IDF apologizes -- Gaza Beach Tragedy - Page 6

David Swidler · 21st June 2006, 12:13 PM

I would guess "improvised" refers to the production - "homemade" as opposed to manufactured commercialy.

geni · 21st June 2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by David Swidler

I would guess "improvised" refers to the production - "homemade" as opposed to manufactured commercialy.

A homemade land mine would likely be based around an artillery shell of some type (155mm is very popular). From the blured pictures they look like a convetion landmine desighn.

a_unique_person · 21st June 2006, 05:55 PM

If it is landmines, they could have been there for years. Ordnance left behind is a problem all around the world.

webfusion · 21st June 2006, 07:00 PM

No 155mm artillery was involved. Period.

"improvised" can mean using regular landmines as the trigger for a larger TNT-based daisy-chain explosion. The entire demolition effect is 'improvised' using a combination of mines and other charges, wired together to create a booby-trap. These types of mechanisms are common in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to extensive US troop casualties. It goes without saying that the HAMAS and Islamic Jihad terrorists know how to improvise these very well, as they have been taught to do in their myriad terrorist training camps throughout gaza and the west bank. Also, it goes without saying that there is not any shortage of mines and TNT available these days n gaza!

After the IDF ambushed an Islamic Jihad quassem crew on May29th, the IJ publicly declared that they would mine that stretch of beach to prevent further IDF commando infiltrations. On June 9th, a mysterious explosion kills the family of Huda Ghaliya. In the video taken minutes after the tragedy, an object that appears to me to be a landmine is visible in the sand.

Quote:

If it is landmines, they could have been there for years.

No. It was not just leftover landmines from 1967 or 1956. The physical damage caused to these people was actually not indicative of a landmine buried in the sand (i.e. -- exploding from below). All the injuries, as reported, were in the head and torso. The mine(s) could have been the detonator/trigger for another, larger, type of bomb (other than a 155mm artillery shell!)

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/med...hives/0065.jpg
IED explosion captured on film (Iraq)

and

http://marinecorpsmoms.com/new_images/IED.jpg
Look at the intensity and devastation of a typical IED, and understand why the people on that beach were under the impression that an IDF artillery round had landed!

In case you have any interest in reading about the construction and deployment of IAD/IED booby-traps, I offer this link:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/ied.htm
Coupling is a method of linking one mine or explosive device to another, usually with detonating cord. When the first device is detonated, it also detonates the linked explosive. Standard AP mines may be used in daisy chains linked with other explosive hazards. Enemy forces may link the mines together with trip wire or detonating cord. When the initial mine is detonated, the other mines may detonate. This may also create large, lethal engagement areas.

a_unique_person · 21st June 2006, 07:09 PM

Since there were shells being fired, it would be the logical conclusion, would it not?

However, if that is a mine, why is it being treated so casually?

Mycroft · 21st June 2006, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Since there were shells being fired, it would be the logical conclusion, would it not?

However, if that is a mine, why is it being treated so casually?

Because nobody cares when Arabs kill Arabs?

webfusion · 21st June 2006, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Since there were shells being fired, it would be the logical conclusion, would it not?

However, if that is a mine, why is it being treated so casually?

There were NOT shells being fired onto that section of beach, a_u_p.
The IDF has made it clear to the everyone that 155mm shells weren't responsible, for two very obvious reasons.
1. The shrapnel that was recovered from the victims who were treated in Israeli hospitals, has been analyzed forensically and proved to be of a type other than 155mm artillery ordnance.

2. The IDF bombardment was reviewed in detail, and all shell landings were accounted for. None of them hit that area of beach.

As for the answer to your second question, the entire beach was scavenged clean in the minutes following the detonation. Palestinian 'militants' scrambled like crazy to remove every trace of their IED's --- in the video you can even see guys running around carrying bundles away, even while the wounded are still being attended to. This attempt at covering-up their own responsibility also extended into the gaza hospitals, where shrapnel was removed for no medically apparent reasons. In Ichilov Hospital in Tel Aviv, doctors were amazed at this action being taken, in the instance of Iham Rahlia, who had been evacuated from gaza.
Only later did the palestinian doctors make the claim of 155mm fragments being "found" in the wounded and dead.
(gaza hospitals probably have an entire storage cabinet full of 155mm shrapnel to conveniently produce on demand).

The video photgrapher Zakaria Abu Irbad-- Ramattan News (and a few stills photgraphers, such as Hatem Moussa-- AP and Mahmud Hams-- AFP) were just snapping away, focusing mainly on the injuries and the survivors. Mr. Abu Irbad followed Huda Ghalia predominantly, giving us those unforgettable images of her screaming next to her lifeless father. These photgraphers probably didn't even notice the landmines among the debris. They certainly weren't thinking landmines were responsible, in the aftermath, because everyone was yelling that the IDF navy ship offshore had done this. In fact, when the video was shown for broadcast within hours, the palestinians took the trouble to edit some creative cuts of the IDF naval gunboat actually firing those famous 155mm shells at the beach, although it became clear in the IDF details of the operations June 9th that the vessel carries 76mm guns, not 155mm.

IED detonation was the cause of this tragedy. I'm convinced of it, now more than ever.
All the physical evidence points to that. Forget about my video outtake frame -- look at all the other details.
None of the real evidence points to the Israelis killing this family on June 9th.

Now, if you wish to point to Israeli Defense Forces being behind the deaths of other families and other innocent people during other combat operations, there is certainly a lot of that happening in Gaza, unfortunately.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/729271.html

Which is all very tragic. IMO.
"The IDF is investigating," said Chief of Staff Dan Halutz.

And so it goes...

varwoche · 22nd June 2006, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Not sure what you mean. The IDF proceeded to call a news conference a few days after the event, and revealed a great deal about their operations on June 9th.

Sounds familiar. In the US, secretive military self-investigations are often followed up by a report.

I don't accept such reports as unimpeachable truth. That would be naive.

geni · 22nd June 2006, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

"improvised" can mean using regular landmines as the trigger for a larger TNT-based daisy-chain explosion. The entire demolition effect is 'improvised' using a combination of mines and other charges, wired together to create a booby-trap.

