BF2S Forums Hamas arrests Fatah militants

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I've never said anything of the sort.

So he can't speak in public and he's taken a series of poor decisions.
But still you trust him to think on his feet and determine what is in national and by extension your best interests?

And no other western leader has made bad decisions?

Yes, he's made bad decisions and can't speak in public. So? Does that make him inherently evil?

Hitler was a good public speaker, guess that means he wasn't evil

Decision making abilities are far more critical than public speaking abilities...particularly extemporaneous public speaking.

Not that I'm saying Bush is a good leader or a bad leader...only that Dilbert's apparent criteria are flawed (or at least his prioritization of them is flawed).

Dilbert_X wrote:

Does that make him inherently evil?

I never said it means he's evil.
If he can't speak in public either he's an idiot or a liar - or one of those very few geniuses who can't string a sentence together without saying the opposite of what he meant to say.

You put far more importance on public speaking ability than you should. While it's helpful, it's in no way indicative of intelligence or truthfulness. Again, you let your hate cloud any chance at objectivity.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And the last thing I want my country's leader to do is make all his decisions "on the fly" as he's "thinking on his feet". That may be important to you, but I'd rather have a bit more thought put into it.

But he can't seem to do that either can he? He can't think on his feet, he can't think sitting down, he can't speak on his feet, he can just about do it when seated in front of an autocue.

How do you or anyone else know what he can or can't do when he's not on camera? I know people who have met him and they say he's actually quite well-spoken, articulate, and charming in an off-camera setting. The only time you ever see him is a few minutes out of entire weeks and you think that defines who he is without even considering that he may be different off-camera. Even if he were the best public speaker you've ever seen, if you assume that what you see on camera is reality, you are extremely naive.

Dilbert_X wrote:

They've accomplished nothing except to get themselves labeled as terrorists because they target civilians nearly exclusively.

Where do you get your information? Who says they target civilians 'nearly exclusively'? They have said civilians are fair targets, they don't target them anything like exclusivey.

Anything else you type after that is pointless. You just admitted they approve of institutional terrorism. Has Israel said the same thing?

That's the difference you don't seem to grasp. While Israel has unintentionally killed many civilians, Hamas targets civilians specifically. Any targeting of IDF gets lost in the noise and certainly doesn't make up for Hamas' intentional targeting of civilians.

It's all about intent...and only one of the parties intends to kill civilians that have nothing to do with the fight.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The Palestinians killed 334 military compared with 723 civilians, not really a bad ratio for a modern military engaged in urban warfare, and pretty good for a 'terrorist organisation'.

Actually, it's a crappy ratio...because those civilians they killed were killed intentionally, not inadvertently. If Hamas targeted IDF exclusively and ended up inintentionally killing civilians in the process, it would be completely different.

You focus on numbers and ignore intent. The intent is as important, if not more important, than the result.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Anything else you type after that is pointless. You just admitted they approve of institutional terrorism. Has Israel said the same thing?

Israel has policies of summary execution of suspected militants, collective punishment, targeting of civilians - I'd say they are doing exactly the same thing.

Proof, please. Particularly of the summary executions and targeting of civilians. And don't just provide that link you always drag out, as it does nothing to show institutional IDF targeting of civilians.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Even if you're right, which I don't believe, Israel kills so indiscriminately they manage to kill more Palestinian minors than the total number of Israelis killed. Intentional, unintentional, sloppy, reckless, a dead child is a dead child.

Of course any civilian deaths are horrible. I'm not saying that lack of intent makes the death of a civilian any less painful for the family. When looking at the situation objectively however, it is intent that defines the terrorist.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Enough massacres of civilians have been carried out by the IDF that it doesn't matter if there is a stated policy of targeting civilians, its obvioulsy happening so why quibble?

Again, provide some proof of institutional IDF policies that drive those events. Or are they just the actions of individuals that you then attribute to the entire IDF? It's easy enough to find institutional policies of Hamas that condone and even encourage targeting of civilians--you provided it earlier.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Anyhow, Hamas targets civilians

Yep

Dilbert_X wrote:

the IDF targets civilians

Nope

Dilbert_X wrote:

the US military targets civilians when it suits them.

Now you're just lying.

