For British who condemn Israeli counter-terrorism methods... [Archive]

View Full Version : For British who condemn Israeli counter-terrorism methods...

StarvingStudent47

10-26-2003, 02:55 AM

I'd like to make a comparison between what you guys did with the IRA (they were a bunch of murdering thugs, for sure) and what Israel is doing with Hamas. Because it seems to me that a double-standard is being used pretty commonly around here. You guys are quick to point out that it was negotiation that finally brought the violence to a halt in 2000 (the "Belfast Accords," I think?), but you often skip over the 100 years it took to get there. I'd like to start a debate--polite, I hope--over whether Israel is actually on the very same road, albeit not as far along.

* Israel has deployed military units in civilian areas to counter terrorist and separatist uprisings; so did Britain. The Easter Rising is the most prominent, but certainly not the only, example.

* Partial home rule was granted to the Irish as early as the 1920s, which did NOT stop the violence. See the 1990s under Yassir Arafat.

* Israel does targeted killings of terrorist leaders; so did Britain. The SAS even capped some IRA guys in Gibraltar, which I'm sure violates some international law or another. Not that I care, mind you.

* For decades (but especially in the 1960s and 1970s), the IRA threatened, tortured, and killed Irish who sought peaceful coexistence. They called them "collaborators" and made public examples of them. Arafat has a similar record. The IRA was an enemy to the Irish people, yet the Irish still supported them overwhelmingly; Hamas and pals are enemies to the Palestinian people, yet the Palestinians still support them overwhelmingly.

* People from overseas funded the terrorist b------s because they were "poor and fighting for their freedom by the only means they had." In the case of the IRA, it was largely the USA--and as an American and a former Bostonian I am ashamed of this and will not try and defend it. For Hamas, it has been largely Europe and the Muslim world, using the very same arguments that misguided Bostonians used to justify supporting the IRA. The families of those who died at the hands of Irish "freedom fighters" are now giving verbal and monetary support to Palestinian "freedom fighters." Ironic and sad.

* Israel sometimes detains terrorists without trial; so did Britain, by the hundreds (especially during the 1960s and 1970s). Both countries have been accused of using torture to try and obtain more info about the terrorist network and upcoming attacks that could be foiled.

* Israel has been widely condemned for using rubber bullets on protesters. On Bloody Sunday of 1972, the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment didn't use rubber bullets in Londonderry. And this is hardly the only time this happened in Northern Ireland.

* Hamas has offered dozens of cease-fires, which it has used to re-arm and regroup. The IRA did the same thing for decade upon decade, and their non-cooperation in the past week makes me worry that even the Belfast Accords were a ruse.

* Northern Irish Protestants had violent militias and terrorists of their own (Orangemen militias, and the 'Shankill Butchers'). These groups, in fact, attacked Irish Catholics FAR FAR MORE than Kach and pals have ever attacked Arabs.

- - - - - - - - - - -

What am I getting at here? The Belfast Accords didn't just pop out of nowhere. Britain didn't just lay down its arms, and the IRA walked to the negotiating table and agreed to disarm. It took 80 years of terrorism, counter-terrorism, military occupation, etc in order to twist the arm of the IRA into full cooperation. So when you condemn Israel for its targeted killings of terrorists; when you blame Israel for Arafat walking away from negotiations again and again; when you say that all violence would end if Israel just accepted all the demands of the terrorists; when you say "Israel is just using collective punishment"...

...PLEASE REMEMBER YOUR OWN HISTORY. Victory over terrorism does not happen over night, and it does not come without a harsh price.

ShotOver

10-26-2003, 03:21 AM

StarvingStudent47

10-26-2003, 03:34 AM

Got some point there mate, but this could get ugly fast.

But the british soldiers did not blow up hundreds of Irish houses just incase they had terrorists in them.
I'm not putting down the Israeli information agencies... i think Mossad is awesome, but you could look into the buildings, maybe search them alot before you blow them up and make civilians homeless.

Entire city blocks were levelled during the Easter Rising. This reminds me of another parallel: "Intifada" translates as "Rising," as in "Easter Intifada" ;)

And just to clarify--house demolition is more about ****y traps in houses than terrorists hiding in basements. To my knowledge, the IRA was never as fond as ****y-trapping residential buildings like Hamas likes to do. That's what makes searching houses in Gaza so darned dangerous.

I will concede, though, that this is one facet where there is not an exact parallel, either in the methods of the terrorists or the resulting counter-terror techniques.

ShotOver

10-26-2003, 03:36 AM

Oh yer, silly me :oops:

Now i have no point, carry on.

Micke

10-26-2003, 03:38 AM

haha. I love the jew's counter terror tactics, its basically:
Step 1: Get a few bulldozers...the big kind.
Step 2: Go to some Palestinian area.
Step 3: Run over every single house.
Step 4: Perm your sideburns.
Step 5: Watch it get glorified on TV.
Step 6: Argue about it on militaryphotos.net.

