A new low

[Gamblor]

After the images of Palestinian gunmen hiding among unarmed civilians to prevent IDF weapon fire, it appeared as though they were as depraved as can be.

It appears we were all wrong. During combat in the Zeitun neighbourhood of Gaza City last week, Reuters captured Palestinian gunmen using UN ambulances as getaway vehicles (http://e.tln0.com/ame/archives/reuters_UN_amblulances_11_may_04.wmv)

The sad reality of this phenomenon is that the next time a pregnant woman or a sick child needs to be rushed to the emergency room, the Israeli Defence Forces must inspect the ambulance for terrorists, holding it up in a life or death situation for an otherwise innocent person in need of medical care.

[Chris Alger]

This (http://www.palestinercs.org/images/Damaged%20Ambulances%20&%20EMS%20Under%20Fire/damagedamb200403GZRR2.jpg), this (http://www.palestinercs.org/images/Jenin%20Station/drkhalilambWBRR2.jpg) and this (http://www.palestinercs.org/images/Damaged%20Ambulances%20&%20EMS%20Under%20Fire/PRCSamb181102WBRR2.JPG) is what the IDF does to ambulances in the occupied territories. During the last four years, Israeli occupation terrorists have mounted 300 separate armed attacks on Palestinian emergency medical teams, killing or injuring nearly 200 EMTs and damaging over 100 ambulances, most of Palestinian Red Crescent's fleet. You can read detailed accounts of the near-weekly attacks on medical personnel by browsing the PRCS or other human rights websites. Even the U.S. State Department has acknowledged the problem. The practice of targeting medical facilities and personnel dates at least to the Lebanon invasion, when Isreal bombed hospitals outright.

So I doubt that any Palestinian in his right mind would think that he'd be safe in a Red Crescent ambulance. Although the story might be true or partly true, it's more likely another hoax where the IDF fabricates a connection with Palestinian violence and Palestinian medical assistance, then uses it as a pretext for terrorizing medical service providers. This particular story also provides a certain cover for the well-known IDF practice of commandeering ambulances and using them as "shields" to ferry Israeli soldiers.

Here's something that's really sick. Someone who has openly defended the deliberate bombing and incineration of Palestinian children, who dementedly insists that the thousands of civilians blown up and gunned down by Israeli terrorists were mere "collateral damage," who shrugs off the hundreds of documented, photographed and eyewitness accounts of Israeli troops randomly targeting civilians as "libel", now purporting to shed tears over "poor kids" when all he wants to do is post fake reasons about why it's acceptable for Israeli terrorists to kill more of them.

[Gamblor]

During the last four years, Israeli occupation terrorists have mounted 300 separate armed attacks on Palestinian emergency medical teams, killing or injuring nearly 200 EMTs and damaging over 100 ambulances, most of Palestinian Red Crescent's fleet.

Given the original post, how do you think these ambulances, hospitals, and ended up this way?

Perhaps, it's the gats a'blazin from within that drew weapon fire?

Finally, there's no reason to believe that your Palestinian propaganda site didn't destroy those vans themselves and then post pictures. I have video of Palestinian Arabs, with Kalashnikovs, jumping into Ambulances. Do you have video of Israeli soldiers, or are you going to take your Palestinian propaganda - who has extremely high incentive to lie, especially when their claims can not be verified on video as mine are here - source as fact?

After all, what could you expect from someone who stations a wall of unarmed civilians next to their soldiers?

This particular story also provides a certain cover for the well-known IDF practice of commandeering ambulances and using them as "shields" to ferry Israeli soldiers.

No, This is libel. Funny, nothing about the well-known Palestinian practice of hiding bombs under stretchers in ambulances.

(are you going to ignore the truth again in favour of your unwavering acceptance of anything any Arab tells you, while dismissing anything any citizen of the Jewish State tells you? That's racism, my man. Israel already won this war, ain't no incentive to lie for us)

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the original post, how do you think these ambulances, hospitals, and ended up this way? Perhaps, it's the gats a'blazin from within that drew weapon fire?

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean like this case (http://www.palestinercs.org/beyondnumbers/army_retracts_story.htm)?<ul type="square"> Israel backed off yesterday from accusing Palestinians of shooting from an ambulance car during a clash that caused the death of at least 4 Palestinians near Nablus. Dori Gold, consultant of the Israeli Prime Minister for diplomatic affairs has announced to France Presse that the four Palestinians have jumped out from a medical car. But after investigation, the Army admitted that the issue is not correct. A military spokesperson clarified: "There was a mistake in the field report of the event". [/list] Or this one (http://www.palestinercs.org/pressreleases/false_allegations.htm)? <ul type="square"> Further to Israeli army allegations accusing PRCS medics in Tulkarem of shooting at soldiers, PRCS was able to obtain a copy of a video filmed (July 13) by a local TV station at the scene. The video proves that the Israeli Army Spokesperson has fabricated the story about the ambulance medics shooting at the army. (See false story below currently posted on Israeli army web site.) A copy of the video has been handed over the International Committee of the Red Cross. The footage clearly shows the ambulance approaching the scene in view of two Israeli army jeeps (after authorization had been granted). Two medics and a doctor leave the ambulance and inspect site for injured personnel.[/list] According to the Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (link below): <ul type="square">Although the IDF claims “that Palestinians use ambulances to transport weapons and explosives, . . . it should be noted that, with the exception of one case, and despite repeated requests by Physicians for Human Rights and the International Red Cross, the IDF has not presented any evidence to support this contention, not even in response to petitions filed in the Supreme Court." [/list]This is how the IDF responds when people ask it for evidence of what you call "the well-known Palestinian practice of hiding bombs under stretchers in ambulances."