Not sure there was enough damage for that.

BPSCG · 22nd June 2006, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Sounds familiar. In the US, secretive military self-investigations are often followed up by a report.

I don't accept such reports as unimpeachable truth. That would be naive.

True, but you've got one institution that has, in the past, acknowledged accidentally, unintentionally killing civilians on the other side, against another institution that is on record as having made provably fraudulent accusations of massacre (e.g., Jenin).

I'm holding a gun to your head.* Whose version of the events in this case are you going to bet on?

*Not really...

webfusion · 22nd June 2006, 07:56 AM

BPSCG-- all bets are off regarding this incident.
There is no 'truth' --- only varying reports, with nobody able to say what really happened. Everybody is satisfied with saying "I don't know" and "Anything is possible" and some 'neutral observers' are perfectly OK with repeating it was an IDF 155mm artillery shell, even at this late date, after that possibility has been shown 100% to be zero.

Another party has been heard from ------ B'Tselem is now urging the IDF Military Attorney General's (MAG = JAG) office to open their own investigation and review the evidence, including the timeline discrepancies and the non-155mm fragments which were taken from the wounded

Also,
Geni, representing himself as some sort of bomb-damage expert, declares:
"Not sure there was enough damage for that."

7 members of the Ghaliya family were killed. That's a lot of damage, IMO.

varwoche · 22nd June 2006, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

True, but you've got one institution that has, in the past, acknowledged accidentally, unintentionally killing civilians on the other side, against another institution that is on record as having made provably fraudulent accusations of massacre (e.g., Jenin).

I'm holding a gun to your head.* Whose version of the events in this case are you going to bet on?

Funny you should say that. That's a mental 'exercise' I often engage in, including in this dispute. "A gun is pointed at my head and I must place a bet" ... not a comfortable thought in this instance.

It's not just option A or B we're dealing with in any case. Here are the possible scenarios that occur to me:

1. Explosion caused by buried explosive
a) landmine or unexploded ordinance?
b) intentionally or accidentaly detonated?
2. Explosion caused by shelling

Webfusion, is it your theory that the landmine was accidentally detonated?

Mycroft · 22nd June 2006, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by varwoche

Webfusion, is it your theory that the landmine was accidentally detonated?

Could you clarify? Are you suggesting the alternative (if it was a landmine) that it was purposefully detonated?

Dcdrac · 22nd June 2006, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The Guardian and Democracy Now are both notoriously anti-israeli and are, to put it no stronger than that, not above lying for the cause.

Or just against the policies of the current Israeli givernment, you do not have to be anti israel to dislike what its governemtn is doing. I know memebrs of the iDF that do not like what the government is doing does that make them anti ISrael no of course not.

webfusion · 22nd June 2006, 12:42 PM

varwoche asks:

Quote:

Webfusion, is it your theory that the landmine was accidentally detonated?

Yes. It was probably accidentally set off by the kids playing/digging in the sand.
(These buried/hidden landmines served as a triggering mechanism for detonation of a wide-area IED --- wired together to set off a much larger charge of high explosives).

Here is a question nobody has asked:
Why did the Islamic Jihad make a claim that they were going to mine the beach after the May 29-30th IDF commando raid, and then NOT do so?

Dcdrac · 22nd June 2006, 12:49 PM

Heres a question why would Islamic Jihad put a landmine on a beach known to be used by Palistian families?

varwoche · 22nd June 2006, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Could you clarify? Are you suggesting the alternative (if it was a landmine) that it was purposefully detonated?

I'm suggesting it belongs on the list of possibilities. I'm trying to list the feasible scenarios and explore if any of them seem => likely than an accidental detonation coinciding with the shelling of the area.

Or could it be less coincidental than I'm assuming? Is the beach frequently shelled? Are there lots of unexploded devices in the area?

webfusion · 22nd June 2006, 01:00 PM

dcdrac "Heres a question why would Islamic Jihad put a landmine on a beach known to be used by Palestinian families?"

They also fire missiles from inside crowded gaza neighborhoods, knowing that the IDF will respond, and people around them are likely to get killed.

IAF Commander Major General Elyezer Shkedy said that the militants have changed their mode of action, and have begun launching rockets from within residential areas to make air attacks against them more difficult.

"Fighting against them (the militants) is becoming more complicated every day," Shkedy said. "But we will continue fighting terror, and that includes air attacks. That is our duty."

The jihadists are perfectly aware that innocent civilians are gonna die, and the photos of these people being rushed into hospital with wounds, and the pictures of the dead, and the resulting mass funerals, are exactly what they are looking to achieve.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images...0606/baby2.jpg
(Typical image)

Dcdrac · 22nd June 2006, 01:01 PM

Youhave definite proof that htis was landmine planted by htem?

Dcdrac · 22nd June 2006, 01:04 PM

Besides which the IDF said it was shelling hte area.

varwoche · 22nd June 2006, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Here is a question nobody has asked: Why did the Islamic Jihad make a claim that they were going to mine the beach after the May 29-30th IDF commando raid, and then NOT do so?

This reminds me of Steve Martin's old bit "oh by the way, I'm radioactive".

How about citing reliable evidence that Islamic Jihad made such a claim, instead of slipping it in as accepted fact?

webfusion · 22nd June 2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

You have definite proof that this explosion was landmine planted by them?

I have definite forensics proof that it wasn't a 155mm IDF artillery shell.
I have definite proof that IDF navy wasn't firing 155mm artillery shells.
I have definite proof that the Islamic Jihad said they were going to set up booby traps along that exact stretch of beach, in the aftermath of 4 of their Qassem crew being shot in a massive IDF commando raid about a week earlier (May29-30th)
I have definite proof that IED booby traps are a common thing among these jihadist terrorists, and they have both the material capability and the know-how to set them.
I have definite proof that shrapnel was mysteriously removed from the injured before their evacuation to Israeli hospitals, an act that has no medical logic.
I have definite proof that jihadists were scurrying all over that beach in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, removing all sorts of bundles and packages, while the wounded were still lying in the sand.