Thats it. No pussy planning or watching out for innocent people. Pah!

Argyll

10-26-2003, 05:19 AM

there's several things that you completely failed to mention,in your comparisons,which is very good btw,and I do support 90% of the Israeli methods

1.The British Army in NI were governed by extremely strict ROE,known as the "yellow card".........2 TODs there I know what I'm talking about!!
Israel appears to have no ROE
2.We all knew who the main players were,but under the ROE,we could not touch them,they walked freely among the populice,almost with impunity
Unlike Israeli targetting Hamas personnel
3.Under the same ROE we could not engage in firefights unless there was an immediate threat to You,your fellow soldier or members of the civilian population,and then and only after 3 verbal warnings were given!!
4.Under no circumstances were we allowed to engage in firefights where the PIRA had engaged us from,and this was virtually every time down in "Bandit Country".......that is we had to take incoming,but because they were in the South ,we were NOT allowed to return fire(most Local Commanders observed this rule,as the political implications and punishment were severe!!)
5.The current conflict,as we know it stated in 1969,where the Catholic minority in the North had asked for protection from the Protestants,and it was then that a full scale Army deployment to the Province was carried out,and there were NEVER any Buildings bulldozed because they harboured families of terrorists ,or terrorists themselves.
Infact many families knew very little about thier kins involvement in the "cause",and were ignorant of the parts their Fathers,Sons,and Husbands played.
During the 70's We had a thing called internment,that meant you could arrest anybody with suspicious backgrounds,and many were,but the political backlash from the ECHR,which we sadly seem to allow us to dictate the way we conducted ourselves,in this conflict.
Israel cares not about what the UNCHR or the ECHR.or Amnesty Intl say,they do it regardless( woot !!)

I could go on,and I'm sure others may continue,but the difference between Britain and Israel,is that Israel doesn't listen to the outside world,and deals with this their way,whereas Britain was abiding by almost every stupid rule in the book,and they did bow to pressure from people such as the UNCHR and the ECHR and Amnesty Intl

You've obviously take some time to do your research,which is commendable,but there are not many comparisons at all.At the end of the day,if the British Army was allowed to do it's job in the same way the IDF does theirs,then NI would have been resolved very quickly,most squaddies ,and ex squaddies like myself,would reckon that less than 3 years would have seen the PIRA finished!!

Saranof

10-26-2003, 05:39 AM

Saranof

10-26-2003, 05:40 AM

Argyll, let me just get oe thing straight. Do you support the israeli methods, or in any way defend them?

Argyll

10-26-2003, 05:44 AM

I support 90% of the methods,not the Bulldozing of houses!!!

UoUo

10-26-2003, 05:47 AM

BULDOZE ? you saying this like we just blow up any house that we don't like.

Argyll

10-26-2003, 05:53 AM

Thats crap Uo Uo,where does it imply that?

Mr Gently Benevolent

10-26-2003, 05:55 AM

StarvingStudent47 I can certainly see political coparisons between the two conflicts but the military responses of both Britain and Israel cnnot be compared. British troops under almost constant sniper attack did not use tank fire on offending buildings and treelines, massive truck/car bombs were not answered by early morning raids by helicopter gunships.
The IRA/INLA bombed,RPGed and shot their way round Britain and still we did reply in kind but in the end peace was won, athough its early days yet I think a return the bad old days will be unlikely. What should be remembered is that the province of Northen Ireland is composed of mostly protestants a large proportion of the catholics in the North fled the Republic in the 50s and 60s due to the poor economic condition Eire was in.
As for bias well my family is composed of Scots, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants.

UoUo

10-26-2003, 06:03 AM

Argyll

10-26-2003, 06:13 AM

Don't wriggle out of this Uo Uo :lol:

I served 2 TODs in NI,so I have that experince.

Mr Gently Benevolent

10-26-2003, 06:25 AM

Sorry for the typo's on my last post folks I am a little hungover this morning but things are getting better I may be able to eat solids soon.

Mortimer

10-26-2003, 06:43 AM

If anything the Israelis should copy what the Brits did, considering, it has worked out 'fairly' well.

Argyll

10-26-2003, 06:53 AM

Sabre

10-26-2003, 06:53 AM

* Israel has deployed military units in civilian areas to counter terrorist and separatist uprisings; so did Britain. The Easter Rising is the most prominent, but certainly not the only, example.

* Partial home rule was granted to the Irish as early as the 1920s, which did NOT stop the violence. See the 1990s under Yassir Arafat.

* Israel does targeted killings of terrorist leaders; so did Britain. The SAS even capped some IRA guys in Gibraltar, which I'm sure violates some international law or another. Not that I care, mind you.