Here's a real case of Israeli ambulance terrorism, from AI dating to March 7, 2002 in Tulkarem: <ul type="square"> The PRCS tried to coordinate their movements with the IDF through the ICRC and waited nearly an hour before they eventually got agreement to send out ambulances. Two PRCS ambulances left to collect the three injured people. However, two minutes from the hospital in a main shopping street of Tulkarem they saw a tank facing them. The ambulance of Ibrahim Jazmawi reversed about a metre. The tank fired on both ambulances killing Ibrahim Jazmawi and damaging the second ambulance. [/list] If, on the other hand, Red Crescent had any real record of using ambulances as weapons platforms the IDF would have photographed them from their omnipresent helicopter cameras, and there would be military, journalist and NGO eyewitness accounts, confessions of captured militia and EMT's, all readily available on the Israeli Ministry of Affairs website and the hundreds of Israeli propaganda sites. In accordance with the hundreds of attacks on ambulances and medical personnel, there would be dozens if not thousands of cases of ambulances and EMT's being used for military purposes. There would be submissions by Israel and it's sympathizers to the Red Cross demanding that it censure Red Cresent for the military use of medical vehicles and personnel, together with the Red Cross's response (or lack thereof), together with evidence submissions by Israel to the UN and the AI, Human Rights Watch, etc. etc. In short, the evidence would be available at one's fingertips, just like the photographs I posted above.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, there's no reason to believe that your Palestinian propaganda site didn't destroy those vans themselves and then post pictures.

[/ QUOTE ]
The source is the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, an affiliate of the International Red Cross. As for faking the photographs, why don't you ask the IDF if the photographs were faked, or if above account is accurate. or not, or see where they've even bothered to deny it?

[ QUOTE ]
what could you expect from someone who stations a wall of unarmed civilians next to their soldiers

[/ QUOTE ]
At first you claimed that the gunmen "hid behind" civilians. When asked for evidence, you could only come up with civilians hiding behind gunmen. Now you're claiming that Palestinians force the civilians they purport to protect up against walls and then shoot in front of them so that the civilians will be shot by Israelis. Since you can't make up your mind about which lie to tell, let's just note that, as usual, you betray your sympathy for murder by exonerating those who would shoot at "a wall of unarmed civilians."

[ QUOTE ]
This particular story also provides a certain cover for the well-known IDF practice of commandeering ambulances and using them as "shields" to ferry Israeli soldiers.

No, This is libel. Funny, nothing about the well-known Palestinian practice of hiding bombs under stretchers in ambulances.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hebron, 1/25/04, 4:00 p.m.: <ul type="square"> A PRCS ambulance was transporting an elderly patient to her home in Al-Aroub Refugee Camp after undergoing hospital treatment. Israeli soldiers stopped the ambulance at the entrance of the refugee camp and initially denied it permission to continue. At this point, the Israeli soldiers began searching the ambulance, and one of the soldiers threatened the crew that they would be shot if they did not follow orders. The soldier then ordered the ambulance driver to drive into the camp very slowly without turning on the siren. As the ambulance entered the camp, the crew was taken by surprise as three Israeli soldiers suddenly jumped onto the back of the ambulance. The driver was obliged to continue driving further into the camp when suddenly the soldiers began to fire at the direction of camp residents and then proceeded to chase them. [/list] From Red Crescent (http://www.palestinercs.org/pressreleases/PR280104WBRR.htm). Here are three other incidents documented by the Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (http://www.btselem.org/Download/2003_Medical_Staff_Eng.PDF): <ul type="square"> On 13 December 2002, soldiers tried to force an ambulance driver to transport them to the ‘Askar refugee camp, which is adjacent to Nablus. The driver refused. The soldiers drove in their own vehicle and ordered the driver to follow in the ambulance. The soldiers searched the ambulance and delayed him, saying that their action would “teach him a lesson.” On 26 January 2003, IDF soldiers in Nablus forced several ambulance drivers to stop, get out of their ambulances, and stand between the soldiers and stone throwers. The drivers and the ambulances served as shields for the soldiers. On 9 September 2003, soldiers ordered an ambulance to transport them in the area near the Hawarah checkpoint, near Nablus. [/list] Similar reports can be found on the AI, HRW, Physicians for Human Responsibility (Israel) websites, and many others that you never bother to read. This is what you call "libel."

[Gamblor]

Don't be ridiculous. Not all of the ambulances are terrorist transport vehicles, but it's certainly a well-known fact:

[ QUOTE ]
While most of the reports of violations of medical neutrality reaching Amnesty International involve actions by the IDF, there have also been two incidents involving Palestinians. The first is the alleged misuse of a Palestine Red Crescent Society ambulance to transport explosives. The ambulance was stopped at one of many checkpoints the ambulance passed through and an explosive device was found by Israeli soldiers searching the back of the vehicle. It was detonated in the presence of a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC said on 29 March it was "shocked and dismayed" by the reports of explosive material being found in a Palestine Red Crescent Society ambulance and condemned abuse of an ambulance and of the Red Crescent emblem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, let's examine: most of the "reports", which come mainly from those working among the Arabs and for the Arabs. On the other hand, an independent ICRC employee witnesses the bomb inside the ambulance.

Now, if one ambulance contains explosives, they potentially all might contain explosives, and as such must all at least be checked for explosives. That's called self-defence.

At first you claimed that the gunmen "hid behind" civilians. When asked for evidence, you could only come up with civilians hiding behind gunmen. Now you're claiming that Palestinians force the civilians they purport to protect up against walls and then shoot in front of them so that the civilians will be shot by Israelis. Since you can't make up your mind about which lie to tell, let's just note that, as usual, you betray your sympathy for murder by exonerating those who would shoot at "a wall of unarmed civilians."

I did nothing of the sort. I claimed that Palestinian terrorists used civilians as human shields, not in the literal sense, in the figurative sense; as in, they used civilians to deter IDF return fire in combat zones. Which I proved beyond any doubthere (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=712118&amp;page=0&amp;view=co llapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1).

I claimed nothing about forcing them up against walls either. I claimed they formed a wall, as they in fact did in the post above.

Nevertheless, while I dispute your account of the events regarding Israeli use of Red Crescent ambulances (in that I don't dispute the fact that they happened, I dispute your skewed interpretation of them and your undying belief that every word from a Palestinian mouth is gospel), I don't see how these two incidents make an entire military campaign "criminal" as opposed to the soldiers in question.

Careful, if you have me rolling in the aisles any longer I might get hurt. I hear that in the States that'll cost you at least a golf club membership.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Gamblor, I must admit those are some pretty damning photos, I have never seen anything like that before. It puts an interesting perspective on why there are so many civilian casulties. Like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, but those pictures leave me speachless.

