Friday, May 2, 2008

Why Does it Matter Who Killed Them?

The IDF has published video footage from an unmanned aerial vehicle which they say proves that the Palestinian family killed last week were hit by the blast from the explosives being carried by Palestinian fighters, not by Israeli ordnance. (I wrote about this here).

Why does it matter? Even according to the Israeli version, IDF forces were shooting in the area; if you shoot deadly weapons in a place that has lots of innocent civilians in it, sometimes you'll kill them. It is your decision to shoot there in the first place that means you bear responsibility for the outcome, no matter what the minutiae of the technicalities are, doesn't it? For the dead and their families it certainly doesn't matter: they're dead. Had the Israelis not been shooting into their front yard, they'd still be alive.

Well, no.

First, note that it took most of the week for the IDF to come up with the full results of their investigation. Conspiracy theorists will read this to prove that the Israelis cooked the evidence. The rest of us ought to note that apparently someone in the IDF thinks the real facts are important, and wanted carefully to evaluate the evidence to sift them out.

Beyond that however, what we have here is an army doing its best to limit collateral damage. The choice to defend its citizens means it must hit their attackers, and the attackers chose to operate where their own civilians are. So the IDF has no choice but to operate where Palestinian civilians are, since that's where Palestinian fighters intent on killing Israeli civilians are. The IDF, however, unlike their enemy, is intent on not killing the Palestinian civilians, and as the article linked here shows, they use all sorts of methods to achieve this. When the methods fail, they then meticulously try to piece together what went wrong. Over time, these meticulous attempts to follow the evidence will continue to narrow down what the Americans call collateral damage, but the Israelis, even their Prime Minister, call tragic deaths.

This is the way one wages a moral war.


von Oskopia Kaleid said...

Hello Yaakov
In my opinion it is no question that it matters. Because it shows, that crying out, that the family "sitting at breakfast" was killed by a Israelian fire, in the moment of publishing the event, was a lie. It is not only the results of investigation of IDF, there are some other points, why I supposed before, that the family were possibly killed by "friendly" fire.
First, knowing that lying is possible. We know, that Palestinian terrorists like to start attacks in the midth of civil persons, not so far as protection. One main goal is propaganda (my opinion). And: I found over some blogs: There is no foto of the house. And one (arabian) person says, death comes by friendly explosion to the family.

What is the problem? Let me provoke: You want to belong to the good?

Anonymous said...


There's another lesson, also.

Israel has learned that to respond immediately, while the media is in a frenzy, means they are not heard at all.

But by waiting ... Gee ... It's like a book. The opening page doesn't contain the last line!

Like a play! The stage is set. But if you got to Act 3, without seeing the whole thing ... You'd learn that WORDS command attention when they are done in an appropriate order.

Right in the beginning, the IDF knew that the missile used contained very little explosive material.

You see this at CAR SWARMS, as well. Car's destroyed. But everyone around just jumps on the wreckage. You can't do that if the missile, itself, blew up a whole street, or an entire building.

So the IDF, knowing that from here on out, wars are going to be fought among civilians; have found ways to counter what the enemy was hoping to achieve.

See, in Europe, Jews didn't fight back! The arabs lust for such stuff, now. But the IDF does fight back! And, at a disadvantage, because the media refuses to explain to their own audience what is going on. (So, they're losing business. And, respect.)

While the media goes about their "Dan Rather" approach. Dan Rather went down the tubes. And, took, pretty much, CBS' reputation with him.

Blogs meanwhile are places that see a lot of traffic. People find ways to connect to amateurs.

So, not only has the IDF learned to deal with tactics; so, too, have a bunch of people who enjoy being bloggers.

You know, even arabs have dishes. They have this out in the desert. Where there are no roads. And, only a happenstance delivery of electricity.

Plus, wars have moved into many of their backyards. And, their equipment to fight this is the media and their lies? They'd be better off using fire hoses.

While, yes. As this story emerged; the IDF took deliberate time. They let the arabs run their BS. And, then? Like in High Noon. Gary Cooper didn't talk many words. But the sounds of his boots, approaching, told ya "the good guy was here." (Ah. When Hollywood knew how to make films.)

Today? It's a skill the IDF has adapted.

And, now you know those deaths to the mom and her kids, didn't even occur at her kitchen table. Stupid woman dragged her kids outside! Just as the terrorist was "sneaking" into her back yard. And, stood close to the garden gate.

