keep the thread on topic there Bil...
You aren't able to handle the simple questions even.
Please don't resort to posting self portraits to distract everyone from how inane and weak your arguements are.
" 16. Saira, James and Abboud left the house and walked towards where they believed an Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) was located in the darkness. They were wearing their body armour and helmets. Abboud held a white flag and James shone his torch onto it. The Palestinian family had used this flag before to attract the attention of the IDF when they had needed to leave the house. Lodged under his helmet chinstrap Abboud had an open mike radio from which he was in continual communication with Mwafaq who was waiting back at their car.
17. Abboud and James walked in front, followed by Saira. Every few paces they stopped and shouted repeatedly “Hello”. Videotape 2 (Reference B.) supports this. They took a few more paces and shouted again. At this stage there was the first shot from the direction of the APC 2. With this they called again stating that they were British journalists. Immediately there was a second shot and Saira and Abboud threw themselves on the ground. Saira initially believed James was unhurt but in response to Abboud’s cries she realised he was injured and crawled to James who was lying on his back.
18. There were another further 5 shots at approximately 10 second intervals, the film crew believe that all shots came from the same direction. For the duration of the firing both Saira and Abboud continued to shout in the direction of the APCs and throughout this time Saira was also attempting to administer first aid to James."
Taken from the investigation pages on www.justice4jamesmiller.com
It was murder and the Israelis dont give a damn. That soldier is probable still on duty. I doubt even the Americans would let a soldier walk away after an incident like this.
Again Bil Gee you've done a stupendous job of avoiding answering a direct question.
Most people don't need to look closely to tell the difference between the question 'Have you been at the scene of a terrorist attack?' and the question 'Have you ever lived somewhere that has had sustained problems with terrorism?'. And you still haven't answered the original question (SHOCKING!).
Given your recent inability to notice who your responding to and your well established inability to answer direct questions... (see above for the latest installment) I would suggest you could do with heeding some of your own advice. A good start might be answering the original question listed above.
The part about being opposed to the Iraq war is the normal noise you'd expect from a Tory rag, given the fact that they've been so inconsistent on the war that it's clear they'll say pretty much anything to score political points off Tony Blair.
The part about backing the troops is a detail that's very relevant to the discussion at hand, and I find it highly amusing that you keep posting links that handily tear down your own arguments.
He's actually your ally too... he's spending every day fighting people who, despite your condemnation of Israeli policy, would gladly blow you up to make a political statement.
That said, if the IDF did deliberately murder James Miller rather than believing him to be a threat, as the website suggests, then the soldiers involved should indeed be in prison.
If it was a case of the IDF believing he was a threat, one has to ask what the hell he thought he was doing wandering towards an APC in the middle of the night with a flashlight after an earlier firefight and explosion in the immediate vicinity.
Once you get passed the Harry Potter and onto more adult texts you can pop back and read it again, then you might be able to follow it, although don't build your hopes up too much as we do have to be realistic about what you can achieve.
Apparently it doesn't qualify, despite the fact that the IRA blew up the centre of my city and commited one of their worst atrocities in Warrington which is just a few miles away. It's just not hardcore enough for CKava.
First, let's establish that I did not sift thru that website yet. I just haven't had time, but I'll get to it. However, if the shooting occurred as described, then yes, I would call it an illegal killing. If I were to do that in Iraq, I would be brought up on charges. (let's not digress into the Marine/Haditha issue on this thread, shall we? There's plenty of opportunity elsewhere on MAP) I do have one more question which hopefully the website can clarify: what were the IDF rules of engagement for this operation?
No it isn't, the Tories have always favoured gunboat diplomacy, they had plenty of opportunity to attack Blair, speak up for the troops and still say that they thought the war was just.
If you are trying to convince anyone that a Tory rag wouldn't automatically support the armed forces, you must have a low opinion of the intelligence of the people on this forum.
George Bush is not my ally, the only reason that the UK is a terrorist target is because it supports Americans murdering Arabs and invading their countries.
But you know he won't because the regime in Israel that you support so much is a fascist regime that treats the Palestinians as though they are subhuman.
I didn't realise he was carrying a flashlight, of course that's makes it perfectly OK to shoot him.
When I read this, I stood up and applauded. You finally managed an intelligent and witty come back even if you did have to steal my Harry Potter line. I salute you.
It doesn't make it ok to shoot him, it just makes it easier. The fact the a gun battle and explosion had just taken place should have given him a clue that he might be getting in to something he couldn't get out of.
However, if the IDF were targeting him in the dark knowing who he was, I also have to wonder why 5 more shots were fired at 10 second intervals after he was hit.
If they were aiming for him particularly, knowing he was a journalist, why did they continue firing after he fell?
This just sounds like nervous troops in the middle of a battle to me, not premeditated murder.
I like the way you totally ignored the part about the firefight and explosion by the way.
Keep believing that. The UK will continue to be a target, as will every other Western country until the gov't is replaced by a Caliphate and the Sharia replaces English Common law. Terrorism will be the tactic of choice until the Uofftopic feels it has the strength to confront you directly. If you don't believe that, then you do not understand the enemy you face. You keep harping about US policy, Palestinian soverignty, and Iraq not being a threat, etc as if the concept of nation-state declaring hostilities and fighting another nation-state were still relevant to 21st century warfare. More importantly, you refuse to accept that you are also a target. You, and many others, want to stick you heads in the sand and pretend it'll all be ok if you just distance yourself from being involved. The truth is, you are considered a legitimate target, and will be until the call to prayer is broadcast from speakers inside Parliment 5 times a day.