* For decades (but especially in the 1960s and 1970s), the IRA threatened, tortured, and killed Irish who sought peaceful coexistence. They called them "collaborators" and made public examples of them. Arafat has a similar record. The IRA was an enemy to the Irish people, yet the Irish still supported them overwhelmingly; Hamas and pals are enemies to the Palestinian people, yet the Palestinians still support them overwhelmingly.

* People from overseas funded the terrorist b------s because they were "poor and fighting for their freedom by the only means they had." In the case of the IRA, it was largely the USA--and as an American and a former Bostonian I am ashamed of this and will not try and defend it. For Hamas, it has been largely Europe and the Muslim world, using the very same arguments that misguided Bostonians used to justify supporting the IRA. The families of those who died at the hands of Irish "freedom fighters" are now giving verbal and monetary support to Palestinian "freedom fighters." Ironic and sad.

* Israel sometimes detains terrorists without trial; so did Britain, by the hundreds (especially during the 1960s and 1970s). Both countries have been accused of using torture to try and obtain more info about the terrorist network and upcoming attacks that could be foiled.

* Israel has been widely condemned for using rubber bullets on protesters. On Bloody Sunday of 1972, the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment didn't use rubber bullets in Londonderry. And this is hardly the only time this happened in Northern Ireland.

* Hamas has offered dozens of cease-fires, which it has used to re-arm and regroup. The IRA did the same thing for decade upon decade, and their non-cooperation in the past week makes me worry that even the Belfast Accords were a ruse.

* Northern Irish Protestants had violent militias and terrorists of their own (Orangemen militias, and the 'Shankill Butchers'). These groups, in fact, attacked Irish Catholics FAR FAR MORE than Kach and pals have ever attacked Arabs.

OK, I know I always say how the British Army has handled things better in NI than the IDF in their AO (probably get gyp if i say palistine! ;) )

Well, the two situations are not the same. I see no need to go back to the 1916-era of irish troubles. We were dealing then with the fallout from invading them 300 years previously. Since then, Eire has become separate and there was no trouble until '69. The fact is that the majority of people in the UK and Eire get on. Terrorists like the IRA and UVF were not seen by many as a force for good. Likewise, the security forces are not seen as 'the enemy'.

The difference is that NI was never really about religion. It was about Republicanism and Loyalism, the two happened to be associated with the catholic and protestant communities.

In Israel, to put it simply, you guys hate eachother! That never existed on such a large scale in NI. Sure, tempers rose and violence escalated in response to a bombing/shooting etc, but nothing like in Israel.

In response to your statements ( I have numbered them to make it easier):

1-In 1916, the rising was very complex but ultimately was for independance, we crushed it (with xs force as there was a war on and because our generals then were, well Field-Marshall Haigue) we granted them partial independance, so the violence continued for full independance to be won.

2-Actually, the ROE (as Argyl has said) eliminated our ability to oportunistically target known leaders. They 'walked free' so to speak.
BTW, we 'own' Gibralter, the only issues were ROE. Still a contentious incident today.

3-There was not 'overwhelming support', only enough to keep them going. (hint, hint, Irish-American backers, hint) Most people rejected them for the exact reasons you cite, beatings etc.

4-Fair point. Money from the US, arms from Eastern Europe. Evidence for IRA victims funding palistinian terrorists please?

5-Yeah, non-violent detainment of terrorists. Mind you, I have heard some really ghastly stories of people detained in Lebannon by the IDF/Israeli intelligence. (citing torture)

6-Hmmm, other incidents please? Bloody Sunday had 30 years of inquiries into it, there was no further incident like it.

7 & 8- Both of these go together. Here's the difference between NI and Israel. The security forces were almost 'in between' loyalist and republican 'sectarian' violence. Where as the IDF is more like the UVF in terms of bias. (Note, the UVF and other loyalist terrorists decended from the 1916 'Ulster Defence Force', as did some UK Irish regiments) An IRA cease-fire would be met by a loyalist refusal, splinter groups 'acting independantly' would start violence, both sides would pull out, the cycle repeats. They knew how to work it so they looked like they wanted peace but were 'forced' into retaliation.

There are BIG differences. Please note them.

Chris1

10-26-2003, 08:22 AM

Sabre has addressed your 'points'
I ain't.
When you can be bothered to do a google search for "Good Friday Agreement" and get the date of the cease-fire and negotiations even close, then I might.

Saranof

10-26-2003, 11:16 AM

I support 90% of the methods,not the Bulldozing of houses!!!

You mean blowing up houses, shooting kids, making terror worse...

UoUo

10-26-2003, 11:57 AM

I support 90% of the methods,not the Bulldozing of houses!!!

You mean blowing up houses, shooting kids, making terror worse...

FFS you people are crazy...

Correct

_ blowing up terorists houses_

But for you them A "freedom fighter" ha ?

They are fredoom fighter like bin ladean is a freedom fighter.

IDFM203

10-26-2003, 01:09 PM

You can say what you want...IDF is simply the most human army in the world. more then USA more then Uk.

