05-08-2005 21:37									#31
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

hatred breeds hatred
let's hug each other

	06-08-2005 00:09									#32
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The guy used to play GTA as a kid!


Hillary was right!

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3123156,00.html - in hebrew only.

	06-08-2005 00:11									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: originally posted by Az The guy used to play GTA as a kid!

OMG and I am pretty sure he wore shoes as well!!! Maybe he's even a right hander!!!!11!!11!!

	06-08-2005 00:14									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't know how is it around your places, but we have these drawings done in highschool yearbook, so, he was depicted in his highschool yearbook with a rifle in his hands, and under "crime", he wrote "I slaughtered people in GTA".

	31-08-2005 03:08									#35
	Increase the size of your Attachments

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4198754.stm

quote: Arabs lose Israeli terror stipend Family of shooting victims Hazar and Dina Turki The victims were travelling on a bus when their killer opened fire Families of Israeli Arabs shot dead on a bus in Galilee are not considered terrorism victims because their killer was Jewish, the defence ministry says. Under Israeli law, only attacks by "enemies of Israel" are considered terrorism, the ministry said. The ruling means families of the four victims will not be entitled to the lifelong monthly payments given to Israeli victims of Palestinian attacks. The ministry says it has offered them an unspecified one-off payment. The Arabs were killed by a 19-year-old Israeli army deserter who was thought to be trying to derail the evacuation of Jewish settlements in Gaza. The architect of the Gaza plan, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, called the shooting "a despicable act by a bloodthirsty terrorist". He is reported to have asked for the Galilee dead to be treated as terrorism victims - but to have been prevented by the law. An Israeli Arab member of parliament, Muhammad Barak, said there was a strong scent of racism about the decision, because it distinguished between Jewish terrorism and Arab terrorism. He has submitted an amendment to allow Israel to compensate anyone hurt in "hostile activities by a terror organisation" - not just those hurt by "organisations hostile to Israel", Haaretz reports.

Yuck.

	31-08-2005 03:11									#36
	Tired of ads?

That's insane.

	31-08-2005 03:12									#37
	Support Apolyton

This is stupid.

The money for the families of four people is not significant to the government either way, but it's horrible PR to withold it.

	31-08-2005 03:37									#38
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Stupid.

That shooter was just a big enemy to the state of israel as any other insane suicide bomber.

	31-08-2005 04:12									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Makes perfect sense to me...

	31-08-2005 05:28									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS Makes perfect sense to me...

Since your postures usually doesn't make sense, I quite understand that you think it makes sense - at least you are consistent - keep on, you are in some way kind of funny.

	31-08-2005 05:39									#41
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4198754.stm quote: Arabs lose Israeli terror stipend Family of shooting victims Hazar and Dina Turki The victims were travelling on a bus when their killer opened fire Families of Israeli Arabs shot dead on a bus in Galilee are not considered terrorism victims because their killer was Jewish, the defence ministry says. Under Israeli law, only attacks by "enemies of Israel" are considered terrorism, the ministry said. The ruling means families of the four victims will not be entitled to the lifelong monthly payments given to Israeli victims of Palestinian attacks. The ministry says it has offered them an unspecified one-off payment. The Arabs were killed by a 19-year-old Israeli army deserter who was thought to be trying to derail the evacuation of Jewish settlements in Gaza. The architect of the Gaza plan, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, called the shooting "a despicable act by a bloodthirsty terrorist". He is reported to have asked for the Galilee dead to be treated as terrorism victims - but to have been prevented by the law. An Israeli Arab member of parliament, Muhammad Barak, said there was a strong scent of racism about the decision, because it distinguished between Jewish terrorism and Arab terrorism. He has submitted an amendment to allow Israel to compensate anyone hurt in "hostile activities by a terror organisation" - not just those hurt by "organisations hostile to Israel", Haaretz reports. Yuck.

Horrible decision. This is just an amazingly dumb idea and really doesn't make Israel look that good.

	31-08-2005 05:52									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

:vomit:

	31-08-2005 06:38									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

We'd have to know the exact text of the statute to determine if it would even be legal to include these families. Unless it was discretionary, which doesn't seem to be the case from the wording, the authorities probably had little choice. It says Ariel Sharon called for them to be compensated, but that the law prevented this.