So, dcdrac, what do you think happened?
Could it have been a palestinian IED placed there during the days between May30th and June 9th, to thwart another IDF commando raid, as the Islamic Jihadists specifically said they were going to do?

Hmmmmm?

geni · 22nd June 2006, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Also,
Geni, representing himself as some sort of bomb-damage expert, declares:
"Not sure there was enough damage for that."

7 members of the Ghaliya family were killed. That's a lot of damage, IMO.

Depends how close they were to the blast. An anti tank landmine could probaly do it.

webfusion · 22nd June 2006, 01:35 PM

I dunno, varwoche, is it really worth it for me going looking for some Islamic Jihadist spokesman's comments in the aftermath of the May 29-30th raid, to prove that these maniacs wanted to mine the beach, to stop IDF commandos making another incursion?
Is that something you really doubt? I can find the evidence if you want me to.
Will that prove they did mine the beach, in fact? Nope.
So where are you going with this?

varwoche · 22nd June 2006, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

I dunno, varwoche, is it really worth it for me going looking for some Islamic Jihadist spokesman's comments in the aftermath of the May 29-30th raid, to prove that these maniacs wanted to mine the beach, to stop IDF commandos making another incursion?
Is that something you really doubt? I can find the evidence if you want me to.
Will that prove they did mine the beach, in fact? Nope.
So where are you going with this?

Of course it won't prove anything however it would certainly bolster the landmine theory.

In my view there isn't any value in offering it up as evidence without backing it up. (I searched briefly but couldn't find confirmation.)

a_unique_person · 22nd June 2006, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

I have definite forensics proof that it wasn't a 155mm IDF artillery shell.
I have definite proof that IDF navy wasn't firing 155mm artillery shells.
I have definite proof that the Islamic Jihad said they were going to set up booby traps along that exact stretch of beach, in the aftermath of 4 of their Qassem crew being shot in a massive IDF commando raid about a week earlier (May29-30th)
I have definite proof that IED booby traps are a common thing among these jihadist terrorists, and they have both the material capability and the know-how to set them.
I have definite proof that shrapnel was mysteriously removed from the injured before their evacuation to Israeli hospitals, an act that has no medical logic.
I have definite proof that jihadists were scurrying all over that beach in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, removing all sorts of bundles and packages, while the wounded were still lying in the sand.

So, dcdrac, what do you think happened?
Could it have been a palestinian IED placed there during the days between May30th and June 9th, to thwart another IDF commando raid, as the Islamic Jihadists specifically said they were going to do?

Hmmmmm?

A landmine could have been planted during the Israeli occupation of Gaza. IIRC, palestinians were banned from the beaches. If it is a landmine. As for the definite proof it was not israeli shells, there is evidence that there 'timing' was based on assumptions that may not be valid.

Mycroft · 23rd June 2006, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

I'm suggesting it belongs on the list of possibilities. I'm trying to list the feasible scenarios and explore if any of them seem => likely than an accidental detonation coinciding with the shelling of the area.

Or could it be less coincidental than I'm assuming? Is the beach frequently shelled? Are there lots of unexploded devices in the area?

I've heard claims of Palestinians killing other Palestinians just to provide a body count to make Israel look bad, but they tend to be made by wacko-extremists and I give little credence to them. I don't think I would consider that a possibility without compelling evidence.

Mycroft · 23rd June 2006, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

A landmine could have been planted during the Israeli occupation of Gaza. IIRC, palestinians were banned from the beaches. If it is a landmine. As for the definite proof it was not israeli shells, there is evidence that there 'timing' was based on assumptions that may not be valid.

It coulda happened that way is how conspiracy woo-woos think. Skeptics draw conclusions from evidence.

Dcdrac · 23rd June 2006, 03:02 AM

from what i hsve read so far the timings of the first arrivals at the hopistal do not tie in with the IDF inquieis timings.

The IDF has said itself it was shelling the area at the time it seems incredible to me that somehow these shell were not going to kill innocents. Like Ii find it incredible that Hamas and co do not expect their rockets to inly hit military personnel.

And I read a report last week from an arms expert that stated that the shrapnel he recovered was quite definitley from a 155 MM shell.

Apart from the fact that shelling civilian areas indiscrimantely is inherently wrong, and that goes for bith sides. It appears to me that this is just one more dirty episode in long line of them in this dirty little war.

There are no innocent parties among the politcal leaders in the Israeli/Pal conflict both are eqaually guilty.

I have always thought it a crying shame that Moshe Dyan died too young he was a clear thinking non idealogiaclly driven pragamatist.

Whats really dragging Israel down is that insane settlers policy, and my freinds in the IDF who are about to retire and go into the reserves think the same way.

Skeptic · 23rd June 2006, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

A landmine could have been planted during the Israeli occupation of Gaza.

"Dammit, this just HAS to be the jews' fault SOMEHOW!"

Skeptic · 23rd June 2006, 04:01 AM

One seems to forget the important message: the Palestinians, who deliberately started a war of annihilation on israel in 2000, continue it relentlessly, elected a government explicilty dedicated to the destruction of israel,deliberately fire rockets at israel daily, and openly call for genocide, have not the slightest moral right to demand israel apologize for hitting back when its citizens are attacked.

Even if it was a 155 shell (it wasn't)... or it was deliberate targeting of civilians (it wasn't)... so friggin' what? Any other nation on earth would "target civilians" a hell of a lot more in similar circumstances. If a border town in Mexico were to routinely and daily fire missiles on the American town on the other side, the Mexican town would be a crater within a week.

Dcdrac · 23rd June 2006, 05:09 AM

the simple fact is neither side is innocent in ths war, face it, they are boht killing civilian indiscrimantely there is no excuse whtsoever for that none at all.

What is needed to stop this lunatic cycle of violence both are feeding into, si for an international force to take control of the 1967 borders and enforce am agreement, this force should also have orders to shoot if eithe side makes any attmept to infringe the lines drwn up by the international community.

it is very clear that the parties to this duspute are incapable or unwilling to sttle it themselves as both sides are making demands of the other that are unpalatable for both.

Get your act together or we will do it for you should be the message we send.