This thing with the Palestinians will not end with a two state solution. It can't end for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeida, or any other Jihadist until all the lands that were formerly controlled by Muslims are back in the control of Muslims. That means after Israel is pushed into the sea, Spain and France among others will become the battleground. That is the law of Jihad that Wahabbists are preaching around the world today and what they are teaching millions of children for tomorrow. The only live and let live possible in Islam is what is provided for under the Sharia.
Bil, you're good at denial so this might work for you. But the rest of us need to come to grips with both the nature of 4th Generation Warfare and the enemy we all face.
Unfortunately, you are applying non reading and non comprehending. You are putting words in my mouth that I never said. Nowhere did I ever state that I view every single Palestinian death as a gunman shooting at Israeli civilians. I don't view that as being true. My view is that their are a lot of innocent people that die on both sides. Does that make it clear?
I do not view every Palestinian child's death as because they were carrying weapons. I never said that. But only an imbecile would deny that there are children carrying weapons there, especially when so many have been televised and so many photos have been shown of them. Killing children is terrible. Innocent children that die as a result of the conflict makes me sick. Just like the recent death of the kids at the picnic. They were innocent. I said so a couple of pages ago. But they were not the target. Israel apologized for their deaths. Has Hamas ever apologized for the children that have been killed? Does an apology make everything better? No, but at least you know they were not the target.
No you can't turn around and use my reasoning to justify Palestinian attacks. All you can do is try to twist my reasoning. My reasoning is simple, so let me lay it out for you again. It is not acceptable for either side to target innocent people. Both sides have innocent people. One side seems to deliberately attack innocent civilians while the other side seems to not be overly concerned if innocent civilians are in the way. Does that make it simple enough? I don't buy the crappy argument that Israel has a better military so they have to attack the civilians. They could still do guerilla warfare against military targets. They do not have to target innocent civilians. They could target buildings but instead they target innocent civilians. That is my beef with the Palestinians. My problem with the Israelis is that they don't make surgical strikes when they obviously could.
Never once did you see me say anything about the killing of innocent people as being justified. You have also never seen me say that Israel has done nothing wrong. They obviously have. Yet you can't seem to bring yourself to admit that all Israeli's are not cold blooded killers that kill as many children as they can. Obviously, that isn't happening as there are more Palestinian children than Israeli children. I can see an accident when it is an accident. I may even give the benefit of the doubt because I am willing to trust people. I can admit that there are definite abuses on both sides. Why can't you?
The soldier does move back while returning fire. But if you think the soldier will not return fire, you are sadly mistaken. I can guarantee you that if it was you, you would return fire. I know I would.
If a person decides to be in a crowd of people and open fire on soldiers or tries to use human shields while firing on troops, who is really responsible for the ones that die? The one that set that scene because they are cowardly and don't mind their own people dying so they can kill a few more enemy soldiers or the soldier that fires back?
How do you know that I have no sympathy for the kid? Did I express any less sympathy than you did? No, I didn't. I guess that makes us both incredibly callous people doesn't it. Neither of us showed any real sympathy about one attack from 1987, among the thousands that have occured. Or maybe a better assumption is that we both believe it was terrible. Realistically, what should I do about it? Rant about evil all Israelis are, go on for several paragraphs about how unfortunate the girl was, or treat it in the context of this discussion? I The only difference is that I believe it was a terrible accident and you believe it was a terrible thing done on purpose.
If you don't understand that I care about both sides, it is because you choose not to. You can choose to view me as an evil person or not. It really is your choice.
Nothing is wrong with majority rule as long as it is one group. However, if a larger group annexes a smaller group against their will and says that the smaller group is going to have an "equal" vote, that really isn't a democracy,is it? If you have a single state, that is effectively what will happen. Of course, you know that. The question is whether you think that it is ok that the Jews will be treated as second class citizens or whether you mistakenly think that it will somehow be different than every other Islamic state. Do you think there is a lot of religious freedom in Islamic states? The more militant the state, the less religious freedoms and other freedoms the people will have.
You seem to believe that the anti-Jewish sentiment will miraculously go away the moment that there is a single state. It won't. History says it won't. Hamas says it won't. The leader of Iran talks about it being a history of hundreds of years of war against Jews. But you think that if we can just get rid of Israel and have a Muslim Palestinian state, everything will be ok.
If they cleared the soldier, they must have given some reason? What was their reason?
If it happened exactly as said in this thread, pretty much everyone would agree that it was murder. I am just not sure that all the facts are being given, since there have been soldiers that have been charged, convicted, and served jail time for killing palestinians.
Bahahaha. What a ridiculous post. How many muslims do you know? I doubt you really know any. Look at how many generalizations you are making. Why do you presume you know "the enemy?"
Ignorance isn't the problem; it is arrogance + ignorance.
Wow, you are a pretty militant guy. I have seen very few with views as polarized as you.
he writes in the spectator (a british political magazine) a lot and his line of thinking is very much akin to your own. i wasnt sure if he has decided to take up Ma and post on here that was all
Bil disregarding the silly hardcore comment did the area you live in receive repeated attacks or was it a one off? I was asking if you know what it's like to live in an area which features sustained violence from terrorist attacks and if you have only ever lived nearby Warrington then I would say no. Unless you qualify one bomb as a sustained attack. The point of this question by the way in its original context was that you called my understanding of terrorism 'simplistic' when I am certain (if the above is your total experience) I have a hell of alot more of experience and understanding of terrorism than you.
EDIT: By the way as horrible as Warrington attack was it was not one of the IRA's worst atrocities. To put things in perspective for you a bit here's some of those figures you love so much...
Warrington Attacks...
Gasworks = o casualties.
Bridge Street = 2 casualties (2 children). 56 injured.