Self-defense @ MindSay 
The foolishness of Arab appeasers at the reception of distorted half truths from the Arab sympathetic Mainstream Media (MSM) always makes Israel the villain when so-called Arab civilian casualties occur when Israel defends itself from attacks Jew hating Arab terrorists who call themselves Palestinians.
Evelyn Gordon writing for the Jerusalem Post reveals the full story that the MSM and Palestinian propagandists leave out.
JRH 3/6/06 (Hat tip to ICEJ News)
**********************************
Civil Fights: The canard of 'disproportionate force'
Mar 5, 2008 21:35 | Updated Mar 6, 2008 14:44
International denunciations of Israel came thick and fast this week. The EU's rotating president, Slovenia, condemned the "disproportionate use of force by the Israeli Defense Forces against the Palestinian population in Gaza." UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon slammed Israel's "excessive and disproportionate" response to Palestinian rocket attacks. Even the US State Department urged Israel to "exercise caution to avoid the loss of innocent life," which is merely a milder version of the same premise: that Israel is to blame for all Palestinian civilian casualties, either because it uses "disproportionate force" or because it exercises insufficient "caution." Yet media reports on the fighting in Gaza reveal that in fact, the blame frequently lies with Palestinian behavior.
Take, for example, an Israeli air strike that killed two Palestinian teenagers last Wednesday. According to The New York Times, "witnesses in Gaza told the Palestinian news media that the civilians were hit while standing at a launching site watching Hamas militants firing rockets." There can be no more justified military activity than targeting terrorists in the very act of firing rockets at civilians. If that is "disproportionate," all military activity is. Moreover, since Hamas eschews uniforms, the IDF has no way to distinguish rocket crews from civilians who are cheering them on. Thus any civilian who rubbernecks at a rocket launch is clearly and deliberately putting himself in danger - which in itself should absolve Israel of responsibility.
BUT MORE importantly, for that very reason, most armed forces do not allow civilians in firing zones. The IDF, for instance, generally declares active combat areas "closed military zones" from which Israeli civilians are legally barred, and it enforces such orders. Other Western armies do the same.
But Hamas needs civilian casualties to fuel Palestinian and international anger at Israel. So rather than barring civilians from its launch zones, it welcomes them. And if they do not volunteer for the victim's role, it co-opts them - as happened last weekend: "Palestinian gunmen took up positions in homes while the civilians were still inside," Haaretz reported.
Firing back at people who are shooting at you is also clearly legitimate military activity; no law of war obligates soldiers to let themselves be mown down without a fight just because there are civilians nearby. Moreover, soldiers have no way of knowing whether the civilians have fled or are still inside a house; all they can be certain of is the presence of gunmen.
Under such circumstances, civilian casualties are inevitable. But those casualties are not caused by "disproportionate force" or insufficient "caution"; they are the direct result of Hamas's decision to use civilian homes, with the people still inside, as bases for targeting Israeli soldiers.
Moreover, civilians are not always innocent. Those whose homes were invaded by Hamas were presumably unwilling hostages. But some Palestinians voluntarily serve as "human shields" for terrorists - and by actively aiding and abetting terror, they turn themselves into combatants.
In one widely publicized case in November 2006, for instance, the IDF, seeking to avoid civilian casualties, announced two planned air strikes 30 minutes in advance to enable civilians to leave. Instead, Hamas used the loudspeakers of local mosques to urge civilians to flood the area and serve as human shields. Hundreds did so, and the IDF - precisely because Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties - consequently aborted the strikes. Yet these civilians were hardly "innocent": They deliberately intervened in an armed conflict on the terrorists' behalf.
What is most noteworthy about such incidents, however, is what they say about the Palestinian claim - mindlessly parroted by the international community - that the IDF fires indiscriminately, without regard for civilians. In fact, Hamas summoned civilian reinforcements precisely because it knew a civilian presence would prevent the air strikes. And the civilians came for the same reason - not because they sought death, but because they knew the IDF would not shoot them.
IN ANOTHER incident that same month, hundreds of Palestinian women purposely entered a combat zone to shield gunmen besieged by IDF soldiers. Again, they were deliberately abetting combatants. And again, they knew they could do so safely, because the IDF would not shoot them. And indeed, the soldiers held their fire as the wanted men escaped by mingling with the crowd.