And this, if you can manage to see both sides of the argument and not just one side that makes you an anti semite thing, is such despicable nonesense.

webfusion · 23rd June 2006, 06:23 AM

This was not something resulting from the explosion of one solitary mine.

The tragedy was the result of a large and devastating demolition explosion. Like an artillery shell --- or an IED.

These are the only two (and only two) competing theories.
Older (non-155mm) UXO or IED.

That's it.

The IDF acknowledged that its' intelligence services (which are extremely good at knowing what is happening in gaza) had discovered that HAMAS was planting IED's on the gaza beaches. Maj-Gen Kalifi mentioned this clearly in his report. The Jihadists said publicly they would plant anti-personnel devices, and the IDF gathered corroboration from their informers that they actually did so.

Can it be proved? Ask HAMAS, I'm sure they'll provide the truth. (not)

The shrapnel is not from 155mm shells, unless you totally disregard the forensics of this case. Are you, as a skeptic, willing to throw aside the scientific proof from independent laboratories? I would hope not. Leave that to the woos.

dcdrac has jumped in here with some wide-ranging political views, and I'll set aside my response to them, and focus instead on this statement: "And I read a report last week from an arms expert that stated that the shrapnel he recovered was quite definitley from a 155 MM shell.

Not accurate.

If you are referring to Marc Garlasco, he has already admitted that it is likely the shrapnel he collected originated from ordnance that had exploded on other days, and was just scattered around. The IDF admits it had targeted that beach in the past, and 155mm fragments were all over the place, as were artillery bomb craters from shelling the zone previously. The only evidence that matters is the source of fragments which came from the victims, not what was lying around in the sand.
The palestinian kids make a hobby of collecting the stuff!
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx...international/

OK, one last thing ----

Quote:

...an international force needs to take control of the 1967 borders and enforce (them), this force should also have orders to shoot if either side makes any attempt to infringe the lines drawn up by the international community.

(see UNR #194 which formed a Conciliation Commission, leading directly to the 1949 Rhodes Conference, which 'drew up' the lines you refer to as the "1967 border" and the terms of the 1949 Rhodes Armistice were violated routinely, mainly by the Arabs, leading to the 1956, 1967 and 1973 Wars).

You wanna try that again? With HAMAS?
Good luck to that, dcdrac!

BPSCG · 23rd June 2006, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

the simple fact is neither side is innocent in ths war, face it, they are boht killing civilian indiscrimantely there is no excuse whtsoever for that none at all.

What is needed to stop this lunatic cycle of violence

The Brits have some lovely words for what we 'Murricans vulgarly call "crap." They say "bollocks," and "codswallop."

Dcdrac, this is bollocks. This is codswallop.

Side A has officially sworn the destruction of side B. Side B has not called for the destruction of side A, and in fact has asked only that it be allowed to live in peace alongside A.

Is this what you mean when you talk about a "cycle of violence"?

Side A has done everything it can, within its limited power, to achieve its end of destroying side B. Side B, while manifestly capable of destroying side A, has refrained.

Is this what you mean when you talk about a "cycle of violence"?

If not, please explain the workings of this "cycle of violence," because I'm confused.

Codswallop.

Bollocks.

Skeptic · 23rd June 2006, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

What is needed to stop this lunatic cycle of violence both are feeding into,

The Palestinians' official and actual goal is the elimination, and genocide, of israel. So they attack israel. When israel hits back, it gets condemned for "perpetuating the cycle of violence". But I guess I'm a lunatic for thinking the people who are firing daily rocket barrages at civilians don't want peace.

FireGarden · 23rd June 2006, 07:46 AM

Quote:

The IDF acknowledged that its' intelligence services (which are extremely good at knowing what is happening in gaza) had discovered that HAMAS was planting IED's on the gaza beaches. Maj-Gen Kalifi mentioned this clearly in his report. The Jihadists said publicly they would plant anti-personnel devices, and the IDF gathered corroboration from their informers that they actually did so.

Can it be proved?

One piece of useful evidence would be to find more mines. (you did mean to use the plural, didn't you?)

Quote:

The IDF admits it had targeted that beach in the past, and 155mm fragments were all over the place, as were artillery bomb craters from shelling the zone previously. The only evidence that matters is the source of fragments which came from the victims, not what was lying around in the sand.

I don't know what kind of reputation Channel 10 has, but....

IDF rejects as 'lie' new report linking shelling, Gaza beach deaths

Given Channel 10 is wrong....
The last paragraph of the Haaretz article gives another theory:

Originally Posted by Haaretz

Israel Radio quoted unnamed senior military officials as saying that there was "zero chance" that shelling had caused the deaths, but that an unexploded shell from a past shelling attack on the beach might have detonated.

Which would explain why it currently seems that there was only one explosive in the "minefield".

I think it's going to be a while before the dust settles on this blame-game.

a_unique_person · 23rd June 2006, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

"Dammit, this just HAS to be the jews' fault SOMEHOW!"

**** off

varwoche · 23rd June 2006, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

These are the only two (and only two) competing theories.

Not true...

Doubts renewed on beach bombing

Quote:

But medical logs, cell phone records and other evidence reviewed by Knight Ridder suggest that the explosion took place during the barrage and probably was due to an artillery round.

Dcdrac · 23rd June 2006, 08:26 AM

The cycle of violnece started ell before 1948 and has been fed ever since one escalation after naother by both sides. Both sides are culpable both sides kil and have been killing innocnets neithr can claim to be on the moral high ground. It is getting more and more difficult to get indpendent unbiased accounts on what is going there, i get my information from my freinds in Israel and i know alot of people there, i have spent time in Tel Aviv. Admmitedly all the Israelis i know do not support Likud or the settlers and are secular Israelis, three of them used to be hard line likudites but as they say themsleves they grew up.

If you honestly beleive in a conflict that that only one side is absoulutley spotless then you are living in a fools paradise.

I want to see Israel prosper it is the only genuine democracy in the Middle East and it has the potential to act as a beacon but it is topped in its track by the ridiculous and dangerous settler movement with heir spurious biblical claims. I could make the same claims about southern England if I wnated to my ancestors were campoed out all over it 3,000 oddyears ago before they mvoed further wes to Ireland, all ineed is mythological fairy Tale like the bible to give it some pseaudo legitimacy and away ic ould go.