Maybe you can Chris can do me a favor. can you two provide me with some links which discuss and illustrate this conflict a little bit, from both sides. I have been trying to find some using google, and have come up pretty much empty handed, except for one completely absurd Al-Jaazera site.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, let's examine: most of the "reports", which come mainly from those working among the Arabs and for the Arabs

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is like saying that reports of events at Aushwitz come "mainly" from Jews.

You said ambulances transport gunmen with guns blazing and that this justified the IDF's decision to target ambulances. Now you're relying solely on the one incident of explosives allegedly found but no gunmen. You also ignore that this sole incident has been sharply disputed (it was mentioned by me in the first Bet T'selem quote) by omitting the key sentence that followed from your selective quotation: "The PRCS president vehemently denied that it had willingly carried the explosive and said that it had been planted to discredit the Society. The PRCS called for an independent inquiry into the incident; Amnesty International does not have information about the outcome of such an inquiry at the time of writing." This is your idea of "certainly" "well-known fact."

This remains the only case where the IDF has been able to come up with evidence of an ambulance transporting explosives. Notably, the incident came after and not before the IDF had already shot up most of the Red Crescent fleet and many unarmed EMT's and drivers.

Red Crescent's response to this allegation details the inconsistencies in the story: <ul type="square"> To-date, and after two and a half years of conflict, the destruction of 27 ambulances, the death of 3 medics, and injury of 181 other in attacks by the Israeli army, Israel claims to have convicted a PRCS medic of carrying weapons. This incident of March 2002 was clearly a set up.

The Palestine Red Crescent Society’s own investigation leads us to believe that this was a staged event in which the Israeli army and other security apparatus were involved in to taint the Red Crescent ambulances. We had debriefed the passengers of the vehicle, examined the timeline and other eyewitness accounts, and are amazed at how the Israeli army managed within the span of 20 minutes to invite the media and press corps in the area before even confirming the presence of the explosive device. If this was a routine and random search, one wonders why the occupants of the vehicle were so quickly released, except for the Red Crescent Medic? One also wonders as to the perfect timing and location of the incident so close for the media to get to? And one wonders about the Israeli reserve soldier and TV actor onsite participating in briefing the media? And of the army's initial claims that they had arrested a militant on their "most wanted list"? These questions need answers.

The Red Crescent remains committed to providing emergency medical care to all in need, Israeli and Palestinian. PRCS has not been approached at all by the Israeli police for a position on this case. Indeed the medic repeatedly offered a reduced sentence if he would accuse the PRCS leadership of involvement in this case.

Our message to the Israeli public is simple; you have nothing to fear from our ambulances.

Our message to the Israeli army has 3 points:
1) We seek an independent investigation of this incident
2) Stop the attacks and disinformation campaign against Red Crescent ambulances and staff
3) We are proceeding with steps to prosecute Israeli army commanders responsible for the death and injury to our medics and doctors over the past year.

We also have a message to the International community; we need your presence as neutral observers on the ground to prevent further bloodshed and human rights abuses.

The facts around the ambulance that was stopped in late Mar 2002;

Red Crescent ICU ambulance en route from Nablus to Ramallah, with a mother, 3 children, a doctor and a PRCS medic were first stopped and searched at a checkpoint south of Nablus. It was permitted to pass.

The ambulance passed three other checkpoints before it was forced to stop South of Ramallah by an Israeli army patrol which fired shots in the air as the ambulance approached. The ambulance stopped. All passengers were ordered out and the Israeli soldiers told them that the ambulance was carrying explosives.

The driver, Mr. Islam Jibril, was arrested. All others were released. The driver has been with the PRCS for over 6 years and has treated many injured Israelis and Palestinians over the past year.

PRCS is concerned about the abuse of its fleet by any/all sides, whether Israeli or Palestinian.

The soldiers at the checkpoint seemed to be waiting for this vehicle and initial Israeli army reports about arresting wanted militants in the ambulance were not true.

Indeed in the plea bargain that was pushed on the medic, he was told if he would just confess and/or implicate the leadership of the Red Crescent his sentence would be reduced. [/list]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how these two incidents make an entire military campaign "criminal" as opposed to the soldiers in question

[/ QUOTE ]

I described no two but four, which gave dates and witnesses. There are many others available.

[Cyrus]

Both sides have been guilty of that practice : attacking civilians and then blaming the victims. And dehumanizing them. (We wouldn’t know that from the news coverage, of course, which is directly inversed.)

But there are two important differences between the two sides : First, the numbers. They are overwhelming. The Palestinians’ civilian casualties are far, far greater than the Israelis’. And that’s even if you accept the Israeli body count which labels most women and children as “terrorists” and “legitimate targets”.

Second, it’s the power imbalance. Here again, the numbers are, as we all know, extremely in Israel’s favor. So, when the Israeli “Defense” Forces attack Palestinian enclaves, they are, for all practical purposes attacking wholesale a civilian area. Those photos that the likes of Gamblor parade around as proof of “Palestinian duplicity” or even “cowardice” are the same photos one would see in American streets if some crazy dictator decided to attack a demonstration or a funeral or a wedding or a street corner gathering (these things have happened to Palestinians). I would assume that people among the civilians attacked like that who happen to be packing would return fire, or worse. I mean, that’s the whole purpose of the gun-carrying and people’s militia Amendment right there!..

Israel has managed to convince the world that not only the Palestinians should remain silent and immobile when they are shot at but that they terrorists if they shoot back! This is an admirable achievement of their PR, truly. But we should not allow it to pass.

[Chris Alger]

Start with "Fateful Triangle" by Noam Chomsky.

If you spend some time on the Palestinian Red Crescent website (which is where the pictures came from) you’ll get a pretty good picture of what happens.

The easiest way to keep abreast: have Google (or some other engine) email daily news links under the keyword “Palestinian” (most news in English about “Palestinians” concerns the conflict; “Israel” is too broad). You can keep minimally informed by glancing at the headlines. Yyou’ll get diverse perspectives from alternative and critical sources, including some Arabic and Israeli press. Although this will include things you’ll find “completely absurd,” the somewhat painful exposure to irreconcilable perspectives is good exercise. Routine violence in the territories (especially the IDF's) is often ignored by the mainstream U.S. media.