What flew? A much bigger supply of explosives this guy was carrying on his back!

You still need a moral lesson, here? What was she doing outside? The terrorist wasn't the Fuller Brush Man, ya know.

von Oskopia Kaleid said...

"And, their equipment to fight this is the media and their lies? They'd be better off using fire hoses."
Not the only one. But yes.

Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf said...

As the video clearly shows, the militants were walking down the street, not firing at anyone, and from their attitude it's evident that they were away from the battle front, which is confirmed by the Israeli statement that they were about 400 m (that's 1,300 ft) away from the soldiers. And all of this took place in Beit Hanoun, "evacuated" Gaza -- what were Israeli soldiers doing there?

One can make a case for Israel destroying a missile-launch site and killing civilians in the process. This was not, however, the case. According to the report, Palestinian militants had been fighting the Israeli army, not killing civilians.

Of course no one's saying that the IDF targetted the house on purpose. But this doesn't particularly strike me as an incident in which the IDF did all it could to avoid civilian casualties.

Finally, why is it a conspiracy theory to believe that Israel cooked up the evidence? Do I need to recall some of the most notorious instances of Israel being caught lying?

Anonymous said...


From the evidence, the IDF fires missiles with a low explosive's yeild because, when hitting targets that move around urban areas, you don't want to create collateral damage.

Here, Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf writes that "militants were walking down the street." Sure. Not dancing. Not racing. Not running. And, not crawling on their bellies.

What creates the secondary explosions comes from the backpack. And, as long as arabs think it's okay for "people walking down their streets" to be carrying lots of explosives on them. Don't act surprised when this blows up, killing people.

You want a headline? Call it a "work accident."

You could also call it "a pattern." Where mosques and hospitals get used as headquarters and storage dumps for munitions.

Now how will this play out over time?

My guess? Like counterfeit money.

And, I've said it before. The german propaganda machinery was even better than the current crap. yet, starting in 1942 hitler's army began to lose big. While the propaganda grew louder. Still, when General Patton began marching across the Rhine, the Americans could find no nazis. Where'd they go? How much time was needed for those german bastards to figure out the eastern front and the western front were really collapsing?

And, when hitler went into his bunker, he was about as popular as Saddam in his hole.

Not that you'll read about this in outlets that have already lost their reputations.

Perhapsy you don't ask, but the people who "set the type." Or input their laptops with these cockamamie stories and their demands; do they feel anything? Or are they sure "they're getting away with it" because nothing is exploding in their cubicles? Personally, I really don't care.

I think liars breed contempt. And, it's the stupidest way to prove you're winning.

Not that Grand Theft Auto ain't a great computer game! But keep in mind: GAME.

Then think how reality differs.

von Oskopia Kaleid said...

Yussuf, just for clearifying:
Your point is, that the family could not been killed by explosive power of the mititants backbacks, because they were walking down the street?
Or is it, the Israelian army should not having killed the militants, because they were only walking down the street? (But the family was killed by explosion of the backpacks)?

400m are not much.

For the case we are speaking about, it is not of interest, what the Israeli are doing in Beit Hanun. We dicsuss, whether the family was killed by Israelian or Palestinian explosive power. In both scenarios not intentionally.

And I and I suppose Carol discuss about lies as a method.

von Oskopia Kaleid said...

My guess? Like counterfeit money.
I think liars breed contempt.

What is healthy instead? Only not telling lies or being honest?

Who takes the medicine? You and me - or shall we force other to take it?

I have experienced that truth has a subversiv psychological power. Just speaking about the intrapersonal aspect.

I am not sure about the interpersonell effect in face2face world. I can not seperate it from so much other aspects.

Writing is something else. Why should we trust each other? If there is not any telepathy or Reiki or anything spirituell we just have letters.

And politics and war is yet another realm.

Anonymous said...


Winston Churchill dealt with this, and his words (which I don't remember), were perfect.

The gist of what he said, though, is that MALICE always attacks truth. So, it should be expected.

Truth however shines through.

How many years, by the way, did Hitler get to do his bullshit?

Did you know Winston Churchill was OUT OF POWER IN ENGLAND, when Hitler took over in germany. Well, in 1929, Churchill was already out of Parliament.

This gave him time to travel. And, he spent about a year, I think, visiting the USA. In October 1929, the Great Depression hit. And, leave it to Churchill to comment with something memorable. He said, "in any other country, the leadership would collapse. However, the American system, which allows greed to florish, has in place rules that make clean up of these big messes, possible. Sure, individuals get hurt. But the government keeps on going."