Dcdrac · 23rd June 2006, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The Palestinians' official and actual goal is the elimination, and genocide, of israel. So they attack israel. When israel hits back, it gets condemned for "perpetuating the cycle of violence". But I guess I'm a lunatic for thinking the people who are firing daily rocket barrages at civilians don't want peace.

You are not a lunactic but think on this the vilolence bgan before 1948 and each side has escalted it and mostly hte innocent on both sided have suffered through the actions of their repective leaderships. Somone has to stop, and surely it is better for the stronger of the two to do so otherwise the killing just goes on and on and the excuses from both sides become hollower and hollower.

21st June 2006, 05:55 PM	#203
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,337	If it is landmines, they could have been there for years. Ordnance left behind is a problem all around the world.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

21st June 2006, 07:00 PM	#204
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	what we know so far ... No 155mm artillery was involved. Period. "improvised" can mean using regular landmines as the trigger for a larger TNT-based daisy-chain explosion. The entire demolition effect is 'improvised' using a combination of mines and other charges, wired together to create a booby-trap. These types of mechanisms are common in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to extensive US troop casualties. It goes without saying that the HAMAS and Islamic Jihad terrorists know how to improvise these very well, as they have been taught to do in their myriad terrorist training camps throughout gaza and the west bank. Also, it goes without saying that there is not any shortage of mines and TNT available these days n gaza! After the IDF ambushed an Islamic Jihad quassem crew on May29th, the IJ publicly declared that they would mine that stretch of beach to prevent further IDF commando infiltrations. On June 9th, a mysterious explosion kills the family of Huda Ghaliya. In the video taken minutes after the tragedy, an object that appears to me to be a landmine is visible in the sand. Quote: If it is landmines, they could have been there for years. No. It was not just leftover landmines from 1967 or 1956. The physical damage caused to these people was actually not indicative of a landmine buried in the sand (i.e. -- exploding from below). All the injuries, as reported, were in the head and torso. The mine(s) could have been the detonator/trigger for another, larger, type of bomb (other than a 155mm artillery shell!) http://www.michaelyon-online.com/med...hives/0065.jpg IED explosion captured on film (Iraq) and http://marinecorpsmoms.com/new_images/IED.jpg Look at the intensity and devastation of a typical IED, and understand why the people on that beach were under the impression that an IDF artillery round had landed! In case you have any interest in reading about the construction and deployment of IAD/IED booby-traps, I offer this link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/ied.htm Coupling is a method of linking one mine or explosive device to another, usually with detonating cord. When the first device is detonated, it also detonates the linked explosive. Standard AP mines may be used in daisy chains linked with other explosive hazards. Enemy forces may link the mines together with trip wire or detonating cord. When the initial mine is detonated, the other mines may detonate. This may also create large, lethal engagement areas.
	__________________ "You support Israel. Enough said." -- mxwarrior, a rabid anti-Israel JREF poster (now banned) offered this in trying to dismiss all comments offered in rebuttal to him by those JREF'ers who use logic, facts, valid sources, and reality.

21st June 2006, 07:09 PM	#205
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,337	Since there were shells being fired, it would be the logical conclusion, would it not? However, if that is a mine, why is it being treated so casually?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

21st June 2006, 07:19 PM	#206
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,109	Originally Posted by a_unique_person Since there were shells being fired, it would be the logical conclusion, would it not? However, if that is a mine, why is it being treated so casually? Because nobody cares when Arabs kill Arabs?
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

22nd June 2006, 07:08 AM	#208
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,234	Originally Posted by webfusion Not sure what you mean. The IDF proceeded to call a news conference a few days after the event, and revealed a great deal about their operations on June 9th. Sounds familiar. In the US, secretive military self-investigations are often followed up by a report. I don't accept such reports as unimpeachable truth. That would be naive.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

21st June 2006, 12:13 PM	#201
David Swidler Carrot Mohel Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Right here, obviously. Posts: 8,302	I would guess "improvised" refers to the production - "homemade" as opposed to manufactured commercialy.

21st June 2006, 03:40 PM	#202
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,578	Originally Posted by David Swidler I would guess "improvised" refers to the production - "homemade" as opposed to manufactured commercialy. A homemade land mine would likely be based around an artillery shell of some type (155mm is very popular). From the blured pictures they look like a convetion landmine desighn.

21st June 2006, 07:56 PM	#207
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Originally Posted by a_unique_person Since there were shells being fired, it would be the logical conclusion, would it not? However, if that is a mine, why is it being treated so casually? There were NOT shells being fired onto that section of beach, a_u_p. The IDF has made it clear to the everyone that 155mm shells weren't responsible, for two very obvious reasons. 1. The shrapnel that was recovered from the victims who were treated in Israeli hospitals, has been analyzed forensically and proved to be of a type other than 155mm artillery ordnance. 2. The IDF bombardment was reviewed in detail, and all shell landings were accounted for. None of them hit that area of beach. As for the answer to your second question, the entire beach was scavenged clean in the minutes following the detonation. Palestinian 'militants' scrambled like crazy to remove every trace of their IED's --- in the video you can even see guys running around carrying bundles away, even while the wounded are still being attended to. This attempt at covering-up their own responsibility also extended into the gaza hospitals, where shrapnel was removed for no medically apparent reasons. In Ichilov Hospital in Tel Aviv, doctors were amazed at this action being taken, in the instance of Iham Rahlia, who had been evacuated from gaza. Only later did the palestinian doctors make the claim of 155mm fragments being "found" in the wounded and dead. (gaza hospitals probably have an entire storage cabinet full of 155mm shrapnel to conveniently produce on demand). The video photgrapher Zakaria Abu Irbad-- Ramattan News (and a few stills photgraphers, such as Hatem Moussa-- AP and Mahmud Hams-- AFP) were just snapping away, focusing mainly on the injuries and the survivors. Mr. Abu Irbad followed Huda Ghalia predominantly, giving us those unforgettable images of her screaming next to her lifeless father. These photgraphers probably didn't even notice the landmines among the debris. They certainly weren't thinking landmines were responsible, in the aftermath, because everyone was yelling that the IDF navy ship offshore had done this. In fact, when the video was shown for broadcast within hours, the palestinians took the trouble to edit some creative cuts of the IDF naval gunboat actually firing those famous 155mm shells at the beach, although it became clear in the IDF details of the operations June 9th that the vessel carries 76mm guns, not 155mm. IED detonation was the cause of this tragedy. I'm convinced of it, now more than ever. All the physical evidence points to that. Forget about my video outtake frame -- look at all the other details. None of the real evidence points to the Israelis killing this family on June 9th. Now, if you wish to point to Israeli Defense Forces being behind the deaths of other families and other innocent people during other combat operations, there is certainly a lot of that happening in Gaza, unfortunately. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/729271.html Which is all very tragic. IMO. "The IDF is investigating," said Chief of Staff Dan Halutz. And so it goes...