The best source for pro-Palestinian media correctives is electronicintifada.net. The best source for pro-Israel media correctives is camera.org.

Of the mainstream sources, The Guardian Unlimited, The Economist and Ha’aretz (in that order) have the best topical coverage, IMO. The major papers and NPR have correspondents, but tend to concentrate of summarizing government positions and political realities (which are critcal to elites but of little concern for ordinary Americans trying to answer threshold questions about rights and resonsibilities).

Most other mainstream news outlets, especially TV, do little independent reporting about the occupation because it’s volatility creates hassles for editors. As a result, most U.S. news outside the big papers relies on incomplete, official-line dominated wire reports. The partisan “pro-Israel” sources almost never report anything that deviates from the propaganda line. Almost all U.S. TV coverage, including Lehrer and especially Fox, is context-ripped and incoherent.

For good surveys of human rights, all the major organizations have excellent reports: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Bet T’selem. If you print out one of AI’s long reports and read the whole thing, you’ll become an instant expert compared to most people who follow the “news.”

(SUPERFLUOUS FILLER FOLLOWS)

A major impediment to figuring out what’s happening day-to-day are the prevalence of historical myths about the conflict which Israel and its supporters have succeeded in disseminating to the point where reporters have to at least pay homage to them if they don’t want to be accused of “bias,” or worse. You tend to see them most often in pundit columns and letters to editors, taken as undisputable truths, even though most are nonsense. These include:

1. Zionism as an ideology and practice can be understood almost exclusively as a defense against persecution, especially persecution by the Nazis, rather than a colonial ideology formed during imperialism’s golden age of the late 19th century. It is an act of national survival and self-defense rather than an enterprise affirmatively designed to displace and impose a foreign culture and political system on Palestinian Arabs.

2. Zionism is not only not “racist” but affirmatively anti-racist, reflecting the egalitarian values of Israel’s socialist founders. Israel refuses to countenance discrimination; Jews and Arabs in Israel enjoy equal rights without distinction.

3. The need for Jewish statehood in Palestine (as opposed to mere presence) became an integral part of the Zionist project in reaction to recurrent if not constant anti-Jewish terrorism.

4. In the late 1940's, Israel unequivocally agreed to divide the former British mandate of Palestine into two countries, one for the Jews and another for the Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs, on the other hand, unequivocally refused to accept any Jewish state. These attitudes generally remain intact. Hence the conflict and its persistence.

5. The military forces of seven Arab countries (population approx. 50 million) invaded Israel to crush it in 1948. Outnumbered and outgunned, Israel overcame seemingly insurmountable odds and prevailed.

6. The Palestinian refugee problem was created by Arab directions (often described as “broadcasts”) for them to leave under the assumption that they would return once the Jews were wiped out.

7. All wars between Israel and Arab countries (1947-49, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, this one) were initiated or provoked by Arab aggression, generally with the intention of “driving the Jews into the sea.”

8. Israel has generally been willing to sacrifice the territorial gains of the 1967 war in exchange for peace with the Arabs. Arab intransigence has prevented it. Israel wants to negotiate compromise with the Palestinians, but has had no responsible party to address.

9. Israel recognizes the right of Palestinians to self-determination, but the same feeling is not reciprocated by the Palestinians (including the PA). Israel is therefore forced to maintain an occupation that it really doesn’t desire in order to protect itself.

10. (Liberal alternative myth to #8). The Labor party and the Israeli mainstream recognizes the right of Palestinians to govern themselves, but are hamstrung by a combination of Palestinian terror, Likud zealots and settler crazies.

11. (Right-wing alternative myth to #8). There are no “Palestinians.” The Arabs that lived in the former Palestine never considered themselves to be apart from any other Arabs, and were mostly new arrivals and illegal aliens that came to benefit from the prosperity generated by the Jewish settlements. Zionists were therefore a “people without a land in a land without a people” that “made the desert bloom.” The claim of national rights for Palestinians can best be understood as an Arab ruse to dupe Western liberals while the Arabs plot the destruction of Israel.

12. The numerous UN resolutions against Israel are the result of Arab control over the UN (this charge usually comes with cryptic references to “the politics of oil”).

13. At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a state that included all of Gaza, more than 90% of the West Bank and a capital in East Jerusalem. Arafat refused the offer, refused to make a counter offer, broke off talks and initiated the intifada. (This nonsense actually made this week’s New Yorker).

14. The PA and especially Arafat orchestrate or routinely incite terror against Israeli civilians. Arafat’s purported denouncements of terror are variously contradicted by other statements he makes or simply made for western consumption and never translated into Arabic.

15. Israel scrupulously refrains from attacking civilians except when absolutely necessary. Of the armies in the world, Israel’s is fairly considered the most restrained and the most “moral.”

(The Arab world has one big myth: Israel was formed by a band of invading European terrorists and everything bad in the region flows from this fact).

On top of these, there are several big logical fallacies that predominate in the ubiquitous pro-Israel propaganda:

1. Israel’s close ties and dependence on the U.S. render it America’s “best ally” in the Middle East. As a result, Israeli policy generally benefits Americans.

2. Israel’s democratic attributes (especially relative to the Arab countries) should provide at least some insulation from charges that it engages in inhumane, illegal or otherwise objectionable conduct.

3. In considering the issue of moral responsibility of Americans and Israelis for conditions in the occupied territories, it is appropriate to consider the human rights abuses in other countries, especially Arabic and Islamic ones, even if they have no connection with Israel or its occupation.

[nicky g]

I haven't read it but this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1851683321/qid=1086167811/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_10_3/202-7501587-9824619) purports to tell the story from both sides.

[george w of poker]

do they also inspect the ground for people before running their bulldozers over them? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,915725,00.html)

[craig r]

why are you so anti-semitic? don't you know that us zionists can't do any wrong?

[Gamblor]

Any comparison between the numbers dead is grossly misleading.