	31-08-2005 09:34									#44
	Suffering from ads?

The decision is right on paper, but the law should be revised.

The bureaucrats were following the law. Probably media exposure will change it.

	31-08-2005 09:36									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Az The decision is right on paper, but the law should be revised. The bureaucrats were following the law. Probably media exposure will change it.

exactly

excuse me

but we live by the RULE OF LAW

so like

respect the law and stuff

	31-08-2005 10:07									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Az, as the article says:

quote: Under Israeli law, only attacks by "enemies of Israel" are considered terrorism, the ministry said.

Wouldn't someone trying to derail the peace process be an "enemy of Israel"? Your lawyers have to be better than this! , unless they didn't want the Arabs to gain compensation

	31-08-2005 10:12									#47
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Wouldn't someone trying to derail the peace process be an "enemy of Israel"?

Only if you're on Law&Order. Besides, he wanted to derail the disengagement, not the peace process, and isn't an "enemy of Israel" - which doesn't mean that he's not a "bad guy".

quote: Your lawyers have to be better than this!

Maybe the families lawyers will be, if they'll decide to go to court over this.

quote: unless they didn't want the Arabs to gain compensation

As was said here, it's peanuts.

	31-08-2005 10:14									#48
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Only if you're on Law&Order. Besides, he wanted to derail the disengagement, not the peace process, and isn't an "enemy of Israel"

You aren't creative enough... and Law&Order has nothing to do with it, it's a perfectly valid argument. If the family's lawyers sue, I'm sure they'll use a similar argument.

	31-08-2005 10:17									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: You aren't creative enough...

QED.

Btw, I love Law&Order.

	31-08-2005 12:12									#50
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Somebody who uses violence against Israeli citizens to promote his political ends isn't an enemy of the state of Israel?

	31-08-2005 12:13									#51
	Remove this text

There's tons of wiggle room in that statute.

Whatever bureaucrat made that call is both an idiot and a chauvinist.

	31-08-2005 12:25									#52
	Increase Your PM Length

No. That's a definiton of a terrorist, not an "enemy of the state of Israel".

Somebody who uses violence against people in general, to promote the goal of destroying the state of Israel or harm it's interests is an "enemy of the state of Israel".

Since he tried to stop the disengagement, and the nature of the disengagment is a debated topic, and is definetly controversial in Israeli society, I don't think that he can be considered an "enemy of the state", but a lone terrorist. It's not a recompensation of terror victims law, it's the recompensation of "victims of acts of hostility". The act was certainly not against Israel. If one would claim that it wanted to destroy Israel as a "lawful society, in which people can walk safely", then, it would make the definition of "enemy of the state" vague enough to be applied to most murders.

Note the difference between "enemy of Israel" and people who Israel finds hostile to itself.

This is due to the history of the law, that was an extension of damages paid to people that were harmed by conventional armies, AFAIK.

	31-08-2005 12:30									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Btw, nice molecule, smiley.

	31-08-2005 12:34									#54
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Az No. That's a definiton of a terrorist, not an "enemy of the state of Israel".

And not all terrorists who commit violence against Israelis are enemies of the State of Israel?

quote: Somebody who uses violence against people in general, to promote the goal of destroying the state of Israel or harm it's interests is an "enemy of the state of Israel".

a) He did harm Israeli interests, namely its citizens

b) He did broader harm to Israel in negative publicity

c) Who told you that this was what being "an enemy of the State of Israel" was? Is there another statute which defines it in this way? If not, then as I say: tons of wiggle room...

quote: Since he tried to stop the disengagement, and the nature of the disengagment is a debated topic, and is definetly controversial in Israeli society, I don't think that he can be considered an "enemy of the state", but a lone terrorist. It's not a recompensation of terror victims law, it's the recompensation of "victims of acts of hostility". The act was certainly not against Israel. If one would claim that it wanted to destroy Israel as a "lawful society, in which people can walk safely", then, it would make the definition of "enemy of the state" vague enough to be applied to most murders.