You all throwing things in the air...if you were serving for 1 day in the IDF you will get the all pic. my brother tell me exactly what is going on here.

have a nice day evreybody.

:hug:I don’t really plan to join in this debate for I don’t really think this is a good comparison to make. There are many differences between how both enemies have fought in these perspective conflicts.

I also don’t know whole lot about the British/ira conflict and most importantly I wasnt there so my comments will be going up against people that were there.

All I want to say here is to confirm what UoUo has said.

I fought two years in this war (I left the military a little over a year ago) and I cant begin to tell you how many times we were shot at and didnt respond or how many times we saw gunman but they were next to a women and didn’t take action.

we had so many rules that we adhered to which frankly seemed so out of touch with the constant battle reality that we were facing that I strongly support what UoUo has just said.

We never purposely targeted civilians, never!!

Shalom.:D

StarvingStudent47

10-26-2003, 01:17 PM

there's several things that you completely failed to mention,in your comparisons,which is very good btw,and I do support 90% of the Israeli methods

1.The British Army in NI were governed by extremely strict ROE,known as the "yellow card".........2 TODs there I know what I'm talking about!!
Israel appears to have no ROE
2.We all knew who the main players were,but under the ROE,we could not touch them,they walked freely among the populice,almost with impunity
Unlike Israeli targetting Hamas personnel
3.Under the same ROE we could not engage in firefights unless there was an immediate threat to You,your fellow soldier or members of the civilian population,and then and only after 3 verbal warnings were given!!
4.Under no circumstances were we allowed to engage in firefights where the PIRA had engaged us from,and this was virtually every time down in "Bandit Country".......that is we had to take incoming,but because they were in the South ,we were NOT allowed to return fire(most Local Commanders observed this rule,as the political implications and punishment were severe!!)

If you guys followed your ROE precisely, waited until you were under attack, gave three verbal warnings, then returned fire, do you think the Boston Globe mentioned that? Guess what: it didn't. Many American news sources would only talk about your guys' response, without giving the context. Many Americans believe that the British forces just sprayed bullets into crowds without provocation. Frustrating, isn't it?

The VERY SAME THING happens with BBC and ******* reports about Israel. They will say "The IDF fired into a crowd of Palestinians, killing two and injuring five," when even left-wing sources from the US and Israel (like the New York Times and Ha'aretz) are saying "IDF forces came under RPG and small arms fire from a mob with civilians mixed in. They returned fire, killing two gunmen and injuring a third but tragically injuring four civilians, including a seventeen-year-old boy." See the difference? See how "creative" media editing can make it seem like ROE didn't exist when it did?

I am not defending those "violent killers who don't follow any ROE" that you read about in *******. To the contrary, I am saying that the BBC and ******* tremendously distort the situation. There's a difference.

StarvingStudent47

10-26-2003, 01:26 PM

5-Yeah, non-violent detainment of terrorists. Mind you, I have heard some really ghastly stories of people detained in Lebannon by the IDF/Israeli intelligence. (citing torture)
Do you have any idea of how many (second-hand) reports of torture I heard when I was living in an Irish neighborhood of Boston? "Non-violent detainment" is what your press says. I can't positively confirm the reports I heard in Boston; but then again, we can't positively confirm the reports about Lebanon either.

There are BIG differences. Please note them.
I wasn't saying the two sitautions were carbon-copies. No two situations in human history ever are. Some things in Israel are obviously different--Catholics don't believe that suicide bombing takes them to heaven, for example. I just wanted to bring up some thought-provoking similarities.

StarvingStudent47

10-26-2003, 01:49 PM

One other worthwhile parallel: the Security Fence. Many British have said "building walls doesn't help anything," despite the fact that tall walls built between Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods in Northern Ireland have saved countless lives from sniper attacks.

Mr Gently Benevolent

10-26-2003, 02:00 PM

IDFM203

10-26-2003, 02:14 PM

StarvingStudent47 I also would like to provide some thought provoking information taken from www.isayeret.com on the use of suppressed Ruger .22s on protestors. They use it to shoot at the legs of protestors, the M16 was thought to be too powerful and baton rounds ineffective, now having shot for many years and being very familiar with .22 gunshot wounds on animals I would say this is one of the most inhuman riot control methods I have heard of.

Isayeret is no official source and besides I don’t know where they got that from or where in isayeret it says that.

I was in the military and we never used that.

For the most part we used tear gas and then rubber bullets and then live fire when we were being shot at from the crowd, but still that return fire was cautious and was targeted directly to where the fire was coming from.

Argyll

10-26-2003, 02:27 PM

Mr Gently Benevolent

10-26-2003, 02:33 PM

idfm203 this one is for you.

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/sws/ruger/ruger.htm

IDFM203

10-26-2003, 02:40 PM

idfm203 this one is for you.

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/sws/ruger/ruger.htmfist of all most of it was used in the last intifada, for now Israel doesn’t use it much.

seconly from the link.

