Three Israeli soldiers injured south of Bethlehem

[Lipush]

Except they don't. They go after whoever they find

In most cases I agree. But I think some likely target military. Don't a lot of suicide bombers target soldiers in outposts?

Tell me you what took place more. Suicide bombings on buses, markets and shopping malls, or suicide bombings among soldiers?

I agree they target civilians far in excess of military.

THANK YOU.

Glad we can sum that up.

 

[Lipush]

Wow, folks. No body read much my post #5 did they?

It is suspected an accident, the driver turned himself into authorities claiming a malfunction.

Link: West Bank hit and run may not have been terror -- official The Times of Israel

Note the "zionist" source of the 'correction'

For the sake of honesty, it was not the only vehicle to almost run over soldiers in that place, it's a dangerous road. So technically, we can give the benefit of the dbout here.

But just hour before, 14 people were run over in Jerusalem, and that was obvious terror attack. so...

 

[Lipush]

The three soldiers hit were hit by accident, its suspected, so this case is a different issue.

Your question is irrelevant, furthermore. They don't try to distinguish. They call to run over whoever is JEWISH. the only one making any kind of difference between military or civilians, the only one who believes it's different, is the one with western thinking

Which by the way, are NOT the Palestinians.

I agree - it's irrelevant since we now know it was a vehicular accident.

Which still makes what you say problematic.

Why?

If they go after military targets, I don't see how it is not legit targets. There is a difference between civilians and military right?

Let me give you this question then

Days ago, a terrorist named Abdul Rahman ran over a group of people in Jerusalem, killing 3 months old Jewish infant, and a young student.

Say among the injured or casualties, add to the 2, was a soldier, does it make it a military target?

No. It would not.

But if say, the vehicular accident was a deliberate effort to hit and run over 3 soldiers that would make it a military target wouldn't it?

In that case, yes.

Technically.

But Israelis see it differently.

 

[Phoenall]

So, it continues.

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- Three Israeli soldiers were injured in a hit-and-run accident on Wednesday night near the al-Arrub refugee camp on the main Bethlehem-Hebron road.

A Ma'an reporter in the camp said that a car plowed into three soldiers standing on the road, injuring one seriously and the other two moderately.

I read it first on Ma'an, link: 3 Israeli soldiers injured in hit-and-run south of Bethlehem Maan News Agency

Video: ALERT! Seems as though to see it on Youtube you have to log in because it is considered GRAPHIC! However, it is on the Ma'am webstie as of this posting.



And this same event is reported on JP:

Three IDF soldiers were injured Wednesday night after a Palestinian vehicle slammed into them on Route 60 southwest of Bethlehem in an attempt to target the Israeli forces, the IDF spokesperson's office said.

A freight truck with Palestinian license plates hit the three IDF soldiers, wounding one seriously and two moderately in what he IDF said was a terror attack, making it the second such vehicular attack targeting Israelis on Wednesday.

Link: Three IDF soldiers injured in vehicular terror attack in West Bank

This has got to stop. Please?

It is not terrorism to attack foreign troops.

But that is what to expect from a propaganda rag.

Then it is acceptable to bomb terrorists pretending to be civilians in gaza, it is the same thing using your criteria.

 

[Phoenall]

Three members of an invading army were attacked and injured by defending forces.
I really don't see a problem here, save the invading soldiers weren't killed - a far better outcome.

Just as 2000 soldiers were killed in the act of attacking israeli civilians, a far better outcome would have been 10,000 killed and the whole of gaza flattened in time for winter.

 

[Indofred]

It is not terrorism to attack foreign troops.

But that is what to expect from a propaganda rag.

Three members of an invading army were attacked and injured by defending forces.
I really don't see a problem here, save the invading soldiers weren't killed - a far better outcome.

Cool. So with this attitude, why do you guys cry foul when these soldiers defend themselves when attacked?

But the IDF are the attacking and occupying force.
They can hardly complain when resistance fighters attack them.

Do you think the French resistance were wrong to attack German invaders on WWII?

 

[Indofred]

Three members of an invading army were attacked and injured by defending forces.
I really don't see a problem here, save the invading soldiers weren't killed - a far better outcome.