In July 2006, The New York Times described another Gaza battle as follows: "[Israeli] soldiers fired at groups of armed Palestinians who fought in the streets, sometimes surrounded by curious and excited children." Why any parent would let his children outside during a gunfight is a mystery. But unless these parents were deliberately sacrificing their children for propaganda purposes, such behavior demonstrates a truly extraordinary faith in the IDF's efforts to avoid harming civilians.
Contrast this with Palestinians' behavior when the combatants are not Israelis. During last May's Hamas-Fatah infighting, for instance, the Times reported: "The streets of Gaza City were empty except for the gunmen, with shops shuttered and residents remaining indoors, usually in interior rooms farthest from the windows." No "curious and excited" children surrounding the gunmen in these battles: Gazan parents who trusted the IDF with their children's lives evidently placed no similar reliance on Palestinian forces.
THE MEDIA reports above, and numerous others like them, make three things clear: (1) Palestinians know full well that Israel strives to avoid civilian casualties; indeed, as their behavior demonstrates, they count on this. (2) Palestinian civilians frequently deliberately put themselves in the line of fire - either to help the combatants, or, like those "excited children," merely to cheer them on. (3) Palestinian terror groups deliberately foster casualties among their own civilians: Not only do they not discourage civilians from entering combat zones; they force them to do so - for instance, by invading civilian homes - when there are no volunteers.
In short, Palestinian civilian casualties usually result not from "disproportionate force" or "insufficient caution" by the IDF, but from Palestinian behavior, on the part of both civilians and terrorists.
But of course, realizing this would require actually reading reports of the fighting. It is much easier just to skim the headlines and issue stock condemnations of Israel.
__________________________
© 1995 – 2007 [sic] The Jerusalem Post. All rights reserved.
Though I briefly flirted with the idea of gun control in the late sixties following the assassinations of the Kennedys and King and though, like every other sane American, I deplore the mass murder now occurring regularly in shopping malls, high schools, and colleges and as well the tens of thousands of homicides and suicides by gun each year in the United States, I no longer take much interest in the effort to ban or control guns. It is inevitable—and silly to deny—that deaths by gunshot will continue to increase; nevertheless, gun control seems to me a quixotic endeavor with no chance of ever being accomplished. Eventually, in the not too distant future, the number of deaths by gunshot will exceed the number of auto fatalities—we're not far from that figure even now—and those gun homicides and suicides and accidental deaths by shooting will be viewed in the same way as traffic fatalities. Too bad, oh well, gotta drive.
I grew up in a small, midwestern town. Nearly all of my friends and neighbors were farmers or hunters or military veterans—or all of the above—who owned guns, and I felt no fear of these people whatsoever. I've never owned or fired a gun myself, but in general I've never been afraid of most people who do possess and use guns.
I do have one interest in the issue of guns, though, and that is its connection to the dominant religion of the country, Christianity.
I've noticed that the vocal Christian Mindsayers have rarely if ever addressed this issue, and I'm curious about their opinions. Though guns were of course not available to Jesus and his twelve disciples, swords and knives and other forms of violent resistance were available, and it seems Jesus abjured such methods. His country was a defeated, conquered, and occupied nation, and the cruelty of its oppressors, the Romans, is legendary, and yet Jesus told the man whom he later picked as the foundation of his church, Peter, to put away his sword and not to use violence to defend his lord and savior. In later years, after the mystic disappearance of Jesus, his counsel was followed by his loyal believers and disciples, who were arrested, tortured, executed, and thrown literally to the lions. At no time does it appear that the early Christians employed weapons or violence to defend themselves and their families and friends, yet the Romans were clearly as monstrous as any of the tyrannies feared today.
If Jesus and his apostles and disciples had employed violence and weapons to defend themselves, it seems certain that the religion which they dedicated themselves to promulgate would be much different from the one that has come down to us over twenty centuries. Imagine Jesus armed with sword and knife, he and his bodyguards defending themselves against the arresting officers in the garden, running them through with their swords, cutting their throats, killing Pilate as the Roman senate killed Caesar, organizing and commanding an army of insurgent guerrillas to liberate the nation of Israel and to expel the Romans. Imagine Jesus, in other words, as a Washington, a John Brown, a Lenin, a Mao, a Ho Chi Minh, a Castro. Imagine a modern Jesus armed with an assault rifle, belts of ammunition and half a dozen pendant hand grenades across his chest, leading his apostles in combat against the fanatical infidels.