Dilbert_X wrote:

To claim Hamas are somehow worse than the Israelis ignores historical fact and current evidence.

No, it doesn't. To claim that the IDF targets civilians ignores fact--current or otherwise. Yes, there were Zionist terrorists back when Israel first declared independence (or were they "freedom fighters"?). But Hamas wasn't around back then, so when comparing Hamas to the IDF, you have to compare Hamas to the IDF...not to Zionist terrorists doing stuff long before either the IDF or Hamas existed.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You focus on numbers and ignore intent. The intent is as important, if not more important, than the result.

The numbers show Hamas aren't targeting 'nearly exclusively' civilians, exactly the opposite.
You're claiming an intent which isn't there. Hamas are targting soldiers and civilians and are hitting a better proportiong of military targets than the Israelis, same for Hezbollah.

The numbers don't show that at all. The numbers don't say anything about intent in any way.

You're the one who posted the information that says that the intent IS there. When an organization says that civilians are legitimate targets, they are saying they intend to target civilians...you don't get any more cut and dried than that.

As for Hamas/Hezbollah hitting a higher proportion of military targets: It's a hell of a lot easier to hit military targets and NOT civilian targets in a given attack when the military isn't mixed in with the civilians, isn't using civilian homes and public buildings, is wearing a distinguishing uniform...you know, following that whole "Geneva Convention" thing that you keep touting as the holy grail. Yet your precious Hamas doesn't follow a single tenet of that convention, now do they?

So, if you agree with a group's cause, they don't have to follow the GC or any other international agreements. But if you disagree with their cause, you hold them to every single word, phrase, and punctuation mark of said agreements.

Double standards ftl.

I think Fatah are the slightly more friendly of the two.

Fatah has taken a more conservative approach with Israel and are abiding by the terms of the ceasefire...unlike Hamas.

These don't look too honourable,









good summary this one

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-08-10 08:03:02)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Proof, please.

There is more than enough information, just the fact the Israelis killed 948 minors while the Palestinians killed 3.
Targeted assassinations, ie summary executions, have long been Israeli policy.

Targeted assassinations are not summary executions.

Again, proof please. You saying "there is more than enough information" is not proof.

Dilbert_X wrote:

it is intent that defines the terrorist

Hamas go out intending to kill soldiers and civilians.
The IDF go out intending to kill terrorists and anyone who gets in the way, civilians or whoever.
Both sides go out in the knowledge they are going to kill civilians, intent is irrelevant.

The difference being that the IDF takes active measures to limit civilian casualties...Hamas takes active measures to increase civilian casualties on both sides.

Intent is hardly irrelevant...unless you want to dismiss the actions of those you agree with.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its not much different really. Looking at the figures the Palestinians seem to be fighting more honourably.

Look at the actions, not the numbers. Look at the stated intent, not the numbers. Look at the measures taken to limit civilian casualties, not the numbers. Unless you just want to see things that support your argument.

Dilbert_X wrote:

To claim that the IDF targets civilians ignores fact--current or otherwise

There are enough dissenters in the IDF who have admitted it your comment is irrelevant.

Again, without some kind of proof, your position is irrelevant.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Now you're just lying.

ORLY? Explain this then.
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj25 … 30x323.jpg
How many civilians were there? How many soldiers? How many US civilians did the Japanese kill exactly?

Research the actual target...it was military-industrial in nature.

And that was 63 years ago...got anything within the past 30 years or so? Didn't think so. Sit down.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So, if you agree with a group's cause, they don't have to follow the GC or any other international agreements. But if you disagree with their cause, you hold them to every single word, phrase, and punctuation mark of said agreements.

You're the one trying to claim Israel is a modern democracy, not me. If thats how they want to be regarded then yes they need to follow things like international conventions.
I'm saying Israel is a nation founded on and continuing terrorism, no better or worse than Hamas.
Hamas are at least defending what is left of their country from foreign invaders.

If you consider targeting civilians specifically (as opposed to collaterally) as "defending what is left of their country from foreign invaders".

You apply double-standards as you see fit, as long as they reinforce your argument. Try objectivity...you might like it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Targeted assassinations are not summary executions.

And what is the difference exactly, in the context of the way Israel does both?