22nd June 2006, 07:19 AM	#209
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,578	Originally Posted by webfusion "improvised" can mean using regular landmines as the trigger for a larger TNT-based daisy-chain explosion. The entire demolition effect is 'improvised' using a combination of mines and other charges, wired together to create a booby-trap. Not sure there was enough damage for that.

22nd June 2006, 07:26 AM	#210
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by varwoche Sounds familiar. In the US, secretive military self-investigations are often followed up by a report. I don't accept such reports as unimpeachable truth. That would be naive. True, but you've got one institution that has, in the past, acknowledged accidentally, unintentionally killing civilians on the other side, against another institution that is on record as having made provably fraudulent accusations of massacre (e.g., Jenin). I'm holding a gun to your head.* Whose version of the events in this case are you going to bet on? *Not really...
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

22nd June 2006, 07:56 AM	#211
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	BPSCG-- all bets are off regarding this incident. There is no 'truth' --- only varying reports, with nobody able to say what really happened. Everybody is satisfied with saying "I don't know" and "Anything is possible" and some 'neutral observers' are perfectly OK with repeating it was an IDF 155mm artillery shell, even at this late date, after that possibility has been shown 100% to be zero. Another party has been heard from ------ B'Tselem is now urging the IDF Military Attorney General's (MAG = JAG) office to open their own investigation and review the evidence, including the timeline discrepancies and the non-155mm fragments which were taken from the wounded Also, Geni, representing himself as some sort of bomb-damage expert, declares: "Not sure there was enough damage for that." 7 members of the Ghaliya family were killed. That's a lot of damage, IMO.
	__________________ "You support Israel. Enough said." -- mxwarrior, a rabid anti-Israel JREF poster (now banned) offered this in trying to dismiss all comments offered in rebuttal to him by those JREF'ers who use logic, facts, valid sources, and reality. Last edited by webfusion; 22nd June 2006 at 08:08 AM.

22nd June 2006, 09:56 AM	#212
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,234	Originally Posted by BPSCG True, but you've got one institution that has, in the past, acknowledged accidentally, unintentionally killing civilians on the other side, against another institution that is on record as having made provably fraudulent accusations of massacre (e.g., Jenin). I'm holding a gun to your head.* Whose version of the events in this case are you going to bet on? Funny you should say that. That's a mental 'exercise' I often engage in, including in this dispute. "A gun is pointed at my head and I must place a bet" ... not a comfortable thought in this instance. It's not just option A or B we're dealing with in any case. Here are the possible scenarios that occur to me: 1. Explosion caused by buried explosive a) landmine or unexploded ordinance? b) intentionally or accidentaly detonated? 2. Explosion caused by shelling Webfusion, is it your theory that the landmine was accidentally detonated?
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

22nd June 2006, 12:22 PM	#213
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,109	Originally Posted by varwoche Webfusion, is it your theory that the landmine was accidentally detonated? Could you clarify? Are you suggesting the alternative (if it was a landmine) that it was purposefully detonated?
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

22nd June 2006, 12:26 PM	#214
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,684	Originally Posted by Skeptic The Guardian and Democracy Now are both notoriously anti-israeli and are, to put it no stronger than that, not above lying for the cause. Or just against the policies of the current Israeli givernment, you do not have to be anti israel to dislike what its governemtn is doing. I know memebrs of the iDF that do not like what the government is doing does that make them anti ISrael no of course not.
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,684

22nd June 2006, 12:42 PM	#215
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	varwoche asks: Quote: Webfusion, is it your theory that the landmine was accidentally detonated? Yes. It was probably accidentally set off by the kids playing/digging in the sand. (These buried/hidden landmines served as a triggering mechanism for detonation of a wide-area IED --- wired together to set off a much larger charge of high explosives). Here is a question nobody has asked: Why did the Islamic Jihad make a claim that they were going to mine the beach after the May 29-30th IDF commando raid, and then NOT do so?
	Last edited by webfusion; 22nd June 2006 at 12:50 PM.

22nd June 2006, 12:49 PM	#216
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,684	Heres a question why would Islamic Jihad put a landmine on a beach known to be used by Palistian families?
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,684

22nd June 2006, 12:50 PM	#217
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,234	Originally Posted by Mycroft Could you clarify? Are you suggesting the alternative (if it was a landmine) that it was purposefully detonated? I'm suggesting it belongs on the list of possibilities. I'm trying to list the feasible scenarios and explore if any of them seem => likely than an accidental detonation coinciding with the shelling of the area. Or could it be less coincidental than I'm assuming? Is the beach frequently shelled? Are there lots of unexploded devices in the area?
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

22nd June 2006, 01:00 PM	#218
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	dcdrac "Heres a question why would Islamic Jihad put a landmine on a beach known to be used by Palestinian families?" They also fire missiles from inside crowded gaza neighborhoods, knowing that the IDF will respond, and people around them are likely to get killed. IAF Commander Major General Elyezer Shkedy said that the militants have changed their mode of action, and have begun launching rockets from within residential areas to make air attacks against them more difficult. "Fighting against them (the militants) is becoming more complicated every day," Shkedy said. "But we will continue fighting terror, and that includes air attacks. That is our duty." The jihadists are perfectly aware that innocent civilians are gonna die, and the photos of these people being rushed into hospital with wounds, and the pictures of the dead, and the resulting mass funerals, are exactly what they are looking to achieve. http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images...0606/baby2.jpg (Typical image)