A group of rapists and date rapists in prison were interviewed on what they look for in a potential victim and here are some interesting facts:
1) The first thing men look for in a potential victim is hairstyle. They are most likely to go after a woman with a ponytail, bun, braid or other hairstyle that can easily be grabbed. They are also likely to go after a woman with long hair. Women with short hair are not common targets.
2) The second thing men look for is clothing. They will look for women whose clothing is easy to remove quickly. Many of them carry scissors around specifically to cut clothing.
3) They also look for women on their cell phone, searching through their purse or doing other activities while walking because they are off guard and can be easily overpowered.
4) Men are most likely to attack & rape in the early morning, between 5: 00a.m. and 8: 30a.m.
5) The number one place women are abducted from/attacked is grocery store parking lots. Number two is office parking lots/garages. Number three is public restrooms.
6) The thing about these men is that they are looking to grab a woman and quickly move her to another location where they don't have to worry about getting caught.
7) Only 2% said they carried weapons because rape carries a 3-5 year sentence but rape with a weapon is 15-20 years.
8) If you put up any kind of a fight at all, they get discouraged because it only takes a minute or two for them to realize that going after you isn't worth it because it will be time-consuming.
9) These men said they would not pick on women who have umbrellas, or other similar objects that can be used from a distance, in their hands. Keys are not a deterrent because you have to get really close to the attacker to use them as a weapon. So, the idea is to convince these guys you're not worth it.
10) Several defense mechanisms he taught us are: If someone is following behind you on a street or in a garage or with you in an elevator or stairwell, look them in the face and ask them a question, like what time is it, or make general small talk: "I can't believe it is so cold out here", "we're in for a bad winter." Now you've seen their face and could identify them in a line-up; you lose appeal as a target.
11) If someone is coming toward you, hold out your hands in front of you and yell STOP or STAY BACK! Most of the rapists this man talked to said they'd leave a woman alone if she yelled or showed that she would not be afraid to fight back. Again, they are looking for an EASY target.
12) If you carry pepper spray (this instructor was a huge advocate of it and carries it with him wherever he goes), yell I HAVE PEPPER SPRAY and holding it out will be a deterrent.
13) If someone grabs you, you can't beat them with strength but you can by outsmarting them. If you are grabbed around the waist from behind, pinch the attacker either under the arm (between the elbow and armpit) OR in the upper inner thigh VERY, VERY, HARD. One woman in a class this guy taught told him she used the underarm pinch on a guy who was trying to date rape her and was so upset she broke through the skin and tore out muscle strands - the guy needed stitches. Try pinching yourself in those places as hard as you can stand it; it hurts.
14) After the initial hit, always GO for the GROIN. I know from a particularly unfortunate experience that if you slap a guy's parts it is extremely painful. You might think that you'll anger the guy and make him want to hurt you more, but the thing these rapists told our instructor is that they want a woman who will not cause a lot of trouble. Start causing trouble and he's out of there.
15) When the guy puts his hands up to you, grab his first two fingers and bend them back as far as possible with as much pressure pushing down on them as possible! The instructor did it to me without using much pressure, and I ended up on my knees and both knuckles cracked audibly.
16) Of course the things we always hear still apply. Always be aware of your surroundings, take someone with you if you can and if you see any odd behavior, don't dismiss it, go with your instincts!!!
1. Tip from Tae Kwon Do: The elbow is the strongest point on your body. If you are close enough to use it, do!
2. Learned this from a tourist guide in New Orleans. If a robber asks for your wallet and/or purse, DO NOT HAND IT TO HIM. Toss it away from you.... chances are that he is more interested in your wallet and/or purse than you, and he will go for the wallet/purse. RUN LIKE MAD IN THE OTHER DIRECTION!
3. If you are ever thrown into the trunk of a car, kick out the back tail lights and stick your arm out the hole and start waving like crazy. The driver won't see you, but everybody else will. This has saved lives.