Palestinians have wilfully tried to kill many more Israelis than they have succeeded in doing; Palestinians have attempted to commit hundreds of terrorist attacks a month - and each attempted attack bears the same moral culpability as a successful one. For example, the planned attack on the Shalom Towers (Israel's WTC) would have single-handedly killed as many Israelis as 3 years of Palestinian deaths.

Either way, it should be obvious that Israeli medical teams have become world-class experts in disaster coverage. Palestinian hospitals, however, have minimal PA funding, despite hundreds of millions of dollars of UN aid to Palestinian medical facilities being diverted elsewhere. As a result, many Israeli deaths have been prevented while Palestinian deaths are to some degree due Arafat's requisitioning of a new palace for his wife in Paris. This corruption has turned many non-lethal injuries into more ammo for the anti-Zionists.

It is telling to compare the Israeli response to terrorism with the Palestinian response to Israeli "terrorism". The PA decided in 2000 not to allow Palestinians to be cared for in Israeli medical facilities. Israeli medical facilities are completely non-partisan in their triage units, admitting patients based on the seriousness of their injuries, not their nationality. As far back as 1994, Palestinian hospital administrators refused to allow Palestinians to be transferred to Israeli hospitals for care. Only the Palestinians refuse to accept medical aid on political grounds.

Included in the Palestinian body count are: suicide bombers themselves, armed Palestinian fighters, terrorist leaders, bomb-making engineers (and their families and next-door neighbours), collaborators who have been killed by other Palestinians, even people who have been killed by the absurd and dangerous practice of shooting live ammunition into the air at funerals. The very idea that anyone would count these people as victims compared to the innocent civilians that were their targets is so absurd and immoral that it defies explanation. But many newspapers and human rights groups do just that by providing assymmetrical and biased information.

Palestinians also count innocent civilians caught in cross-fire between Palestinian gunmen and Israeli terrorist-police. Muhammad al-Dura, who was conclusively proven to have been shot by Palestinian gunmen by German TV station (James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly June 2003, p49). Moreover, Palestinian spokesmen blatantly exaggerate casualties. Edward Said has claimed that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been killed by Israel with US support (Jean Elshtain: Just War Against Terror, Basi Books, 2003, p.87). I won't even bring up the Jenin lies.

All told, the number of Israeli innocent civilians killed FAR outnumbers the number of innocent Palestinian civilians killed. For example, concerning women, Phyllis Chesler in "The New anti-Semitism" (Wiley &amp; Sons, p. 117) has concluded:

[ QUOTE ]
On the Israeli side, 80 percent of those killed were non-combatants, most of whom were women and girls. Israeli female fatalities far outnumbered Palestinian female fatalities by either 3 to 1 or 4 to 1. (So far, I ave herad no feminist complaintes about this, have you?) Israeli women and girls constituted almost 40 percent of the Israeli noncombatants killed by Palestinians. Of the Palestinian deaths, 95 percent were male. In other words, Palestinians purposefully went after women, children and other unarmed civilians and Israleis fought against armed male soldiers who were attacking them

[/ QUOTE ]

In the July 2002 issue of the Israeli Medical Association Journal, Israeli non-partisan doctors expressed concern that the bone and blood fragments, some of which penetrate the victims of suicide bombings, contain hepatitis and AIDS virii. (Karen Birchard, "Hep B case makes suicide bombers an infection risk, Medical Post, MacLean Hunter, Sept 10, 2002).

As the March 18, 2002 issue of the New York Times put it, "Palestinians have mastered the harsh arithmetic of pain... Palestinian casualties play in their favor, Israeli casualties play in their favour." As Hamas leader Ismail Haniya told the Washington Post: "Palestinians have Israelis on the run because they have found their weak spot:... Jews love life more than other people, and they prefer not to die. So suicide bombers are the ideal weapon for dealing with them (Thomas Friedman, "Suicidal Lies" NYT, Mar 31, 2002).

No Israeli or Jew claims on the record that Arabs have "terrorism" and "violence" in their "genes" as Edward Said accuses pro-Israel advocates of claiming. But this straw man deflects focus from the fact that the leadership of the Palestinians consistently turn to terrorism as a first recourse and glorify it as part of Arab/Muslim culture and religion.

Salah Shehadeh, a leader of Hamas in Gaza, said on May 26, 2002, that children were being recruited into a special branch of Hamas. In an interview on Al-Jazeera television, a prominent Muslim professor defended the use of what he called callously "the children bomb" ("Hate goes high-tech, Frontline, Winter 2003, p.5).

A poll conducted at Islamic University in Gaza showed that 49 percent of kinds between 9-16 had participated in anti-Israel violence and 73 percent expressed a desire to die as martyrs. The New York Times reported on March 8, 2003 ("Israeli strike kills Hamas leader"), that Israeli soldiers "fired at a youth who had thrown a firebomb"

Never mind the two eleven year olds who tried to plant a bomb near an Israeli outpost, expressing desire to die as martyrs, the teenaged students killed trying to infiltrate Netzarim - each left a will expressing their wish to die as martyrs and are now held as examples of Palestinian courage.

Yet, despite numerous other documented cases (such as a fifteen year-old girl whose Tanzim operative uncle recruited her to commit a suicide bombing), a spokesperson for Amnesty International at the 2003 Human Rights Commission in 2003 that "to my knowledge, there has never been a Palestinian minor involved in a suicide bombing" (Anne Bayefsky, "Human Rights Groups have less than noble agendas", Chicago Sun Times, April 6, 2003.

Nobody blamed the Allies for the killing of armed German children preventing their advance to Berlin.

Palestinian women, children, and invalids are used as terrorists, and they are equally dangerous as a 25 year old gunman.

Although many more Arabs and Palestinians have been killed by fellow Arabs, the loudest complaints are when they are killed by a Jew. Sure, there are complaints about American actions in Iraq, but the words "genocide", "Holocaust", and "Nazi tactics" are exclusively reserved for Israel, adding the worst kind of insult to injury.

Ultimately, the number of Palestinian innocent civilians killed is too high and not every single Israeli soldier is a not all models of morality. But in terms of policy, Palestinian terror can in no way be compared to the Israeli response.

[Tuco]

Gamblor,

Why can't you get away from arguing in cricles and just be shocked that the Israeli Military would do something like this?