"In 1987, the Intifada - the Palestinian uprising against the Israeli regime in the Occupied Territories - broke out, and involved mass violent clashes between Israeli security forces and Palestinians protestors. As a result, the Israeli security forces needed a weapon with a more potent firepower then the standard riot control metal covered rubber round, but at the same time less lethal then the standard issue 5.56 mm round of the M16/Galil assault rifles. So the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) searched for a 0.22 caliber accurate rifle that will be used to take out the key protest leaders by shooting them in the legs."

so its intention was less letahality and not more...........

secondly it realised its mistake and now doesn’t use it much!!!!
Again from the site.

“In the recent Israeli-Palestinian clashes began in 2000, the Ruger resumes it's original role as a less lethal riot control weapon. However, it's usage in this role was rather controversial this time. After several incidents involving the death of Palestinians by the Ruger fire, the IDF conducted a field experiment in the Ruger at the IDF Sniper School in Mitkan Adam under the supervision of the IDF Judge Advocate General (JAG). The test showed that the Ruger was more lethal then thought especially in upper body injuries. Also, since it's suppressed and was considered less lethal by the troops, the soldiers were much more likely to use the Ruger loosely then intended.
As a result of this test, the JAG reclassified the Ruger as a lethal weapon. As a lethal weapon, the usage of the Ruger in riot control is much more limited today. In the IDF Center Command it was completely prohibited to use and the IDF South Command it's deployment was cut down dramatically.

I will just add that in the rare cases that it is used it is not for riot control but for shooter that are shooting at us.

Shalom. :D

StarvingStudent47

10-26-2003, 02:46 PM

SS said

If you guys followed your ROE precisely, waited until you were under attack, gave three verbal warnings, then returned fire, do you think the Boston Globe mentioned that? Guess what: it didn't. Many American news sources would only talk about your guys' response, without giving the context. Many Americans believe that the British forces just sprayed bullets into crowds without provocation. Frustrating, isn't it?

Since when the hell has the Boston Globe become a British paper?This has nothing to do with an Irish Nationalist backed paper!!
Which incident are you refering too,that is about the most absurd statement I've heard yet!!

And I'll also tell you this that the press hardly reported anything in NI,as it wasn't considered that newsworthy,there were dozens of shootings daily that went unreported,but I hate to tell you this but the Boston Globe is about as Bias and sympathetic to the IRA as to what the BBC are to the Iraqis and Palestinians!!

Also a soldier who opens fire and kill,is automatically charged with murder,untill the investigation is carried out,and then the circumstances of the reasons are investigated,and if the ROE's were not followed this guy is in serious ****,and there are plent of squaddies doing time for not following the ROE,does you Boston Globe report that?

Dude you completely missed my point. Your second paragraph is PRECISELY what I was trying to say!!! Of course the Boston Globe is NOT a British paper, just like the BBC is NOT an Israeli paper. I cited the Boston Globe as an example of an international newspaper that is UNFAIR to British counter-terror agents and MISCHARACTERIZES what you guys were doing. Just as I feel that the British media is unfair and mischaracterizes Israeli counter-terrorism.

The only reason I mentioned this was because of your statement that the IDF doesn't follow any ROE, which sounded to me like something straight out of *******. I was operating under the assumption that, as a British citizen, you largely get your Middle East news from sources like ******* and the BBC. Which is why I mentioned this. Israeli vets like IDFm203 will declare that these accusations from the British media are just plain not true. The IDF DOES follow strict ROE, but the British media pretends they don't. Just like British counter-terror agents DID follow strict ROE but Irish-Republican-sypathetic news agencies in the USA pretended they didn't.

Did that clear up what I was trying to say? You read my post as very confrontational when it wasn't. It was not at all an attack on the strict discipline of British troops in Northern Ireland. It was an attack on the media.

Argyll

10-26-2003, 03:00 PM

:hug: no problems
Nah I get most of my info re Israel from the net,and the other networks such as CNN,NBC,I hardly watch the BBC unless it's got violence and nudity!!preferably in the same schedule!! :lol:

Just as an fterthought it's not just the British media that raises the issues of the Israeli ROE,there are other Western Countries too,and even some US media outlets.

Unless you're at the sharp end of the stick,then nobody outside of the military fully understand anything about the ROE!!

But the bottom line is no matter where you are in the world,blaming the media for everything is also opening yourself up to accustaion and insinuations,during WW" the media was one of the most powerfull tools in the arsenal,and both sides used it for propaganda,and also for passing coded info to Operatives on the ground,then it was a great thing
Then came Korea,and the slant of the media started to change,then Vietnam,where the media played it's infamous role in its reporting of all the bad **** that went down,and started bringing it into the viewers homes.
Now it seems the done thing to have online battles,and reporting as it actually happens!!.
This is all due to the 21st centuary warfare and how it's all suppposed to be hi tec,and the viwers all want to see this as it happens.
Inmy view the media need to be as far from Ops as possible,soldiers don't need prying leses and mics in their faces in the heat of the battle!!