4. Women have a tendency to get into their cars after shopping, eating, working, etc., and just sit there (doing their check book, or making a list, etc. DON'T DO THIS!) The predator will be watching you, and this is the perfect opportunity for him to get in on the passenger side, put a gun to your head, and tell you where to go. AS SOON AS YOU GET INTO YOUR CAR, LOCK THE DOORS AND LEAVE.
If someone is in the car with a gun to your head DO NOT DRIVE OFF, repeat: DO NOT DRIVE OFF! Instead gun the engine and speed into anything, wrecking the car. Your Air Bag will save you. If the person is in the back seat they will get the worst of it. As soon as the car crashes bail out and run. It is better than having them find your body in a remote location.
5. A few notes about getting into your car in a parking lot, or parking garage:
A.) Be aware: look around you, look into your car, at the passenger side floor, and in the back seat.
B.) If you are parked next to a big van, enter your car from the passenger door. Most serial killers attack their victims by pulling them into their vans while the women are attempting to get into their cars.
C.) Look at the car parked on the driver's side of your vehicle, and the passenger side. If a male is sitting alone in the seat nearest your car, you may want to walk back into the mall, or work, and get a guard/policeman to walk you back out.
(And better paranoid than dead.)
6. ALWAYS take the elevator instead of the stairs. (Stairwells are horrible places to be alone and the perfect crime spot. This is especially true at NIGHT!)
7. If the predator has a gun and you are not under his control, ALWAYS RUN! The predator will only hit you (a running target) 4 in 100 times; and even then, it most likely WILL NOT be a vital organ. RUN, preferably in a zigzag pattern!
8. As women, we are always trying to be sympathetic: STOP. It may get you raped, or killed. Ted Bundy, the serial killer, was a good-looking, well educated man, who ALWAYS played on the sympathies of unsuspecting women. He walked with a cane, or a limp, and often asked "for help" into his vehicle or with his vehicle, which is when he abducted his next victim.
9. Another Safety Point: Someone just told me that her friend heard a crying baby on her porch the night before last and she called the police because it was late and she thought it was weird. The police told her "Whatever you do, DO NOT open the door."
The lady then said that it sounded like the baby had crawled near a window, and she was worried that it would crawl to the street and get run over. The policeman said, "We already have a unit on the way, whatever you do, DO NOT open the door." He told her that they think a serial killer has a baby's cry recorded and uses it to coax women out of their homes thinking that someone dropped off a baby. He said they have not verified it! , but have had several calls by women saying that they hear baby's cries outside their doors when they're home alone at night.
A Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) analysis implies President Bush and the Cabinet members that count are on board that Iran is becoming a dangerous entity in the Middle East region. Along with that implication there should be a question: So what is the Bush Administration going to do about it?
READ the CFR analysis. The analysis builds an ample case for good reasons to confront Iran in some military form. The last sentence is the one that Appeasers will find fault with:
“The moment the first U.S. warheads detonate over an Iranian nuclear installation, the United States will be at war (WashPost) with the Islamic Republic."
It is not politically correct to think so, however a WAR may be the best solution for global peace. If a War indeed proceeds, let us all hope the strategy is to win rather than battle to not offend. Winning will produce lasting results. Becoming worried about what is or is not politically correct will set up another conflict that will be bloodier than the first. In the 21st century a bloody war means a horrendous cost of human life.
I did take a toll bridge yesterday... Though I've lived here more than two years, I rarely go anywhere outside my accustomed sphere, and I am vastly unaware of which bridges require tolls. And a bridge is necessary to get anywhere I need to go since I am on the north shore of the Caloosahatchee, while many businesses, school headquarters and even my church are all "over the river."
So I was coming home, having an "adventure" with Cartoon Ranger, and we just stayed in one lane of a street I thought should eventually get us someplace I could recognize in Cape Coral.
I was right. But. The lane led to a no-exit-lane toll bridge. Glad I had a dollar. :) And the toll booth operator (is that their proper title?) was very nice and she smiled a little dazedly when I told her I had no idea where I was on that road, for I hadn't. Had never been there.
But for the survey below, I said otherwise.
I really can take someone's eyeballs out with my thumbs. I learned how to do so in a self-defense course that I took subsequent to being jumped in a parking lot. The thing with eyeballs, though, is that if you do so in any instance save self-defense, it is a felony.
I had one of my heroines do this particular little move in a village-plundering and captive-taking scene. Gross? Yep, but memorable. ;)
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]