22nd June 2006, 01:01 PM	#219
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,684	Youhave definite proof that htis was landmine planted by htem?
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,684

22nd June 2006, 01:04 PM	#220
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,684	Besides which the IDF said it was shelling hte area.
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,684

22nd June 2006, 01:20 PM	#221
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,234	Originally Posted by webfusion Here is a question nobody has asked: Why did the Islamic Jihad make a claim that they were going to mine the beach after the May 29-30th IDF commando raid, and then NOT do so? This reminds me of Steve Martin's old bit "oh by the way, I'm radioactive". How about citing reliable evidence that Islamic Jihad made such a claim, instead of slipping it in as accepted fact?
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

22nd June 2006, 01:21 PM	#222
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	IED landmine is one of the most likely scenarios Quote: You have definite proof that this explosion was landmine planted by them? I have definite forensics proof that it wasn't a 155mm IDF artillery shell. I have definite proof that IDF navy wasn't firing 155mm artillery shells. I have definite proof that the Islamic Jihad said they were going to set up booby traps along that exact stretch of beach, in the aftermath of 4 of their Qassem crew being shot in a massive IDF commando raid about a week earlier (May29-30th) I have definite proof that IED booby traps are a common thing among these jihadist terrorists, and they have both the material capability and the know-how to set them. I have definite proof that shrapnel was mysteriously removed from the injured before their evacuation to Israeli hospitals, an act that has no medical logic. I have definite proof that jihadists were scurrying all over that beach in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, removing all sorts of bundles and packages, while the wounded were still lying in the sand. So, dcdrac, what do you think happened? Could it have been a palestinian IED placed there during the days between May30th and June 9th, to thwart another IDF commando raid, as the Islamic Jihadists specifically said they were going to do? Hmmmmm?
	__________________ "You support Israel. Enough said." -- mxwarrior, a rabid anti-Israel JREF poster (now banned) offered this in trying to dismiss all comments offered in rebuttal to him by those JREF'ers who use logic, facts, valid sources, and reality.

22nd June 2006, 01:29 PM	#223
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,578	Originally Posted by webfusion Also, Geni, representing himself as some sort of bomb-damage expert, declares: "Not sure there was enough damage for that." 7 members of the Ghaliya family were killed. That's a lot of damage, IMO. Depends how close they were to the blast. An anti tank landmine could probaly do it.

22nd June 2006, 01:35 PM	#224
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	I dunno, varwoche, is it really worth it for me going looking for some Islamic Jihadist spokesman's comments in the aftermath of the May 29-30th raid, to prove that these maniacs wanted to mine the beach, to stop IDF commandos making another incursion? Is that something you really doubt? I can find the evidence if you want me to. Will that prove they did mine the beach, in fact? Nope. So where are you going with this?

22nd June 2006, 10:56 PM	#225
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,234	Originally Posted by webfusion I dunno, varwoche, is it really worth it for me going looking for some Islamic Jihadist spokesman's comments in the aftermath of the May 29-30th raid, to prove that these maniacs wanted to mine the beach, to stop IDF commandos making another incursion? Is that something you really doubt? I can find the evidence if you want me to. Will that prove they did mine the beach, in fact? Nope. So where are you going with this? Of course it won't prove anything however it would certainly bolster the landmine theory. In my view there isn't any value in offering it up as evidence without backing it up. (I searched briefly but couldn't find confirmation.)
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

22nd June 2006, 10:58 PM	#226
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,337	Originally Posted by webfusion I have definite forensics proof that it wasn't a 155mm IDF artillery shell. I have definite proof that IDF navy wasn't firing 155mm artillery shells. I have definite proof that the Islamic Jihad said they were going to set up booby traps along that exact stretch of beach, in the aftermath of 4 of their Qassem crew being shot in a massive IDF commando raid about a week earlier (May29-30th) I have definite proof that IED booby traps are a common thing among these jihadist terrorists, and they have both the material capability and the know-how to set them. I have definite proof that shrapnel was mysteriously removed from the injured before their evacuation to Israeli hospitals, an act that has no medical logic. I have definite proof that jihadists were scurrying all over that beach in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, removing all sorts of bundles and packages, while the wounded were still lying in the sand. So, dcdrac, what do you think happened? Could it have been a palestinian IED placed there during the days between May30th and June 9th, to thwart another IDF commando raid, as the Islamic Jihadists specifically said they were going to do? Hmmmmm? A landmine could have been planted during the Israeli occupation of Gaza. IIRC, palestinians were banned from the beaches. If it is a landmine. As for the definite proof it was not israeli shells, there is evidence that there 'timing' was based on assumptions that may not be valid.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

23rd June 2006, 02:33 AM	#227
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,109	Originally Posted by varwoche I'm suggesting it belongs on the list of possibilities. I'm trying to list the feasible scenarios and explore if any of them seem => likely than an accidental detonation coinciding with the shelling of the area. Or could it be less coincidental than I'm assuming? Is the beach frequently shelled? Are there lots of unexploded devices in the area? I've heard claims of Palestinians killing other Palestinians just to provide a body count to make Israel look bad, but they tend to be made by wacko-extremists and I give little credence to them. I don't think I would consider that a possibility without compelling evidence.
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

23rd June 2006, 02:34 AM	#228
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,109	Originally Posted by a_unique_person A landmine could have been planted during the Israeli occupation of Gaza. IIRC, palestinians were banned from the beaches. If it is a landmine. As for the definite proof it was not israeli shells, there is evidence that there 'timing' was based on assumptions that may not be valid. It coulda happened that way is how conspiracy woo-woos think. Skeptics draw conclusions from evidence.
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