California Joe

10-26-2003, 03:07 PM

I believe there are more full blooded Irish in NYC and Boston than there are in Ireland at this point. Israel has been around since after WWII as a nation, the English and Irish have been in a nearly constant state of animosity since before the Battle of the Boyne. In many ways the British govenment in years past treated the Irish the way the US did the Native Americans. By the way, that's not meant to be a slam at anyone here. Certainly can't control what happened in the past. My point was there's a serious amount of history that took place over hundreds of years to get to this point. Old grievances die hard on both sides.

Argyll

10-26-2003, 03:13 PM

Joe,
Ain't that the truth!!

IDFM203

10-26-2003, 03:15 PM

The only reason I mentioned this was because of your statement that the IDF doesn't follow any ROE, which sounded to me like something straight out of *******. I was operating under the assumption that, as a British citizen, you largely get your Middle East news from sources like ******* and the BBC. Which is why I mentioned this. Israeli vets like IDFm203 will declare that these accusations from the British media are just plain not true. The IDF DOES follow strict ROE, but the British media pretends they don't. . boy is that the truth. Amen there for putting it is concise words

I will just tell a personal story. In the summer of 2001, I was stationed in the ramallah area. Now besides getting shot at every night we on Fridays would be sent to “tzomet ayosh” intersection where after the hatful speeches in the mosques, Palestinians would pour out by the thousands in their hatful rage and try to march onto Israeli settlements. So we would be sent in a few jeeps in front of thousands to try to stop this and to try to disperse this crowd. Now I remember very clearly this one Friday where we stood there for a half hour being pelted non-stop with stones and in some instences molotov cocktailes. Then after they started to move closer on to (there are certain invisible red lines where if they cross we take certain actions as pertaining to the rules of these situations which we strongly adhered to) us so we started to throw shock grenades but yet they were still throwing stones (which can kill as well) and then we fired tear gas and still nothing changed so then we fired into the air but still nothing and then we fired rubber bullets but still nothing and then I will never forget what happened. All of a sudden non stopshooting started to come from somewhere in the side of crowd at us. So we then had no choice but to respond to that and to fire at the source of the fire. Now we did it directly and at no civilians.

Now I remember turning back to the base later and watching the bbc and I couldn’t believe what I saw. The reporter started his report by saying” Israeli troops fire at Palestinian crowd” totally ignoring the events and time frames and who was shooting at us first or even putting any factual perspective on that.

Shalom. :D

Argyll

10-26-2003, 03:23 PM

RealUltimatePower

10-26-2003, 03:37 PM

About the SAS killing IRAs in Gibralter, how is that against international law? Gibralter has been a british colony since 1713 so what we do there is our business.

California Joe

10-26-2003, 03:43 PM

Gibraltar has been too.

IDFM203

10-26-2003, 03:43 PM

No surprise there idf
its no wonder they were called the
Baghdad Broadcasting Channel during GW2

Some RN ships banned the BBC from their ships,including the channel being aired ,as they were so bias towards the "poor Iraqis"Yeah well to be frank when your up against those types of reporting (the bbc is not alone here) its no wonder that you (when i say you i mean you and alot others here)can make the false insinutaions that we don’t have rules or that we don’t follow any rules.

Shalom. :D

Argyll

10-26-2003, 04:09 PM

I'm not going to get drawn into this.............................but where does it say bulldozing homes in your ROE?

In NI every single soldier,whilst out on Operations MUST AT ALL TIMES carry the"Yellow Card"which is the ROE,failure to do so can result in a disciplinary against the offender.

Do Israeli soldiers carry similar cards?This is not to start an argument it's an observation!!
Does it clearly say that targets must be clearly identified,and pose an immediate threat to you,your colleagues or members of the public?
It's been 15 years since I last saw a Yellow card,but I'm pretty sure the contents have not hanged much since it's introduction!?

Now I'm not disputing your ROE,I'm just wondering if this is on an official document carried by all soldiers like the Brits,or it's something that gets discussed in Patrol briefings prior to their deployment,I know that before every patrol we undertook in NI there was always a reference to the "Yellow card",and that these all had to be produced by patrol members prior to leaving base,no card.............big trouble!! :bash:

martinexsquaddie

10-26-2003, 04:17 PM

The Gib shooting was a complete set up Maggie wanted the IRA dead so dead they were otherwise they would have been taken alive as in the case of the sniper team.
There was some very evil stuff going down in the province and not just by the paramilitarys. Some very iffy undercover ops that may or may not have crossed the line. Some very dubious shootings by the security forces as well and not all of them ended up with any sort of explanation.But theres a very nasty little conflict going on there personally came across the remains of some one kicked to death by a mob having been mistaken for a catholic.
Britsh forces have never used airstrikes to try and take key players out
(though we were not above trying to use loyalist gunmen to take them out sort of dumb rounds :( )
One of the reasons the conflict went on for so long was the two sides had no real clue what they were doing. The British goverment had little clue what the conflict was about at the start and even less about what they were going to do about it. The IRA belived at the start they could win a military victory against the british state. This was total bollocks being the minoity in the north. In 1974 they were offered talks with HM goverment and foolishly thought HM goverment was about to surrender.
the good friday agreement has been known as sunningdale for slow learners. NI has been a much less bloody conflict for the british it really did'nt figure in peoples lives unless they or friendsand familys served overthere or they were in lefty politics or they had the misfortune to be caught in an IRA blast. Unlike the israel's. IF the IRA had attempted to cause the same sort of level of casualties as Hamas has (Israel is much smaller than the UK ) The gloves may well have come off I belive the IRA knew that there policy seemed to be kill enough to piss people off but not enough to bring full scale retribution down on there heads. The British had a nice long list of most of the playersso it would'nt have taken much.

IDFM203

10-26-2003, 04:24 PM

I'm not going to get drawn into this.............................but where does it say bulldozing homes in your ROE? : well that is targeting homes that have been used by Palestinians to shoot at Israeli motorist’s or soldiers.
Or they have been the homes of people that murdered Israelis.

Now while I understand that to be controversial, that’s a whole other debate but besides that Israel follows everything as pertaining to the different situations and realities.

In NI every single soldier,whilst out on Operations MUST AT ALL TIMES carry the"Yellow Card"which is the ROE,failure to do so can result in a disciplinary against the offender. : card?? No we have a little booklet that we must carry.
Besides that we have had video and animation presentations that have gone over these rules of engagements.

In fact I will just say that for most of my experience in the army, the following of the rules which I felt were not in line with the actual reality on the ground made it much more harmful to our safety then I personally feel most other armies would have allowed it to get. We clearly followed it too precise and did not allow for the reality on the ground to change our ROE.

Do Israeli soldiers carry similar cards?This is not to start an argument it's an observation!! : what observation?? from the media that you observe or from the actuall realty which I dont think you have(if thats your observation)

like I said before, not cards but a small booklet.

Does it clearly say that targets must be clearly identified,and pose an immediate threat to you,your colleagues or members of the public? : yes and even further for I remember plenty of times when we would not return fire which was a threat on us for fear of harming bystanders.

Now I'm not disputing your ROE, :not to nitpick but it seemed that way at first.

I'm just wondering if this is on an official document carried by all soldiers like the Brits, : yes it is carried although like I said before I don’t see both situation’s as parallel.

or it's something that gets discussed in Patrol briefings prior to their deployment, :…and that as well.

I know that before every patrol we undertook in NI there was always a reference to the "Yellow card",and that these all had to be produced by patrol members prior to leaving base,no card.............big trouble!! :bash: that same thing happened to us.

But again I think both situations are different. I simply don’t see a connection between the way that hamas fights and the way the ira did. I think both situations are a bit different.

Shalom.:D

Argyll

10-26-2003, 04:32 PM

martinexsquaddie

10-26-2003, 04:33 PM

we had a whole collection of cards covering baton rounds as well.
also got one in cyprus
but the maddest one was the one in the falklands 1991 which basically said if the person looks like a foreign soldier shoot him automatic fire can be used :D

IDFM203

10-26-2003, 04:35 PM

Yes Idf there's a huge difference in the way they(hamas and the IRA fight/fought),and we were lucky they didn't fight the same,as I doubt that being able to cope with suicide bombers in mainland UK woud've worked,there's simply no defence against a determined terrorist/bomber
That's why I was a bit surprised at SS47's post comparing the roles.

Its also cool that you have the same or similar set up in the cards/book thing,it was not meant to be a slur,or a dig,it was a genuine query :hug:

stay safe and Shalom to you tooI just want to say that I do enjoy talking to you for I feel that you are a reasonable man and are willing to listen. You can be assured that I extend the same courtesy to you and what you are saying (even if we disagree).

shalom :hug:

Argyll

10-26-2003, 05:01 PM

as always Idf there's alway's a flip side to everything,it goes without saying that to support the possitive you must be able to understand the negative,and that the negatives and the positives are not always what they seem!!

I like to keep an "Open mind" on everything,that means that I don't neccesary agree or disagree on whatevr topic is being discussed,but if you have a closed mind then you lose sight of what is real and what is not!!

as the great man says himself
"Have a good one and some thoughts"

Stay safe and shalom ;)

Fioraon

10-26-2003, 06:21 PM

Yes it has,but the British ways in wars and conflicts always seems to be the "Gentlemans " way of fighting,a lot of this has to do with respecting who you are,where you are and who you're fighting against!!
Some times that stiff upper lip stuff favours the Brit way,but not always!! ;)

Things in NI had changed for the times had changed. The British couldn't get away with their shoot to kill tactics used hidden in the jungles of Malaysia and Operation Flavius. Mind you the British fought a Forensic battle with holding its military machine in fear of reaction by Washington. The choice to fight like gentlemen was not in your hands. It was simply forged upon you.