The Palestinian tactic of suicide bombings sickens me, and so does this. Please don't point your finger at gutless Palestinian suicide bombers, because the soldier that ran that girl over is no better.

Tuco.

[george w of poker]

lol.

i'm just anti hate/violence. either side can justify all they want but in the end it comes down to the fact that people are just being shitty. a peaceful resolution could be made if everyone just puts their egos away. obviously this is way easier said than done and it makes me really sad for both sides every time i hear about it.

[nicky g]

"All told, the number of Israeli innocent civilians killed FAR outnumbers the number of innocent Palestinian civilians killed."

That is an outright lie and you know it.

[craig r]

wait, i am from texas and am anti-violence/hate. i don't live there anymore, so i guess you are the only one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif. i do agree with you though.

craig

[Gamblor]

All told, the number of Israeli innocent civilians killed FAR outnumbers the number of innocent Palestinian civilians killed."

Nicky. 80% of Israeli deaths are innocent civilians.

The Palestinians would need five times as many deaths, and despite their non-existent medical care (given UN donations to terror) and refusal to allow Israeli hospitals to care for injured, despite their encouragement of youth to kill Israeli civilians and soldiers, despite themselves even, they are nowhere near that number.

[Gamblor]

You're anti-violence/hate as long as Israelis are doing it.

You're pro-violence/hate as long as its being done to Israelis. We get it.

Either that, or you just don't get how deep into the society and culture violence is among Arabs, thanks to political leaders who encourage violence, often using bastardized Islam as a means of incitement, at every turn, often extolling it as the only solution to any conflict.

I mean, after all, every time Israel defeats an Arab State in warfare, who ends up conceding land to ensure peace? What incentive to Arab states have to continue that peace

Take a moment to research the Shiite-Sunni war, the Persian-Arab war, the Lebanon-Syria war, the Iraq-Kuwait war, and the most recent, the Saudi-Islamist war. These are all major terrorist wars that have continued unabated nowadays. Is there any reason not to believe that the Arab-Israel conflict is a result not of Israeli "aggression", but this continued violence-first mentality?

[nicky g]

"All told, the number of Israeli innocent civilians killed FAR outnumbers the number of innocent Palestinian civilians killed"

Noone seriously argues that more Israeli non-combatants have been killed than Palestinian combatants since the start of the intifada. Even the blatantly biased pro-Israel International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (which is headed by an ex-Mossad chief and includes figures such as ex-IDF spokesmen), whose figures your article seems to be relying on, puts the number of Palestinian non-combatants killed at 270 more than the number of Israeli non-combatants killed, and it relioes almost totally on IDF accounts and isn't even counting demonstrators or hundreds of people killed whom classes as of "unknown" status, most of which appear to be civilians (including for example a thirteen year-old boy).
ICT intifada casualty stats (http://www.ict.org.il/casualties_project/mideast_statistics_frame.htm)

As for the 80% figure, it is reached by counting "uniformed non-combatants" including off-duty uniformed soldiers, while Palestinian "terrorists", resistance fighters or whatever are counted as combatants whether active or asleep in bed. Counting them, the ratio of noncombatants to comatants killed is about 2:1, which is roughly the same as the ratio of Palestinian civilians killed according to the info I posted from B'Tselem and other sources a couple of weeks ago.

[Gamblor]

If you spend some time on the Palestinian Red Crescent website (which is where the pictures came from) you&amp;#8217;ll get a pretty good picture of what happens.

Of course, the Palestinian Red Crescent has no incentive to lie.

The easiest way to keep abreast: have Google (or some other engine) email daily news links under the keyword &amp;#8220;Palestinian&amp;#8221; (most news in English about &amp;#8220;Palestinians&amp;#8221; concerns the conflict; &amp;#8220;Israel&amp;#8221; is too broad).

In other words: Read sources that advocate the "Palestinian" cause.

Routine violence in the territories (especially the IDF's) is often ignored by the mainstream U.S. media.

I think this tells you how reliable Alger's information is.

Of the mainstream sources, The Guardian Unlimited, The Economist and Ha&amp;#8217;aretz (in that order) have the best topical coverage, IMO.

If you'd ever spent one day in Israel in your life, you'd have long ago realized that Ha'Aretz is little more than a scandal rag in Israel, with a circulation about 1/4 of each of the three majors (Jerusalem Post is the largest Jerusalem newspaper, Ma'ariv, is virulently anti-Sharon, and Yediot Achronot, which is fairly centrist). For english news, your best bet is the Jerusalem Post or Ma'ariv.

As usual, it's the people outside Israel that claim to know what's best for its people and the people it deals with.

ThaSaltCracka: Give me some time (i.e. a few days) and I'll write the legal, logical, and moral argument for Israel's position.

[nicky g]

"the Jerusalem Post"
Yeah right. A right wing propaganda rag controlled by a corrupt old Canadian and his notoriously blinkered Zionist wife.

"Of course, the Palestinian Red Crescent has no incentive to lie."

The PRC is an affiliate of the International REd Cross which is pretty much the most well-respected impartial NGO in the world.

"As usual, it's the people outside Israel that claim to know what's best for its people and the people it deals with. "

As usual, people from Israel think that Israel has the right to "deal with" other people (by repressing and killing them an dstealing their land) however it sees fit.

[nicky g]

On the Jerusalem Post, the UK's Newsnight had one of their editorial writers on during Operation Rainbow. She was an incredibly rude and spiteful woman; one of her responses to a question she didn't like was, and I kid you not, "Whatever." The Haaretz writer they interviewed was only slightly less ridiculous, although at least reasonably polite.

[Gamblor]

As usual, people from Israel think that Israel has the right to "deal with" other people (by repressing and killing them an dstealing their land) however it sees fit.

Israelis are dying too man. If Israelis were dying over the blatant oppression and land-stealing, as you call it, then I can assure you the oppression and land-stealing would stop immediately. I'd still like to know what right you have to tell a Jewish man he can't live in Hevron without fear of Arab terrorism. But I digress.