Again, I can only paraphrase.

But I am impressed that Churchill knew what hitler was up to, very quickly. And, yet? He remained unelected, back into Parliament.

WHen Churchill (finally returned to England's leadership), said "WE WILL FIGHT ON THE BEACHES ... WE WILL FIGHT ... BLOOD, SWEAT & TEARS ... He finally got heard.

So, when Churchill wrote, he was actually writing for the ages. And, it was his observation ... as I said ... that says TRUTH IS ALWAYS ATTACKED.

It has fortitude. It will outlast the stinkers. Even hitler was left to hide in a bunker. He also took germany down the sewer.

Now the enemies are arabs. Rich ones. Who've co-opted the entire muslim religion, by paying for the most fundamental approach to "universal islam." There's lots of madness out there.

WHile just like Israel had to cope with recovery, following the Holocaust; and the victims who arrived with nothing. The real miracle wasn't that the arabs kept hating the Jews; but that look at what the Jews BUILT! Look at the country. Look at the evidence.

As to wars; WW2 is gonna be the last one fought by nations, on battlefields containing civilians. Up ahead? Probably "less boots on the ground." And, more efficient killing. Which is what armies do! And, now? Appropriate applied missile technology, that can knock out a car on a crowded street ... Produces the advantages that makes fighting, while your population is safe at home, functioning ... A thing to notice. It's the way of the future for the USA, too.

As to the media? Fuhgetaboutit. Ahead? The professional stock will be born at blogs. Where now you have the amateurs. And, isn't it wonderful!

So far, you can ascertain bullshit from opinions. Just like you can on Amazon. When you think you might be interested in a book. So you bother to read the comments section.

Ah. It also produces variety.

(Oh, this doesn't mean that there won't be atomic bombs going off. But big cities, before 3rd world country places?

In today's world just about anybody can own a DISH. And, the structure of foreign tongues has changed. Go almost anywhere, and you'll catch people speaking English.

Tops, there are 40 languages in use throughout the world. Almost anywhere, the stuff you read can be translated into the local diction.

This particular story?

Well, if you're here, you're interested enough to see what othesr have to say about it.

And, the IDF really knows its way around hostile territories. Including how to deal with the media and the press. Even how to look good on TV. (Though they say the HDTV stuff makes too many old people look more wrinkled than any makeup artist can hide.) So? Bad for Hillary.

For Olmert? Didn't take him long to chuck the comb over.

As to the "local story" about Olmert; it comes at a time that Bush was hot to show Israel agreeing to the Riyadh plan. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

Why does so much effort go into things that ain't gonna happen? You're asking me? I have no idea.

von Oskopia Kaleid said...

I do know very less about Winston Churchill. So I can not say, whether he did not lie in politics. If I would have to guess I choosed he had. But you write about truth and I about lies. I have no clear opinion, the direction is: Truth is an absolutum. So only for this reason I am suspicious about the truth. But this absolute view of truth is old. Not wrong, but not all we know about it nowadays. There is nothing like truth in the world. Truth is only between humans. Truth can only be aimed for in communication.
You are outraged about lies. I am too. But as I wrote last post, there are several centers of lie-ing. You can lie or do it not. Others can lie or do not. But lie-ing is not a crime. I have not heard that it is a crime in any country - but I know, in Germany it is not.
In my opinion politics has other rules then the one of personal contact. There it is not the question, whether lie-ing should be allowed or whether it is good. Lies in politics are a fact. A country would not make a war, because another government had told lies.


I think it is critical saying a sentence as: "Now the enemies are arabs. Rich ones". Fortunatelly we already have native german islamic terrorists. So it is proven that it is not a problem of belonging to an ethnic group. Perhabs it will be now easier to discuss the problems of offensive fundamentalistic religion even if most of their believer belong to other ethnies.


I still believe that public opinion is important. I am not the only one, dictatorship censor the internet and democracies protest against this. The media make public opinion as blogs do. But may be, this is because I do no believe in truth :-) .

Thank you for this discussion. I was very uncomfortable with something about my interest the last days. I have cleared my opinion now. I am now sure again, how dangerous it is, to mix politics and feelings. I now think, that I have to see the Isrealian-Palestinian conflict as a problem of other countries. And that I should not merge it with raising islamic fundamentalism in Germany and neighbour countries.