Just as 2000 soldiers were killed in the act of attacking israeli civilians, a far better outcome would have been 10,000 killed and the whole of gaza flattened in time for winter.

Yes, genocide is the reason the defenders attack the invaders.

 

[Indofred]

Three members of an invading army were attacked and injured by defending forces.
I really don't see a problem here, save the invading soldiers weren't killed - a far better outcome.

What's a better outcome ?

Three dead members of an invading army.
The IDF are there illegally as an invading force, so tough if they get killed.

 

[Kondor3]

Three members of an invading army were attacked and injured by defending forces.
I really don't see a problem here, save the invading soldiers weren't killed - a far better outcome.

Just as 2000 soldiers were killed in the act of attacking israeli civilians, a far better outcome would have been 10,000 killed and the whole of gaza flattened in time for winter.

Yes, genocide is the reason the defenders attack the invaders.

Genocide?

If the Israelis wanted to engage in genocide, they would line-up artillery pieces, hub to hub, all across the northern Gaza border, from east to west.

Then they would open fire, and continue to advance in file abreast, until they reached the southern Gaza border.

Smashing and destroying and killing everything in their path along the way.

Or they would be dropping Daisy Cutter -type bombs, cooking-down everything north-to-south, until there was nothing (and no one) left.

Or they would be herding Palestinians into Extermination Camps, and shoveling the corpses into the ground, or burning them.

The Israelis commit no genocide.

They DO contain a hopelessly hostile Enemy Population, residing on territory conquered from neighboring countries, after those neighbors attacked Israel.

And, of course, they are squeezing the Palestinians off what few slivers of land remain under Palestinian control - convincing them to leave, slowly but surely.

But the Israelis commit no genocide.

 

[toastman]

Three members of an invading army were attacked and injured by defending forces.
I really don't see a problem here, save the invading soldiers weren't killed - a far better outcome.

What's a better outcome ?

Three dead members of an invading army.
The IDF are there illegally as an invading force, so tough if they get killed.

Typical Muslim blood lust .

 

[toastman]

Three members of an invading army were attacked and injured by defending forces.
I really don't see a problem here, save the invading soldiers weren't killed - a far better outcome.

Just as 2000 soldiers were killed in the act of attacking israeli civilians, a far better outcome would have been 10,000 killed and the whole of gaza flattened in time for winter.

Yes, genocide is the reason the defenders attack the invaders.

Genocide?

If the Israelis wanted to engage in genocide, they would line-up artillery pieces, hub to hub, all across the northern Gaza border, from east to west.

Then they would open fire, and continue to advance in file abreast, until they reached the southern Gaza border.

Smashing and destroying and killing everything in their path along the way.

Or they would be dropping Daisy Cutter -type bombs, cooking-down everything north-to-south, until there was nothing (and no one) left.

Or they would be herding Palestinians into Extermination Camps, and shoveling the corpses into the ground, or burning them.

The Israelis commit no genocide.

They DO contain a hopelessly hostile Enemy Population, residing on territory conquered from neighboring countries, after those neighbors attacked Israel.

And, of course, they are squeezing the Palestinians off what few slivers of land remain under Palestinian control - convincing them to leave, slowly but surely.

But the Israelis commit no genocide.

The goal of a country committing genocide is to get rid of an entire people. The Palestinian population ha been increasing for the last 70 years, not decreasing.

 

[Kondor3]

Three members of an invading army were attacked and injured by defending forces.
I really don't see a problem here, save the invading soldiers weren't killed - a far better outcome.

What's a better outcome ?

Three dead members of an invading army. The IDF are there illegally as an invading force, so tough if they get killed.

The Israelis are not invaders.

The Israelis are conquerors.

They conquered that territory from aggressive Arab-Muslim neighbors, decades ago.

The Israelis even gave the Palestinians ample opportunity to negotiate a lasting peace and to govern themselves, so long as they left Israel alone.

Stupidly, the Palestinians missed opportunity after opportunity after opportunity, and so, caused the Israelis to give up on them, and to harden their hearts, prior to taking the next major step, which, in all likelihood, will prove to be Expulsion of the remaining Palestinians, in the not-too-distant future - the only thing left to do now.