Once we came across a middle-income (relatively) Arab suspected of collaborating with Israel. One of the responsibilities of my unit was to transport sappers in and out of suspected bomb-sites. We told him there was a good chance his car was booby-trapped and would explode when he started it (by the way, this death would have been included in the Palestinian "body count"). He shooed us away (we waited on the street while the commander waited next to him, ran inside shouting, and out came one of his kids, who got into the car. It started without explosion.

My commander (who knew Arabic) went over to him and started shouting at him, the man shrugged and explained something and that was it, we were ordered out. Back into the APC, no incident, a good day.

Some guys asked the commander what the man said, he responded: "I asked him what he was doing, how he could send his son out there to start the car. He told me 'If I start my car, and I die, my family will starve, but if my son dies, I get money and I can make another kid."

He'd rather send his son out and collect $2,000 from the PA than have the IDF check his car for a bomb.

That kind of stuck with me.

[nicky g]

That's collaborators for you. Rarely the most morally upstanding members of a community.

[Gamblor]

He wasn't a collaborator.

Intelligence said he was being targetted as a collaborator.

I didn't hear anything beyond that.

Either way, it gives some insight to the Arab cultural mindset (not that being an Arab makes him like that; it's the byproduct of living in a world in which religion dominates the secular and the government controls all the information)

[Gamblor]

This happened in the suburbs of Sh'chem, near Elon Moreh.

[ThaSaltCracka]

nicky g,
why do you immediately write off what Gamblor said in his story? Just because it illustrates something which is against your viewpoint. The attitude of that man is amazing to me. Most parents say " no parent should outlive their kids", but aparently this man was more than comfortable with that. It was almost like he was having kids so that they could become essentially paychecks(ie via suicide bombing).

[nicky g]

I didn't write it off, I said if the guy was a collaborator I wouldn't be surprised at that attitude. Collaborators are willing to jeapordize their lives and those of their families for money. "Suicide bombing" didn't have anything to do with the story so I don't know where you've got that from. If the story is true and whther or not he was a collaborator the man's attitude is disgusting; I don;t see how you got anything else from my comment. It doesn't make his attitude representative.

[Gamblor]

It doesn't make his attitude representative.

The guy was middle income (likely owned a store somewhere, meaning he can afford to feed his family and buy a car and that's pretty much it), from a big city (although really a small town compared to, say Toronto or a major Western city like London or NYC).

"Suicide bombing" didn't have anything to do with the story so I don't know where you've got that from

Every Palestinian killed in "war", from suicide bombers to gunmen to little kids, gets money from the PA.

Suicide bombers themselves are reputed to get up to $25,000 (a ridiculous fortune, enough to buy a nice new house there) from various Arab backers. It's one of the things that gets people to commit these crimes.

If you'll recall in my post in response to Cyrus, regarding the numbers killed, a Hamas rep was quoted as saying Hamas found the Jews' weakness: "...Jews love life more than most people..." This world simply doesn't mean much to the religious Arab Muslim, unless Allah commands him to do something in it (i.e. liberate his land from Jews).

If you can't see the connection between that and suicide bombings, then you may as well be running in the Belmont tomorrow, cause you got blinders that would make Smarty Jones cringe.

[nicky g]

"The guy was middle income (likely owned a store somewhere, meaning he can afford to feed his family and buy a car and that's pretty much it), from a big city (although really a small town compared to, say Toronto or a major Western city like London or NYC)."

How does that makes his attitude representative? If I find a middle calss member fo the British National Front, do I conclude their attotude is representative of the entire country?

"Every Palestinian killed in "war", from suicide bombers to gunmen to little kids, gets money from the PA."

The story was not about suicide bombing or getting his kid to act as a suicide bomber. I twas about not caring if a bomb aimed at him killed his kid. Salt said it was about suicide bombing. I pointed out it wasn't. End of story. WHy must we have endless stupid discussions about nothing? Don't we have anough to argue about already?

[MMMMMM]

Well nicky, from that one incident of course you cannot conclude that his attitude is representative of the population as a whole, but the mindset that loving life is a weakness and loving death is an advantage has been promulgated before from many Muslim and especially Arabic Muslim sources. So as not to clutter this thread I will be posting a new thread dealing with this inverted and depraved philosophical outlook at some point in the future.

[nicky g]

His attitude from the story had nothing to do with Islam or loving death and everything to do with love of money; a fairly differnet attitude to Islamists who, whatever else they are accused of, are rarely perceived as being financially corrupt.

[Gamblor]

If I find a middle calss member fo the British National Front, do I conclude their attotude is representative of the entire country?

Read again: from the biggest city in the West Bank. The most metropolitan city in the west bank (for what that's worth), where the PA has the greatest stranglehold on information.

The Arabs are among the few people on earth where greater access to information means greater chance of brainwashing.

I somehow doubt there are many BNF members living in London suburbs. Small towns, perhaps.

[nicky g]

No matter where he's from, it doesn't show he's representative of the population at large. He's one person.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
"Suicide bombing" didn't have anything to do with the story so I don't know where you've got that from.

[/ QUOTE ]
He said " If I die, my family starves, if my son dies I get money. " So essentially he is saying he is more than fine with sacrificing his son for money. Every time someone blows themselves up with the intention to kill others, that persons family gets money for their service. Let me spell it out.
Man willing to let his son die, his main reason, for money.
People willing to blow themselves up, one of their main reasons, to provide money to their family.

Now if the parents are fine with this, then it is highly possible that some of these people have kids simply for the money. The bottom line is, the truely have no regard for human life. How can anyone possibly be comfortable with their own son dying, for completely unnatural reasons. The only thing that really comforts them is the thought that his son or now a martyr and of course the money.

Some people blame religion for the cause of everything evil, but don't ever underestimate the evil of wealth.

The mentality of that man proves he has no respect for anyone elses life but his own.

[nicky g]

"Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Suicide bombing" didn't have anything to do with the story so I don't know where you've got that from.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


He said " If I die, my family starves, if my son dies I get money. " So essentially he is saying he is more than fine with sacrificing his son for money. "

Yes. He is.

"Man willing to let his son die, his main reason, for money. "

Yes.

"People willing to blow themselves up, one of their main reasons, to provide money to their family.