He was attempting, through violent means, to disrupt a legally derived course of political action by the government of Israel. He was strking at the heart of what a democracy is. I would indeed term such a person an enemy of the State. And it would have been rather easy for any bureacrat with a whit of sense to see that this is the definition he should apply. Somebody was trying to make a point here, and I think it's going to rightfully backfire on them.

	31-08-2005 12:38									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

This man's crime was not an "ordinary" crime; it 's rather easy to see how we can term terrorists enemies of the State while not according the same status to every murderer.

Just because he wasn't aiming for the destruction of the State of Israel does not prevent him from being an enemy of that State.

Hopefully you see your country as having more worth than simply existing. Being a functioning democracy is a fundamental aspect of Israel. Terror is incompatible with this attribute.

	31-08-2005 12:40									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What if soomebody committed a terrorist act with the intention of driving all the Jews out of Israel (while retaining the existence of Israel as a functioning State).

Would the victims of this man's act be denied compensation?

	31-08-2005 12:44									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: An Israeli Arab member of parliament, Muhammad Barak, said there was a strong scent of racism about the decision, because it distinguished between Jewish terrorism and Arab terrorism. He has submitted an amendment to allow Israel to compensate anyone hurt in "hostile activities by a terror organisation" - not just those hurt by "organisations hostile to Israel", Haaretz reports.

Lets hope he has success and isnīt stopped by those right wing parties which probably have a strong interest in the law staying unaltered and those israeli arabs getting no payment at all

	31-08-2005 12:49									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: And not all terrorists who commit violence against Israelis are enemies of the State of Israel?

No, of course not. There are plenty of terrorists who commit violence against Israelis who aren't enemies of the state of Israel. There are plenty of Israelis hurt in various terrorist attacks all over the world. There aren't "enemies of the state of Israel", and their relatives don't recieve compensation.

Maybe it's a linguistic problem. AFAIK, the law calls for compensation of people who are "victims of acts of hostility" against the state of Israel.

quote: He was attempting, through violent means, to disrupt a legally derived course of political action by the government of Israel. He was strking at the heart of what a democracy is. I would indeed term such a person an enemy of the State. And it would have been rather easy for any bureacrat with a whit of sense to see that this is the definition he should apply. Somebody was trying to make a point here, and I think it's going to rightfully backfire on them.

It's waaay too much of a stretch. heck, does the family of the assassinated prime minister deserve compensation for his murder under this clause? certainly not .( though they fall under different category and I am sure they were compensated )

	31-08-2005 12:57									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: No, of course not. There are plenty of terrorists who commit violence against Israelis who aren't enemies of the state of Israel. There are plenty of Israelis hurt in various terrorist attacks all over the world. There aren't "enemies of the state of Israel", and their relatives don't recieve compensation.

And were they being deliberately targeted as Israelis in order to alter the Israeli govenment's decisions, or were they simply being caught in the crossfire (for instance as any Israeli citizens present in the WTC on Sept. 11 would have been)

quote: Maybe it's a linguistic problem. AFAIK, the law calls for compensation of people who are "victims of acts of hostility" against the state of Israel.

Yes...and killing a State's citizens in order to affect the State's behaviour is not an act of hostility? I see no difference between this and sending a suicide bomber in to pressure the Israelis to withdraw from Palestinian territory, other than the fact that the bomber was an Israeli citizen. If this is the problem, then did the families of the victims of the Israeli Arab bomber at the train station (?) a few years back get compensation?

quote: It's waaay too much of a stretch. heck, does the family of the assassinated prime minister deserve compensation for his murder under this clause? certainly not .( though they fall under different category and I am sure they were compensated )

Uhhh....yes. I have no problem with that.

	31-08-2005 13:08									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: And were they being deliberately targeted as Israelis in order to alter the Israeli govenment's decisions, or were they simply being caught in the crossfire (for instance as any Israeli citizens present in the WTC on Sept. 11 would have been)

That's not what you asked.

But they weren't attacked as Israeli citizens, but as arabs. It wasn't an attack based on their citizenship, but on their nationality. I don't think there is differentiation between them and the Palestinians murdered a week ago, in the sense of the reasoning to their attack. The difference is the allegibility for compensation as Israeli citizens.

Look, as I've sad, I am all for giving them some cash - but as far as the law goes, they don't currently fit the case.