At this very late stage in the game, continued Palestinian resistance is little more than pissing against the wind, a foolhardy exercise that does little more than to get you soaked, and smelling very badly.

It's as though the Palestinians, collectively, succumbed to an infectious en masse Learning Disorder, very early on in their career as a polity-wannabe.

The Palestinians are not exactly the brightest crayons in the box.

Individually, I'm sure that there exist a great many highly intelligent Palestinians.

Collectively, in a political context, the Palestinians are as stupid a People as has ever existed on record, and that's going some.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, et al,

Yes and NO...

The three soldiers hit were hit by accident, its suspected, so this case is a different issue.

Your question is irrelevant, furthermore. They don't try to distinguish. They call to run over whoever is JEWISH. the only one making any kind of difference between military or civilians, the only one who believes it's different, is the one with western thinking

Which by the way, are NOT the Palestinians.

I agree - it's irrelevant since we now know it was a vehicular accident.

Which still makes what you say problematic.

Why?

If they go after military targets, I don't see how it is not legit targets. There is a difference between civilians and military right?

(COMMENT)

Legitimate targeting is about a Rule of War (Customary IHL). So, yes --- if you consider it a "State of War," then it is "legit."

If, it is an "Occupation" then Article 68 of the GCIV applies. And it is (altogether) improper and punishable.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not a question about whether Israel is occupying Palestine or not.

Israel, first and foremost, was a colonial project and continues to be one today. Its stated goal for a hundred years is to replace the native population with foreign settlers.

It uses occupation and a constant "state of war" to accomplish its goal. Israel has had to violate a whole string of international laws to pursue its goal.

 

[toastman]

Coyote, et al,

Yes and NO...

The three soldiers hit were hit by accident, its suspected, so this case is a different issue.

Your question is irrelevant, furthermore. They don't try to distinguish. They call to run over whoever is JEWISH. the only one making any kind of difference between military or civilians, the only one who believes it's different, is the one with western thinking

Which by the way, are NOT the Palestinians.

I agree - it's irrelevant since we now know it was a vehicular accident.

Which still makes what you say problematic.

Why?

If they go after military targets, I don't see how it is not legit targets. There is a difference between civilians and military right?

(COMMENT)

Legitimate targeting is about a Rule of War (Customary IHL). So, yes --- if you consider it a "State of War," then it is "legit."

If, it is an "Occupation" then Article 68 of the GCIV applies. And it is (altogether) improper and punishable.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not a question about whether Israel is occupying Palestine or not.

Israel, first and foremost, was a colonial project and continues to be one today. Its stated goal for a hundred years is to replace the native population with foreign settlers.

It uses occupation and a constant "state of war" to accomplish its goal. Israel has had to violate a whole string of international laws to pursue its goal.

Israel was not a colonial project. That's Palestinian propaganda from your immense propaganda stash.

Sure, there were many right wing Zionist Jews who wanted to have all of mandatory Palestine, but the stated goal of Israel was to have a refuge for the Jewish people.

 

[Indofred]

The Israelis are not invaders.

The Israelis are conquerors

You admit Israel is the attacking force.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, et al,

Yes and NO...

I agree - it's irrelevant since we now know it was a vehicular accident.

Which still makes what you say problematic.

Why?

If they go after military targets, I don't see how it is not legit targets. There is a difference between civilians and military right?

(COMMENT)

Legitimate targeting is about a Rule of War (Customary IHL). So, yes --- if you consider it a "State of War," then it is "legit."

If, it is an "Occupation" then Article 68 of the GCIV applies. And it is (altogether) improper and punishable.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not a question about whether Israel is occupying Palestine or not.

Israel, first and foremost, was a colonial project and continues to be one today. Its stated goal for a hundred years is to replace the native population with foreign settlers.

It uses occupation and a constant "state of war" to accomplish its goal. Israel has had to violate a whole string of international laws to pursue its goal.

Israel was not a colonial project. That's Palestinian propaganda from your immense propaganda stash.

Sure, there were many right wing Zionist Jews who wanted to have all of mandatory Palestine, but the stated goal of Israel was to have a refuge for the Jewish people.

Indeed, and without the natives. That is why they were removed and are not allowed back.

