved it, this one may have, there was no intent to kill that one, etc. What's the point ?

Let's take advantage of our position as outsiders to come up with a plan that would offer some hope. Your thinking please ?

[packerssuck]

46. Get rid of arafat and rest of terror groups who wanna keep their power

[lefty_mcduff]

48. Cool.

Sharon goes too. What's your plan?

[Forkboy]

47. The contortions on display here

would make a gymnast proud.

[number6]

50. they would,.. wouldn't they

;)