Now if the parents are fine with this, then it is highly possible that some of these people have kids simply for the money. The bottom line is, the truely have no regard for human life. How can anyone possibly be comfortable with their own son dying, for completely unnatural reasons. The only thing that really comforts them is the thought that his son or now a martyr and of course the money."

Now you are extending this to other people. I don't see how that follows.



"The mentality of that man proves he has no respect for anyone elses life but his own."

Right. When did I suggest anything else?

You wrote: "It was almost like he was having kids so that they could become essentially paychecks(ie via suicide bombing). "
Well, the story wasn't about suicide bombing, and it made out that he didn;t care if his son were killed, not that he was having children deliberately to get killed (and certainly not in suicide bombings; there's no reference to them at all) . That was my point. That doesn't mean to say I approved - I made it clear I didn't.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
"People willing to blow themselves up, one of their main reasons, to provide money to their family.

Now if the parents are fine with this, then it is highly possible that some of these people have kids simply for the money. The bottom line is, the truely have no regard for human life. How can anyone possibly be comfortable with their own son dying, for completely unnatural reasons. The only thing that really comforts them is the thought that his son or now a martyr and of course the money."

Now you are extending this to other people. I don't see how that follows.


[/ QUOTE ]
Think out of the box, and think rationally, you should be able to see the connection here. The mentality of this man appears to be very similar to those of other palestenians, who are so willing to let their sons sacrifice themselves. I am sorry, but no rational society would ever think its all right to sacrifice their children, unless it was completely neccessary.

[ QUOTE ]
"The mentality of that man proves he has no respect for anyone elses life but his own."

Right. When did I suggest anything else?

[/ QUOTE ]
I never implied that you did.

[Gamblor]

a fairly differnet attitude to Islamists who, whatever else they are accused of, are rarely perceived as being financially corrupt.

No, they leave that to their leadership.

[nicky g]

"Think out of the box, and think rationally, you should be able to see the connection here. The mentality of this man appears to be very similar to those of other palestenians, who are so willing to let their sons sacrifice themselves. I am sorry, but no rational society would ever think its all right to sacrifice their children, unless it was completely neccessary."

Mmm. The vast majority of Palestinains have zero wish to sacrifice their children.

[nicky g]

Much of the PA is certanly corrupt. (One thing that strikes me about the Israelis is that they are always clamouring for Arafat to be replaced by even more notoriously corrupt officials, such as Dahlan.) Few of the Islamists would see the PA as their leadership, and one of the reasons for the popularity of the Islamist leadership is that they are not financially corrupt.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Mmm. The vast majority of Palestinains have zero wish to sacrifice their children.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then under no circumstance should they ever support suicide bombing. You can't tell me that they don't support suicide bombngs. Be realistic here, their society promotes martyrdom in jihad. They consider themselves to be in a holy war against the Jews, and they seem to have no problem recruiting people to blow themselves up, why? because their society has little regard for human life. And when I say society I am not referring to all palestenians, I am referring to the terrorists who reside in the palestenian population.

[nicky g]

"And when I say society I am not referring to all palestenians, I am referring to the terrorists who reside in the palestenian population. "

Well in that case I don't disagree with you.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
You're anti-violence/hate as long as Israelis are doing it.

You're pro-violence/hate as long as its being done to Israelis. We get it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, i remember saying that. i think my exact words were "i hate violence, except when it is done to jews." i do challenge you to show where i insinuated or explicitly said that i dislike violence against arabs, but don't mind when it is done to jews. i think it is very reactionary of you to put words in other people's mouths. or do you just assume that since i am not a zionist or in support of killing people, that i must support the death of israelis?

[george w of poker]

i also feel sorry for both sides for believing in made up gods.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
i also feel sorry for both sides for believing in made up gods.

[/ QUOTE ]
first of all same God, secondly, you feel sorry for them because they believe in God? Why just because you don't believe in God?
There is absolutely no proof God exists, true, but there is also no proof proving he doesn't exist. Some how the universe was created, but no one really knows how, and no one may ever know. So believing in God is not in anyway idiotic, nor is not believing in God. you can argue that believing certain religous sects may or may not be stupid, but I don't know how people can rationally say believing in God is stupid, especially since there is no proof refuting his suposed existence.

One word: FAITH, and if you don't know what that means, look it up.

[MMMMMM]

This is a bit tangential here, but it is not completely certain that the universe was ever created. A couple months ago Scientific American had a great article discussing some of the most recent supportable theories which include possibilities that the Big Bang was not the start of everything, that existence stretched infinitely backwards in time, that there was a Big Bang but there was not "nothing" before that.

I for one have long questioned why the idea of the universe being created seems to make more sense to most people than the idea that it always existed in some fashion (or that it's raw essentials did). To me, neither idea--creation or perpetual existence of some sort--"feels" more likely than the other.

[Gamblor]

The only question, is how powerful are the terrorists who influence public opinion?

Thankfully since the deaths of Rantisi and Yassin, as well as Operation Rainbow in Rafiach and Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank, the terrorists are finding themselves more and more marginalized within Palestinian society (not the PA, however).

The prospects for peace are beginning to look up. Egypt has noticed this, but Arafat is the only one that still refuses. Even the Egyptians threatened to go around him this week.

[Gamblor]

The mainstream Israeli position has nothing to do with God at all, but history and political law.

A few Jewish crazies think God plays a factor, but there is definite legal arguments on their behalf too.

[ACPlayer]

I looked up faith:

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
I looked up faith:

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable

[/ QUOTE ]
You looked at one portion of the definition of faith, so please don't post one small portion and act like that is the definition of the word.

Taken directly from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com):
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

A set of principles or beliefs.

[ThaSaltCracka]

MMMMMM,
see these are all simply just theories. no one knows for sure the answer to these questions. I guess this has nothing to do with this original thread, so sorry. Interesting none the less...

[ACPlayer]

It is actually a quote from HL Mencken

[george w of poker]

sorry. i didn't mean to offend anyone. i was just stating how i feel. i'm actually happy that there are lots of religions in the world that people can pick from to find one that fits them but it really saddens me when its used to justify violence

[ThaSaltCracka]

no problem, and I agree completely wholeheartedly with your final statement.