 

[toastman]

Coyote, et al,

Yes and NO...

Which still makes what you say problematic.

Why?

If they go after military targets, I don't see how it is not legit targets. There is a difference between civilians and military right?

(COMMENT)

Legitimate targeting is about a Rule of War (Customary IHL). So, yes --- if you consider it a "State of War," then it is "legit."

If, it is an "Occupation" then Article 68 of the GCIV applies. And it is (altogether) improper and punishable.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not a question about whether Israel is occupying Palestine or not.

Israel, first and foremost, was a colonial project and continues to be one today. Its stated goal for a hundred years is to replace the native population with foreign settlers.

It uses occupation and a constant "state of war" to accomplish its goal. Israel has had to violate a whole string of international laws to pursue its goal.

Israel was not a colonial project. That's Palestinian propaganda from your immense propaganda stash.

Sure, there were many right wing Zionist Jews who wanted to have all of mandatory Palestine, but the stated goal of Israel was to have a refuge for the Jewish people.

Indeed, and without the natives. That is why they were removed and are not allowed back.

Thats another lie.
Some Palestinians were expelled during the Mandatory Palestine civil war which was started by the Palestinians. But most of them were expelled after the 1948 war which was started hy the Arabs and which the Palestinians took part in.
You real what you sow.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, et al,

Yes and NO...

Why?

If they go after military targets, I don't see how it is not legit targets. There is a difference between civilians and military right?

(COMMENT)

Legitimate targeting is about a Rule of War (Customary IHL). So, yes --- if you consider it a "State of War," then it is "legit."

If, it is an "Occupation" then Article 68 of the GCIV applies. And it is (altogether) improper and punishable.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not a question about whether Israel is occupying Palestine or not.

Israel, first and foremost, was a colonial project and continues to be one today. Its stated goal for a hundred years is to replace the native population with foreign settlers.

It uses occupation and a constant "state of war" to accomplish its goal. Israel has had to violate a whole string of international laws to pursue its goal.

Israel was not a colonial project. That's Palestinian propaganda from your immense propaganda stash.

Sure, there were many right wing Zionist Jews who wanted to have all of mandatory Palestine, but the stated goal of Israel was to have a refuge for the Jewish people.

Indeed, and without the natives. That is why they were removed and are not allowed back.

Thats another lie.
Some Palestinians were expelled during the Mandatory Palestine civil war which was started by the Palestinians. But most of them were expelled after the 1948 war which was started hy the Arabs and which the Palestinians took part in.
You real what you sow.

It was a fight between the natives and foreign settlers.

Who would call that a "civil war?" Who coined that term?

 

[Indofred]

Coyote, et al,

Yes and NO...

(COMMENT)

Legitimate targeting is about a Rule of War (Customary IHL). So, yes --- if you consider it a "State of War," then it is "legit."

If, it is an "Occupation" then Article 68 of the GCIV applies. And it is (altogether) improper and punishable.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not a question about whether Israel is occupying Palestine or not.

Israel, first and foremost, was a colonial project and continues to be one today. Its stated goal for a hundred years is to replace the native population with foreign settlers.

It uses occupation and a constant "state of war" to accomplish its goal. Israel has had to violate a whole string of international laws to pursue its goal.

Israel was not a colonial project. That's Palestinian propaganda from your immense propaganda stash.

Sure, there were many right wing Zionist Jews who wanted to have all of mandatory Palestine, but the stated goal of Israel was to have a refuge for the Jewish people.

Indeed, and without the natives. That is why they were removed and are not allowed back.

Thats another lie.
Some Palestinians were expelled during the Mandatory Palestine civil war which was started by the Palestinians. But most of them were expelled after the 1948 war which was started hy the Arabs and which the Palestinians took part in.
You real what you sow.

It was a fight between the natives and foreign settlers.

Who would call that a "civil war?" Who coined that term?

People who want to hide the truth?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Call it what you want.

[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 10126373, member: 21837"
It was a fight between the natives and foreign settlers.

Who would call that a "civil war?" Who coined that term?[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

It was a conflict between the citizens of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.

Natives: Or - former enemy population.
Foreign Settlers: Or - Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country (NOT former enemy population).

Most Respectfully,
R