A summary execution is capturing someone, then killing them in the street without a trial (a la Nazi Germany and Jews).

A targeted assassination is taking a specific person out (usually high-ranking, as opposed to the above) for a specific reason, sanctioned by the government, usually by a court.

Biggest difference: Assassinations involve hunting a specific person, summary executions normally do not.

And I noticed you still haven't provided a source to back up your claim of government-sanctioned summary executions.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The difference being that the IDF takes active measures to limit civilian casualties...Hamas takes active measures to increase civilian casualties on both sides.

Proof please - both statements are wrong.

This was hard

You're the one who said Hamas has stated civilians are valid targets, so go read your own sources for that.

Every Israeli strike is aimed at a militant target, not a civilian block. If the militant target happens to be in a civilian area, that is Hamas' fault, and a clear violation of the GC. The target is the rocket factory or command post, not the civilians around it. That is a marked difference than Hamas, where the target is the civilian building, bus, or whatever.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Look at the actions, not the numbers. Look at the stated intent, not the numbers. Look at the measures taken to limit civilian casualties, not the numbers. Unless you just want to see things that support your argument.

The numbers are the evidence. So what if the Israelis have stated their intent is to limit civilian casualties when their actions show their intent is the exact opposite.

The numbers aren't evidence of intent. If anything, they are evidence of Hamas intermingling its militant infrastructure in with Palestinian civilian infrastructure...which is a violation of the GC. But you don't seem to have a problem with that.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I guess you've never noticed sometimes people don't always mean what they say.

I've noticed it quite a bit...especially from you with your double-standards. I guess it's OK that Hamas' basic strategy involved violating the GC and  sacrificing Palestinian civilians so they can make Israel look bad...at least, it looks like it's OK to you, anyway.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And that was 63 years ago...got anything within the past 30 years or so? Didn't think so. Sit down.

Ignoring your arbitrary 30 year threshold, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam 'free-fire' zones, napalming villages, My Lai, Fallujah - just a few examples.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. We're talking about modern events. Did you want to go all the way back to the medieval times when no distinction whatsoever was made between combatant and non-combatant?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Both military targets.
Vietnam: VC acted in a similar manner to Hamas, intermingling their military infrastructure with civilian infrastructure, making civilian casualties a certainty...and violating the GC while they were at it.
My Lai: Those douchbags were prosecuted.
Fallujah: You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Got anything else?

Dilbert_x wrote:

Research the actual target...it was military-industrial in nature.

The military bases could have been bombed conventionally easily enough. But I suppose if the intent is to hit a military base no problem if 150,000 civilians die in the process, its the intent which matters

The fact that you think the only military target is a military base tells me you haven't bothered to research the topic.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You apply double-standards as you see fit, as long as they reinforce your argument. Try objectivity...you might like it.

Not really, I am applying the same standards to both sides, you're wrapped up in the idea that what people say is relevant when assessing their record. Your position seems to be Israel can do no wrong.

No, you're not. If you were, you would recognize Hamas' gross violations of the GC. You don't.

I have readily admitted that Israel has taken actions inconsistent with the law of armed conflict. At least Israel attempts to prosecute those soldiers who violate it, rather than venerating them as Hamas does.

But you seem to be OK with Hamas' approach.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The Israelis kill 948 minors, but thats OK because they say it wasn't their intent, they just got in the way when the tanks were firing anti-personnel rounds into civilian areas.

The Palestinians kill 3 minors, goddamit they're evil terrorists targeting civilians nearly exclusively because Hamas said civilians are fair game.

Yeah sure.

You're completely missing the point, and you will continue to purposefully miss the point because it doesn't mesh with your position.

Why is Israel firing into civilian areas? Because Hamas does not follow international law by placing its militant infrastructure separate from its civilian infrastructure. In order for Israel to defend its citizens against Hamas, it has to attack Hamas militant infrastructure, which Hamas has embedded in the civilian infrastructure. So Israel makes targeted strikes against specific buildings, often preceded by warnings to the civilians in the area that they are living near a facility that is going to be taken out.

Dilbert_X wrote:

[Since when were you remotely concerned about trivia like the GC?

he's an officer in the US Airforce you monkey