Respect? My ass.

-Yeah, non-violent detainment of terrorists. Mind you, I have heard some really ghastly stories of people detained in Lebannon by the IDF/Israeli intelligence. (citing torture)

Right so no one was blinded, beaten, and threatend to be push out of a chopper?

The RUC simply questioned you and let thee on your way?

Argyll

10-26-2003, 06:43 PM

Why are you using Malaya and Gibralter in the same context?whenthey were 30 years apart and under comletely different scenarios and conditions?

No respect eh?You ever heard of Lt Col.Tim Collins.
Who on the eve of the ground offensive gave a speach that is today pinned on the wall of the whitehouse that is all about respect!!
For his men,for their regiment,and also to the Country,and to the enemy!!

"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.

"There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.

"Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there. You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing. Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

"If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves.

"It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign. We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.

"The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction. There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam. He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.

"It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them. If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.

"The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.

"If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.

"[Regarding the use by Saddam of chemical or biological weapons] It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.

"As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.

"Our business now is north."

Respect is not neccesary about admiration,it is also about aknowledgement,and understanding their motives and methods!!

try looking it up!!

Fioraon

10-26-2003, 06:56 PM

"That was my point, they were under different conditions.

"Do I really need to quote that whole post and bold the word Iraq or is it pretty clear as of now? Point made?

StarvingStudent47

10-26-2003, 06:57 PM

Yes Idf there's a huge difference in the way they(hamas and the IRA fight/fought),and we were lucky they didn't fight the same,as I doubt that being able to cope with suicide bombers in mainland UK woud've worked,there's simply no defence against a determined terrorist/bomber
That's why I was a bit surprised at SS47's post comparing the roles.

Like I said,I don't think it's at all a perfect parallel. But I thought this was a way that I could spark a positive dialogue (about distinctions as well as similarities) as opposed to the normal mud-slinging contest. And so far at least, that goal seems successful :)

Argyll

10-26-2003, 07:15 PM

Fioraon,
Where in your post did it mention Iraq?

"Do I really need to quote that whole post and bold the word Iraq or is it pretty clear as of now? Point made?

And as to what particular point you made?

I refered the latter post mainly about respect,in which you said my ass

I then posted Tim Collins speach that clearly shows respect.........point made?

You wouldn't happen to be Irish would you?
2nd best place I've been to,spoilt by a minority on both sides,but at long last the people stood up and said no more!!
There's a lot of credit given to politicians on both sides of the water,but it was also the will of the people who helped bring about the ceasfire,they just got sick of it all,and nothing was ever going to be resolved........so fair play to these ordinary people who no longer wanted to have the "bomb and the Ballot box "mentality!!

Best place I've ever been...........Chile!!I spent 5 months working there in 99........a truly beautiful country.......not without it's own problems!!

Fioraon

10-26-2003, 07:49 PM

Okay, maybe I wasn't clear. Im talking about Tim Collins speach. Key word Iraq. One of many conflicts. There's no question the British fought a good fight in Iraq.

"British ways in wars and conflicts always seems to be the "Gentlemans " way of fighting"

My point is that's not correct. Though I do believe it is the case in Iraq.

Whats me being Irish have anything to do with it?

Argyll

10-27-2003, 01:55 AM

Thanks for clearing that up Fioraon

The Irish thing?Well that depends on what side of the fence you are,as to whether you support or against the British Army,it's no different in asking someone if they are Palestinian in a thread about Israell!It gives an indication as to whether you're Anti/Pro British as to whether you're a Reublican/Loyalist in your views!!
The Respect thing,can be used in any war that the British have fought in rescent history,like I said,respect doesn't just mean "held in High esteem"

cut

10-27-2003, 04:40 AM

I don't remember ever hearing of the british government ordering in helicopter gunship or fighter planes to bomb targets in civilian areas, terrorist or not (has anyone seen what happened to joseph's (the one with the multicoloured coat) tomb? just because it was in the palestinian territories and he's part of jewish and christian heritage.

martinexsquaddie

10-27-2003, 05:23 AM

heres some stats taken off google
Population of UK 58 million
Total deaths NI up to 2003 2390
Population Israel 6.3million
Israli deaths since 2000 825
Condsidering the NI death total includes casualties on all sides and took the best part of 30 years to accumalate.
while the israeli is only one side and took less than 3 years to accumlate.
To make the NI troubles the same the death toll would have to be 74000 have to admit that wouldmake 9/11 look like a road crash. that sort of level of violence would bring harsh measures in retaliation. Maybe the IDf is heavy handed at times but they are taking many more casualties than the UK or any other country that has had to fight terrorists in Europe or the USA