23rd June 2006, 03:02 AM	#229
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,684	from what i hsve read so far the timings of the first arrivals at the hopistal do not tie in with the IDF inquieis timings. The IDF has said itself it was shelling the area at the time it seems incredible to me that somehow these shell were not going to kill innocents. Like Ii find it incredible that Hamas and co do not expect their rockets to inly hit military personnel. And I read a report last week from an arms expert that stated that the shrapnel he recovered was quite definitley from a 155 MM shell. Apart from the fact that shelling civilian areas indiscrimantely is inherently wrong, and that goes for bith sides. It appears to me that this is just one more dirty episode in long line of them in this dirty little war. There are no innocent parties among the politcal leaders in the Israeli/Pal conflict both are eqaually guilty. I have always thought it a crying shame that Moshe Dyan died too young he was a clear thinking non idealogiaclly driven pragamatist. Whats really dragging Israel down is that insane settlers policy, and my freinds in the IDF who are about to retire and go into the reserves think the same way.
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,684

23rd June 2006, 03:51 AM	#230
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Originally Posted by a_unique_person A landmine could have been planted during the Israeli occupation of Gaza. "Dammit, this just HAS to be the jews' fault SOMEHOW!"

23rd June 2006, 04:01 AM	#231
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	One seems to forget the important message: the Palestinians, who deliberately started a war of annihilation on israel in 2000, continue it relentlessly, elected a government explicilty dedicated to the destruction of israel,deliberately fire rockets at israel daily, and openly call for genocide, have not the slightest moral right to demand israel apologize for hitting back when its citizens are attacked. Even if it was a 155 shell (it wasn't)... or it was deliberate targeting of civilians (it wasn't)... so friggin' what? Any other nation on earth would "target civilians" a hell of a lot more in similar circumstances. If a border town in Mexico were to routinely and daily fire missiles on the American town on the other side, the Mexican town would be a crater within a week.
	Last edited by Skeptic; 23rd June 2006 at 04:03 AM.

23rd June 2006, 05:09 AM	#232
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,684	the simple fact is neither side is innocent in ths war, face it, they are boht killing civilian indiscrimantely there is no excuse whtsoever for that none at all. What is needed to stop this lunatic cycle of violence both are feeding into, si for an international force to take control of the 1967 borders and enforce am agreement, this force should also have orders to shoot if eithe side makes any attmept to infringe the lines drwn up by the international community. it is very clear that the parties to this duspute are incapable or unwilling to sttle it themselves as both sides are making demands of the other that are unpalatable for both. Get your act together or we will do it for you should be the message we send. And this, if you can manage to see both sides of the argument and not just one side that makes you an anti semite thing, is such despicable nonesense.
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,684

23rd June 2006, 06:23 AM	#233
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	This was not something resulting from the explosion of one solitary mine. The tragedy was the result of a large and devastating demolition explosion. Like an artillery shell --- or an IED. These are the only two (and only two) competing theories. Older (non-155mm) UXO or IED. That's it. The IDF acknowledged that its' intelligence services (which are extremely good at knowing what is happening in gaza) had discovered that HAMAS was planting IED's on the gaza beaches. Maj-Gen Kalifi mentioned this clearly in his report. The Jihadists said publicly they would plant anti-personnel devices, and the IDF gathered corroboration from their informers that they actually did so. Can it be proved? Ask HAMAS, I'm sure they'll provide the truth. (not) The shrapnel is not from 155mm shells, unless you totally disregard the forensics of this case. Are you, as a skeptic, willing to throw aside the scientific proof from independent laboratories? I would hope not. Leave that to the woos. dcdrac has jumped in here with some wide-ranging political views, and I'll set aside my response to them, and focus instead on this statement: "And I read a report last week from an arms expert that stated that the shrapnel he recovered was quite definitley from a 155 MM shell. Not accurate. If you are referring to Marc Garlasco, he has already admitted that it is likely the shrapnel he collected originated from ordnance that had exploded on other days, and was just scattered around. The IDF admits it had targeted that beach in the past, and 155mm fragments were all over the place, as were artillery bomb craters from shelling the zone previously. The only evidence that matters is the source of fragments which came from the victims, not what was lying around in the sand. The palestinian kids make a hobby of collecting the stuff! http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx...international/ OK, one last thing ---- Quote: ...an international force needs to take control of the 1967 borders and enforce (them), this force should also have orders to shoot if either side makes any attempt to infringe the lines drawn up by the international community. (see UNR #194 which formed a Conciliation Commission, leading directly to the 1949 Rhodes Conference, which 'drew up' the lines you refer to as the "1967 border" and the terms of the 1949 Rhodes Armistice were violated routinely, mainly by the Arabs, leading to the 1956, 1967 and 1973 Wars). You wanna try that again? With HAMAS? Good luck to that, dcdrac!
	__________________ "You support Israel. Enough said." -- mxwarrior, a rabid anti-Israel JREF poster (now banned) offered this in trying to dismiss all comments offered in rebuttal to him by those JREF'ers who use logic, facts, valid sources, and reality.

23rd June 2006, 07:09 AM	#234
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Dcdrac the simple fact is neither side is innocent in ths war, face it, they are boht killing civilian indiscrimantely there is no excuse whtsoever for that none at all. What is needed to stop this lunatic cycle of violence The Brits have some lovely words for what we 'Murricans vulgarly call "crap." They say "bollocks," and "codswallop." Dcdrac, this is bollocks. This is codswallop. Side A has officially sworn the *destruction* of side B. Side B has not called for the destruction of side A, and in fact has asked only that it be allowed to live in peace alongside A. Is this what you mean when you talk about a "cycle of violence"? Side A has done everything it can, within its limited power, to achieve its end of destroying side B. Side B, while manifestly capable of destroying side A, has refrained. Is this what you mean when you talk about a "cycle of violence"? If not, please explain the workings of this "cycle of violence," because I'm confused. Codswallop. Bollocks.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

23rd June 2006, 07:41 AM	#235
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Originally Posted by Dcdrac What is needed to stop this lunatic cycle of violence both are feeding into, The Palestinians' official and actual goal is the elimination, and genocide, of israel. So they attack israel. When israel hits back, it gets condemned for "perpetuating the cycle of violence". But I guess I'm a lunatic for thinking the people who are firing daily rocket barrages at civilians don't want peace.